Moment of nostalgia--smile!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
sermon on "Context"
This is what I've been working on for the past couple of weeks--hopefully will explain why I've been remiss in my blogging. I promise to be a better blogger soon!
When I volunteered to do the service this morning, I asked members of the Worship Committee to give me some ideas for a topic. In the past, I’ve given services on the spirituality of bumper stickers, about the basic human need to communicate. I guess it’s therefore logical that one suggestion for this service was to speak about the ways we communicate—the plethora of communication devices we use to communicate with one another, and how that impacts our understanding of one another. Think about an average desk, in a workplace, home office, or student’s room. Now think about the number of ways a person, sitting at one of these desks, can choose to communicate. The cordless phone rings; should you answer it, have a conversation with the faceless voice on the other end of the line, or should you let the call go to voicemail, thus hoping the person on the other end has the skills to leave a coherent message, with all the information you will need to return the call? The cell phone buzzes—is it a voice call, or a text message? Or is someone sending a still photo or a video to you? You can turn on the computer on this desk; indeed, what desk would be without a computer in this day and age?! Via the computer, you can access the internet, read e-mail from a faceless, voiceless person or view photos or any number of other media files they have attached. You can check facts, watch or read news, watch funny animal or kid videos, take classes, watch advertisements, read blogs and other types of personal opinion, take a virtual tour of almost any building on the planet, post information about yourself on Facebook, Twitter (in 140 characters or less), or via IM. Also on the desk might be a fax machine, an I-Pod, a radio, or a keyboard for the computer, so you can communicate with yourself. Dare I say there might even be a book or two? In just one room of an average home, university, or office, there are countless ways for one-sided communication; I didn’t even mention interactions that can occur when two people are in that space!!
While numerous devices might make communicating easier, I believe having two people in the room eases the effectiveness of the communication. No written word can properly convey the emotion with which it’s delivered; in some cases, you can’t even decipher why it’s being sent. Then there’s the question of whether you have all, or just a part, of a total document. In essence, what is missing is the CONTEXT.
Context—things appearing before or after a word or sentence, that give its’ meaning—is a basic component of communication, and yet it’s often misused, ignored, manipulated, or even unnoticed. We tend to forget that the other person with whom we are communicating may not even have a context for our dialogue. I’ll never forget a conversation I once had with a friend who was born and raised on the East Coast—-Boston, to be precise. For some reason, we were talking about beef, and she asked if, in Iowa, we went out cow hunting. I told her that cattle were kept in pens; we didn’t need to hunt them. Then she asked if we poisoned the cattle in order to kill them before eating. Now, I didn’t grow up on a farm, but I had seen cattle and how they were raised, and therefore could be fairly confident in my reply that animals killed for human consumption were not poisoned first. The point is my friend was an educated adult, living in the same country I did, and yet she had never seen a real cow in a real pasture, nor had she ever thought about how beef arrived at the grocery store—it just got there. There were certain basic understandings I had that had no context for her. It’s one of those things that makes communication between humans just so darn interesting.
I hate to make assumptions about a group of people, but I think I can safely assume that one of the reasons a majority of us are a part of this congregation is that we are skeptics—we refuse to be handed a belief “package”—we want to learn, and ultimately decide our beliefs for ourselves. Have you heard the joke about Unitarian Universalists—about why we are such bad singers every Sunday morning? It’s because we’re always looking ahead while singing hymns, to see if we agree with the words or not. I know you’re as guilty as I am—if you don’t agree with a phrase, you don’t sing it!
And yet, while we are mindful of the context of words during this one aspect of our services every Sunday, in other areas of the service we regularly use just parts of poems, portions of writings for readings, and short verses from the Bible, Torah, or Quran—basically allow words to be taken out of the context they were written in. That’s not a criticism; it’s just a reminder to be alert to what you hear on Sunday morning.
Joseph M. Cherry, a seminary student, spoke to us on March 1 on “Re-Creation”. During part of his sermon, he talked about the context of the Biblical stories of creation. He reminded us that in the book of Genesis, there were actually 2 stories of creation. Why? Well, Mr. Cherry explained, there were four different schools of Old Testament authors, and the 2 creation stories were a compilation of what each of those schools felt were important to include in Genesis. Cherry reminded us that, each time the Bible was re-written, the authors did truly act in “good faith”. These authors were passionate and dedicated and believed what they were writing was a true reflection of God’s word. I would like to add that underlying the communication was the context of time period, education, and culture of the author.
Remember the exercise I did earlier in the service, during Time for All Ages? [And by the way, I would like to thank Martha Gipson for the idea]. If I had asked each person here to write about what they were seeing, you could easily understand that each writer puts pen to paper with their own unique perspective on the world, influenced by…..context.
Also please keep in mind it is the conquerors who write the history; you hear the words of those who hold the power. Many other sacred texts may have been written, reflecting the opinions of other cultures, but those have been destroyed by “liberators”. What we read are, for the most part, words of the victors; the words of the subjugated are buried.
What about the New Testament and the words of Jesus? Mr. Cherry explained the gospels were written 35 years after Jesus’ death, and, by that time, no direct quotes from Jesus still existed. I’d like you to recall what you were doing 35 years ago—do any of you have a diary from that time? If you’re like me, I’m not sure my 15 year old self could give an accurate, let alone mature, description of life in the US at that time! And also, can you remember what your parent, boss, teacher said to you in March 1974? Probably not. But the Bible is full of direct quotations from Jesus, and many believe he actually said those things.
This past week, Karen and I watched a documentary— "Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi”. Ms. Pelosi, daughter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, says this about the film, which was filmed in 2006, and aired on HBO in 2007: “The estimated 50 to 80 million evangelical Christians living in America today have become a formidable force in our culture and democracy….To try and get a better understanding of the range and diversity of this community, intrepid filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi hit the road to meet some evangelicals and learn about what their influence may mean for the future of the country. In another interview, Pelosi explained that she has done this, and other documentaries on similar subjects, in an effort to educate her East Coast, liberal friends about the “other” America, to help them understand why and how some Red State voters act the way they do; in other words, to give her friends context for what they were seeing in other parts of the country.
But as I watched this film, I was shocked by how the Bible was misused by members of the fundamentalist clergy. Not only were they quoting snippets of verses, they were also reading New Testament passages, written by followers of Christ to other followers, as the words of Jesus himself. Furthermore, these fundamentalist preachers took a lot of what I call “us vs. them” communications from the Old Testament. A lay person, sitting in that congregation, might logically assume the Old Testament passages were actually directives from Jesus, the teacher they believe they must follow, or go to Hell. Therefore, the danger comes when these preachers provide no context for what they are quoting, but their congregants hear the words and believe they must obey them to avoid eternal damnation, so use these Biblical passages, without question, to discriminate against other human beings.
I guess I shouldn’t be shocked—the same things have been done by other so-called religious leaders throughout history. Words from the Bible have been used to condone slavery, to keep women from being allowed to vote or even to participate as full members of society, to condemn homosexuality, and on and on.
I’ve been reading the book, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by Rev. John Shelby Spong. The book was published in 1989, but I was struck by how relevant his words are today:
“Irrational religious anger demands a target….When a fundamentalist Christian sees the Antichrist in someone who is disturbing his or her religious security, it becomes not merely justifiable but downright righteous to utter words of condemnation and prayers for the early demise of that enemy.”
Think of Rush Limbaugh, and those who swear Barack Obama is the Antichrist. This hate speech incites the fringe of our society, and makes me fearful at a time when there is much to be hopeful for. Indeed, if you Goggle “Barack Obama Antichrist” you will generate 438,000 hits. As a matter of fact, there is a website called, “Prophecy News Watch” that “helps” people who are preparing for the imminent end of the world, and many of their news items are about the actions of our new president, comparing them to the Biblical prophecies of the End Times.
The passages from Genesis and from Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians were often cited, century after century, as reasons why woman should not be allowed to vote or even have an equal place with men in society. These, and other, passages even today are used to keep women from being clergy, most famously by the Catholic Church. Words that cannot even be credited to “The Lord God” or Jesus Christ, but from mortal men who were followers of Christ. Words that have been translated and re-translated over the centuries, from the original Hebrew and Greek into other languages. Not to mention the cultural context which had an impact on the translators, and by extension, the translations. Words that have power even over other passages, such as Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Again, simple words, with the context determined by those with the power.
When the suffragists were campaigning in this country for women’s right to vote, one woman in particular recognized the danger that arose when preachers and others used the Bible for political means. Elizabeth Cady Stanton saw what was happening, and decided to write a Bible for women. When writing The Women’s Bible, Stanton declared she would “revise only those texts and chapters directly referring to women, and those also in which women are made prominent by exclusion. Furthermore, “Two or three Greek and Hebrew scholars will devote themselves to the translation and meaning of particular words and texts in the original. Others will devote themselves to Biblical history, old manuscripts, to the new version, and to the latest theories…" Stanton was so very aware of the power of context, and wanted her Bible to stand as a document pertinent to people living in modern times. As she said, “If however, we accept the Darwinian theory, that the race as been a gradual growth from the lower to a higher form of life, and that the story of the fall is a myth, we can exonerate the snake, emancipate the woman, and reconstruct a more rational religion for the nineteenth century, and thus escape all the perplexities of the Jewish mythology as of no more importance than those of the Greek, Persian, and Egyptian.” Alas, her ideas were too radical for her time, and The Women’s Bible was repudiated even by her colleagues in the National-American Women Suffrage Association. I’m not even sure there are a majority of people who are ready for her Bible today.
Recently, what has intrigued me most have been the Biblical passages that are often quoted in an effort to condemn homosexuality. By far, the Bible verse most quoted is the one Kris read, before I started the sermon, from Leviticus. For those of you unfamiliar with the Bible (and I would count myself as one of you), Leviticus is in the Old Testament, and is also called the Third Book of Moses. Leviticus has a long list of directives from “The Lord” to Moses—instructions on how The Lord expected his followers to live. But the Book of Leviticus is just a part of the directions The Lord gave to Moses; in all, there are 613 laws. Leviticus 18:22 is just one directive, but The Lord expected all of the 613 laws to be followed. This is a fact that most Fundamentalist preachers neglect to tell their congregations. While they preach, over and over and over again that homosexuality is an abomination, they “forget” to also mention that eating shellfish, getting a tattoo, sowing a field with mixed seed, wearing clothes made from a blend of materials, AND harvesting the corners of a field are just as much an abomination. They also “forget” to preach that a child is to be killed if they curse their parents, all persons guilty of adultery are to be put to death, and there must be many, many ritual killings of animals in order to truly please The Lord. Oh yeah, and slavery is OK, as long as the slaves are from an adjacent country. Good thing we’ve overruled The Lord on that one.
I’m also intrigued by the teachings of Jesus regarding “the gay”. The Religious Right has declared it to be such a major sin, such a horrible abomination, that I wanted to read what Jesus had to say about it. First, some context: New Testament authors, and translators throughout history, have relayed parables from Jesus, have recounted events from Jesus’ life, including acts of healing, and have directly quoted Jesus about certain moral “laws”. All of this was done in an effort to pass down the directives of Jesus to his followers—those things that Jesus, as head of His church, would have said would be essential in order to enter Heaven. For instance, the Book of Mark, in the Revised Standard Version, quotes Jesus as saying this about marriage and divorce: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” So, I figured Jesus must have said a lot about the sin of homosexuality too; must have condemned it in many ways, just as Fundamentalist preachers today would have their congregations believe. Luckily, about 8 years ago, I was teaching RE, and we had a lesson which dealt with just this subject. Following the lesson plans, before class I wrote down the quotes, the very words scholars, over the centuries, have said Jesus said about homosexuality. I decided to reconstruct this RE lesson for you today—here on this easel are the every words of Jesus about humans who are gay (translated of course from Aramaic). I assure you, not one word is taken out of context.
(Empty paper).
These are also the words Jesus said about allowing women to vote, abortion, and the Republican party.
I’m not trying to have you believe it’s just the Bible that is taken out of context. There are religious and political leaders who misuse the words of the Torah and the Quran and countless other religious works to suit their own purposes; as a matter of fact, we’ve had Muslims speak at our church about the dangers posed by the fundamentalists of their religion. I must say it astounds me that, as literate as we humans have become, we still allow context to be manipulated, and with all our modern devices, it’s becoming far easier to do. Perhaps it is just human nature to give more power to the words you agree with, and ignore those that contradict. I could glibly say you could become a Unitarian Universalist, and question it all, but there’s a grain of truth to that. Perhaps the world is kept safe by the skeptics—the skeptics insist on context. As Susan B. Anthony said, when defending Elizabeth Cady Stanton for writing "The Women’s Bible," “You would better educate ten women into the practice of liberal principles than to organize ten thousand on a platform of intolerance and bigotry. I pray you, vote for religious liberty, without censorship or inquisition.”
It starts with the young. Probably no people on earth know that better than the fundamentalists—of any religion. Last summer, I watched the documentary, “Jesus Camp”, a 2006 film that was nominated for an Academy Award (losing out to Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”). This documentary is about a Pentecostal summer camp for children who are being taught that they can "take back America for Christ." It was chilling for me to watch these children—some as young as 5—be manipulated and yes, brainwashed, by adults who knew exactly what they were doing. Quoting scripture out of context was one of the least manipulative things they did.
That’s why it’s so very important that we, as Unitarian Universalists, constantly encourage our children to be the next generation of skeptics. We do this every Sunday; it’s a ritual, and yet it’s good to be mindful of the practice. First, we recite the Covenant with them—we say, “…seek the truth in love” ; then we send them off to RE most Sundays singing, “Learn in love and grow in wisdom”. We also try to persuade them: “Shine your light in all you do.” If you listen closely, those words are framed with context. It’s my hope that what our youth hear is, “Be better than the adults in the world today. Make sure your future communications, in whatever form they take, are done with thoughts of love and justice for every being on this planet. Use your words to make this world a better place for all, and hold others to that high standard.”
In closing, I just want to say, with my words, spoken with the utmost of good intentions, that what we say to our children should be a kick in the butt for ourselves. WE need to make this world a better place, and WE can ensure that by making the context of our communications love and justice for all. WE need to continue to be skeptics, and hold all others to those high standards.
"Context"
March 22, 2009
March 22, 2009
When I volunteered to do the service this morning, I asked members of the Worship Committee to give me some ideas for a topic. In the past, I’ve given services on the spirituality of bumper stickers, about the basic human need to communicate. I guess it’s therefore logical that one suggestion for this service was to speak about the ways we communicate—the plethora of communication devices we use to communicate with one another, and how that impacts our understanding of one another. Think about an average desk, in a workplace, home office, or student’s room. Now think about the number of ways a person, sitting at one of these desks, can choose to communicate. The cordless phone rings; should you answer it, have a conversation with the faceless voice on the other end of the line, or should you let the call go to voicemail, thus hoping the person on the other end has the skills to leave a coherent message, with all the information you will need to return the call? The cell phone buzzes—is it a voice call, or a text message? Or is someone sending a still photo or a video to you? You can turn on the computer on this desk; indeed, what desk would be without a computer in this day and age?! Via the computer, you can access the internet, read e-mail from a faceless, voiceless person or view photos or any number of other media files they have attached. You can check facts, watch or read news, watch funny animal or kid videos, take classes, watch advertisements, read blogs and other types of personal opinion, take a virtual tour of almost any building on the planet, post information about yourself on Facebook, Twitter (in 140 characters or less), or via IM. Also on the desk might be a fax machine, an I-Pod, a radio, or a keyboard for the computer, so you can communicate with yourself. Dare I say there might even be a book or two? In just one room of an average home, university, or office, there are countless ways for one-sided communication; I didn’t even mention interactions that can occur when two people are in that space!!
While numerous devices might make communicating easier, I believe having two people in the room eases the effectiveness of the communication. No written word can properly convey the emotion with which it’s delivered; in some cases, you can’t even decipher why it’s being sent. Then there’s the question of whether you have all, or just a part, of a total document. In essence, what is missing is the CONTEXT.
Context—things appearing before or after a word or sentence, that give its’ meaning—is a basic component of communication, and yet it’s often misused, ignored, manipulated, or even unnoticed. We tend to forget that the other person with whom we are communicating may not even have a context for our dialogue. I’ll never forget a conversation I once had with a friend who was born and raised on the East Coast—-Boston, to be precise. For some reason, we were talking about beef, and she asked if, in Iowa, we went out cow hunting. I told her that cattle were kept in pens; we didn’t need to hunt them. Then she asked if we poisoned the cattle in order to kill them before eating. Now, I didn’t grow up on a farm, but I had seen cattle and how they were raised, and therefore could be fairly confident in my reply that animals killed for human consumption were not poisoned first. The point is my friend was an educated adult, living in the same country I did, and yet she had never seen a real cow in a real pasture, nor had she ever thought about how beef arrived at the grocery store—it just got there. There were certain basic understandings I had that had no context for her. It’s one of those things that makes communication between humans just so darn interesting.
I hate to make assumptions about a group of people, but I think I can safely assume that one of the reasons a majority of us are a part of this congregation is that we are skeptics—we refuse to be handed a belief “package”—we want to learn, and ultimately decide our beliefs for ourselves. Have you heard the joke about Unitarian Universalists—about why we are such bad singers every Sunday morning? It’s because we’re always looking ahead while singing hymns, to see if we agree with the words or not. I know you’re as guilty as I am—if you don’t agree with a phrase, you don’t sing it!
And yet, while we are mindful of the context of words during this one aspect of our services every Sunday, in other areas of the service we regularly use just parts of poems, portions of writings for readings, and short verses from the Bible, Torah, or Quran—basically allow words to be taken out of the context they were written in. That’s not a criticism; it’s just a reminder to be alert to what you hear on Sunday morning.
Joseph M. Cherry, a seminary student, spoke to us on March 1 on “Re-Creation”. During part of his sermon, he talked about the context of the Biblical stories of creation. He reminded us that in the book of Genesis, there were actually 2 stories of creation. Why? Well, Mr. Cherry explained, there were four different schools of Old Testament authors, and the 2 creation stories were a compilation of what each of those schools felt were important to include in Genesis. Cherry reminded us that, each time the Bible was re-written, the authors did truly act in “good faith”. These authors were passionate and dedicated and believed what they were writing was a true reflection of God’s word. I would like to add that underlying the communication was the context of time period, education, and culture of the author.
Remember the exercise I did earlier in the service, during Time for All Ages? [And by the way, I would like to thank Martha Gipson for the idea]. If I had asked each person here to write about what they were seeing, you could easily understand that each writer puts pen to paper with their own unique perspective on the world, influenced by…..context.
Also please keep in mind it is the conquerors who write the history; you hear the words of those who hold the power. Many other sacred texts may have been written, reflecting the opinions of other cultures, but those have been destroyed by “liberators”. What we read are, for the most part, words of the victors; the words of the subjugated are buried.
What about the New Testament and the words of Jesus? Mr. Cherry explained the gospels were written 35 years after Jesus’ death, and, by that time, no direct quotes from Jesus still existed. I’d like you to recall what you were doing 35 years ago—do any of you have a diary from that time? If you’re like me, I’m not sure my 15 year old self could give an accurate, let alone mature, description of life in the US at that time! And also, can you remember what your parent, boss, teacher said to you in March 1974? Probably not. But the Bible is full of direct quotations from Jesus, and many believe he actually said those things.
This past week, Karen and I watched a documentary— "Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi”. Ms. Pelosi, daughter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, says this about the film, which was filmed in 2006, and aired on HBO in 2007: “The estimated 50 to 80 million evangelical Christians living in America today have become a formidable force in our culture and democracy….To try and get a better understanding of the range and diversity of this community, intrepid filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi hit the road to meet some evangelicals and learn about what their influence may mean for the future of the country. In another interview, Pelosi explained that she has done this, and other documentaries on similar subjects, in an effort to educate her East Coast, liberal friends about the “other” America, to help them understand why and how some Red State voters act the way they do; in other words, to give her friends context for what they were seeing in other parts of the country.
But as I watched this film, I was shocked by how the Bible was misused by members of the fundamentalist clergy. Not only were they quoting snippets of verses, they were also reading New Testament passages, written by followers of Christ to other followers, as the words of Jesus himself. Furthermore, these fundamentalist preachers took a lot of what I call “us vs. them” communications from the Old Testament. A lay person, sitting in that congregation, might logically assume the Old Testament passages were actually directives from Jesus, the teacher they believe they must follow, or go to Hell. Therefore, the danger comes when these preachers provide no context for what they are quoting, but their congregants hear the words and believe they must obey them to avoid eternal damnation, so use these Biblical passages, without question, to discriminate against other human beings.
I guess I shouldn’t be shocked—the same things have been done by other so-called religious leaders throughout history. Words from the Bible have been used to condone slavery, to keep women from being allowed to vote or even to participate as full members of society, to condemn homosexuality, and on and on.
I’ve been reading the book, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by Rev. John Shelby Spong. The book was published in 1989, but I was struck by how relevant his words are today:
“Irrational religious anger demands a target….When a fundamentalist Christian sees the Antichrist in someone who is disturbing his or her religious security, it becomes not merely justifiable but downright righteous to utter words of condemnation and prayers for the early demise of that enemy.”
Think of Rush Limbaugh, and those who swear Barack Obama is the Antichrist. This hate speech incites the fringe of our society, and makes me fearful at a time when there is much to be hopeful for. Indeed, if you Goggle “Barack Obama Antichrist” you will generate 438,000 hits. As a matter of fact, there is a website called, “Prophecy News Watch” that “helps” people who are preparing for the imminent end of the world, and many of their news items are about the actions of our new president, comparing them to the Biblical prophecies of the End Times.
The passages from Genesis and from Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians were often cited, century after century, as reasons why woman should not be allowed to vote or even have an equal place with men in society. These, and other, passages even today are used to keep women from being clergy, most famously by the Catholic Church. Words that cannot even be credited to “The Lord God” or Jesus Christ, but from mortal men who were followers of Christ. Words that have been translated and re-translated over the centuries, from the original Hebrew and Greek into other languages. Not to mention the cultural context which had an impact on the translators, and by extension, the translations. Words that have power even over other passages, such as Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Again, simple words, with the context determined by those with the power.
When the suffragists were campaigning in this country for women’s right to vote, one woman in particular recognized the danger that arose when preachers and others used the Bible for political means. Elizabeth Cady Stanton saw what was happening, and decided to write a Bible for women. When writing The Women’s Bible, Stanton declared she would “revise only those texts and chapters directly referring to women, and those also in which women are made prominent by exclusion. Furthermore, “Two or three Greek and Hebrew scholars will devote themselves to the translation and meaning of particular words and texts in the original. Others will devote themselves to Biblical history, old manuscripts, to the new version, and to the latest theories…" Stanton was so very aware of the power of context, and wanted her Bible to stand as a document pertinent to people living in modern times. As she said, “If however, we accept the Darwinian theory, that the race as been a gradual growth from the lower to a higher form of life, and that the story of the fall is a myth, we can exonerate the snake, emancipate the woman, and reconstruct a more rational religion for the nineteenth century, and thus escape all the perplexities of the Jewish mythology as of no more importance than those of the Greek, Persian, and Egyptian.” Alas, her ideas were too radical for her time, and The Women’s Bible was repudiated even by her colleagues in the National-American Women Suffrage Association. I’m not even sure there are a majority of people who are ready for her Bible today.
Recently, what has intrigued me most have been the Biblical passages that are often quoted in an effort to condemn homosexuality. By far, the Bible verse most quoted is the one Kris read, before I started the sermon, from Leviticus. For those of you unfamiliar with the Bible (and I would count myself as one of you), Leviticus is in the Old Testament, and is also called the Third Book of Moses. Leviticus has a long list of directives from “The Lord” to Moses—instructions on how The Lord expected his followers to live. But the Book of Leviticus is just a part of the directions The Lord gave to Moses; in all, there are 613 laws. Leviticus 18:22 is just one directive, but The Lord expected all of the 613 laws to be followed. This is a fact that most Fundamentalist preachers neglect to tell their congregations. While they preach, over and over and over again that homosexuality is an abomination, they “forget” to also mention that eating shellfish, getting a tattoo, sowing a field with mixed seed, wearing clothes made from a blend of materials, AND harvesting the corners of a field are just as much an abomination. They also “forget” to preach that a child is to be killed if they curse their parents, all persons guilty of adultery are to be put to death, and there must be many, many ritual killings of animals in order to truly please The Lord. Oh yeah, and slavery is OK, as long as the slaves are from an adjacent country. Good thing we’ve overruled The Lord on that one.
I’m also intrigued by the teachings of Jesus regarding “the gay”. The Religious Right has declared it to be such a major sin, such a horrible abomination, that I wanted to read what Jesus had to say about it. First, some context: New Testament authors, and translators throughout history, have relayed parables from Jesus, have recounted events from Jesus’ life, including acts of healing, and have directly quoted Jesus about certain moral “laws”. All of this was done in an effort to pass down the directives of Jesus to his followers—those things that Jesus, as head of His church, would have said would be essential in order to enter Heaven. For instance, the Book of Mark, in the Revised Standard Version, quotes Jesus as saying this about marriage and divorce: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” So, I figured Jesus must have said a lot about the sin of homosexuality too; must have condemned it in many ways, just as Fundamentalist preachers today would have their congregations believe. Luckily, about 8 years ago, I was teaching RE, and we had a lesson which dealt with just this subject. Following the lesson plans, before class I wrote down the quotes, the very words scholars, over the centuries, have said Jesus said about homosexuality. I decided to reconstruct this RE lesson for you today—here on this easel are the every words of Jesus about humans who are gay (translated of course from Aramaic). I assure you, not one word is taken out of context.
(Empty paper).
These are also the words Jesus said about allowing women to vote, abortion, and the Republican party.
I’m not trying to have you believe it’s just the Bible that is taken out of context. There are religious and political leaders who misuse the words of the Torah and the Quran and countless other religious works to suit their own purposes; as a matter of fact, we’ve had Muslims speak at our church about the dangers posed by the fundamentalists of their religion. I must say it astounds me that, as literate as we humans have become, we still allow context to be manipulated, and with all our modern devices, it’s becoming far easier to do. Perhaps it is just human nature to give more power to the words you agree with, and ignore those that contradict. I could glibly say you could become a Unitarian Universalist, and question it all, but there’s a grain of truth to that. Perhaps the world is kept safe by the skeptics—the skeptics insist on context. As Susan B. Anthony said, when defending Elizabeth Cady Stanton for writing "The Women’s Bible," “You would better educate ten women into the practice of liberal principles than to organize ten thousand on a platform of intolerance and bigotry. I pray you, vote for religious liberty, without censorship or inquisition.”
It starts with the young. Probably no people on earth know that better than the fundamentalists—of any religion. Last summer, I watched the documentary, “Jesus Camp”, a 2006 film that was nominated for an Academy Award (losing out to Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”). This documentary is about a Pentecostal summer camp for children who are being taught that they can "take back America for Christ." It was chilling for me to watch these children—some as young as 5—be manipulated and yes, brainwashed, by adults who knew exactly what they were doing. Quoting scripture out of context was one of the least manipulative things they did.
That’s why it’s so very important that we, as Unitarian Universalists, constantly encourage our children to be the next generation of skeptics. We do this every Sunday; it’s a ritual, and yet it’s good to be mindful of the practice. First, we recite the Covenant with them—we say, “…seek the truth in love” ; then we send them off to RE most Sundays singing, “Learn in love and grow in wisdom”. We also try to persuade them: “Shine your light in all you do.” If you listen closely, those words are framed with context. It’s my hope that what our youth hear is, “Be better than the adults in the world today. Make sure your future communications, in whatever form they take, are done with thoughts of love and justice for every being on this planet. Use your words to make this world a better place for all, and hold others to that high standard.”
In closing, I just want to say, with my words, spoken with the utmost of good intentions, that what we say to our children should be a kick in the butt for ourselves. WE need to make this world a better place, and WE can ensure that by making the context of our communications love and justice for all. WE need to continue to be skeptics, and hold all others to those high standards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)