It’s my birthday.  I want to thank you for beautiful present.

Not now, Manuel!

Anyone get that?

Anyway, everytime my birthday comes around I try to think of ways to make it “special” and with each passing moment of it being just another normal day, I grow frustrated at my lack of doing anything “special.”  Well this year is really no different, as I search for special things to do, but just worked for a little while, heading out to dinner, heading to an open mic.  This may seem like birthday plans, but it’s baically the plans I would have had tonight anyway.

The thing that does make it special though, is that I’m finally cracking open this bottle of Founder’s Kentucky Breakfast I’ve been saving for a special occasion.  And it’s everything I dreamed it would be.
So all in all, pretty good birthday really.  Don’t know if I’d really want anything else.

My review, in case you’re curious.

Well my last couple full posts were about religion and politics (the two things you’re not supposed to talk about), so just to make it abundantly clear that I do not shy away from controversy, I figured I’d cover homosexuality next.

First off, just so you all know where I’m coming from, last year I was involved in the original play Seven Passages: The Stories of Gay Christians, which was an incredibly meaningful project for me, so this is a topic I’m very passionate about, and a topic I feel that Christians have dealt with very poorly (I realize this is no surprise).

I’m eventually going to get to my point, but follow me for a little bit.  I’ve mentioned before on this site that I listen to the podcast “Freethought Radio” which is by the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” who’s main mission is to fight for the separation of church and state.  I listen to this because I feel like a lot of their points are very valid, and I even agree with them often.  However, one common frustration I have, not just with the hosts but with their guests is that there’s is a blatant misconception (which Christians themselves are probably to blame for, I realize) that the Bible is a giant rulebook.  When you need to know how to act morally, you simply look up the appropriate verse, and it will tell you how to act.

This is simply not true.  The Bible is a complicated, intricate, sometimes ugly, and sometimes beautiful story.  It doesn’t necessarily imply nor create logic.

If there’s one thing that the postmodern world can appreciate and understand is that truth is an abstract and not a list.  It is not text.  So when intellectual people, who clearly think of truth in a similar postmodern way, analyze the Bible as a document of rules, it’s no wonder that they would come away disgusted.  To think that slavery is not only okay, but subtly encouraged at times.  To think how miserably awful people a lot of the patriarchs were.  And probably the most illogical of all, the sacrifice of a son for people who clearly care nothing for him.

One of my personal favorite stories from the bible is of David and Bathsheba.  Not only did David seduce her because of his own selfish lust, but when he found out she was married, he basically had the husband killed.  This is King David, writer of the psalms!  To think he was actually a human being, and a pretty depraved one.  It makes me think about how depraved I sometimes am, and it gives me comfort to know that God used some very depraved human beings to do some amazing things.  In fact, in reading the Bible, it almost seems like God prefers it that way.

So all of that to say that I think most thinking Christians would agree with me that that’s a common misconception, and one that can grow immensely frustrating.  The Bible is not a rulebook, but a story.

EXCEPT

when it comes to homosexuality.  That’s the one rule we can take and apply today.  There’s a lot of rules in the Bible that don’t really apply today, but are important to understand in context.  Divorce, slavery, heck even makeup, those we can be okay with because the world is a complicated place.  But homosexuality is always wrong in any context.  In fact, it’s still basically the one last acceptable thing to hate.

I’ve had similar conversations in the last several years, but what put this in my mind again was a recent sermon at a church in Chicago I’ve been attending off and on.  It’s a pretty contemporary church (see my post from a couple weeks ago for more on that), and they were doing a series of “Tough Questions” which were from questions submitted by the congregation.  The second week they covered homosexuality, which I wasn’t sure if they would do or not (due to it’s controversy).  I was hopeful, but was unfortunately disappointed.

The main reason for my dissapointment is that I’ve grown tired of the conditional acceptance of the “love the sinner, hate the sin” stance on homosexuality (which is the stance that this church took).  I feel like it’s sort of the Church version of saying “see I’m not racist, I have two black friends.”

Okay, maybe not exactly like that, but the problem I have with it is that most churches that take that sort of stance claim to be accepting.  But that’s not acceptance, it’s conditional acceptance.  The underlying message to that is “you can attend my church, if you’re willing to change at some point.”  Not only is that not accepting, but it’s completely ignorant to the fact that some people simply can’t change that.  I feel it would almost be better to be completely unaccepting of homosexuals than to be conditionally accepting.

Christians need to come to grips with the fact that science, psychology, and popular culture might be right about homosexuality not being a choice.  I won’t deny that some people really really want to change, and some people who go into programs to try to change really do come out changed.  But most do not.  That’s just the facts.  The Church continues to want the world to be black and white, and it just isn’t.

So if even for one sermon we simply assume that even if I believe that it’s a choice or something that can be changed, the people who I’m claiming to be accepting of might not feel that way.  So if I really want to be accepting of them, I have to take another stance than “love the sinner, hate the sin.”  Otherwise, I may as well be saying “we are accepting of Hispanic people, as long as they try to not be Hispanic anymore.”

Now don’t get me wrong, though I may not think homosexuality is wrong, I am in no way saying the Church should take that stance.  I’m instead saying that the Church needs to take a different approach, one that completely focuses on grace and acceptance, and no longer on hating the thing that makes us different.  It’s hard to not compare what’s happening in the church now with homosexuality to race relations in the church 100 years ago.

I can’t help but wonder what if for some reason throughout history homosexuality was welcome overall in society, or something commonplace enough that it just wasn’t a big deal.  But for some reason women didn’t wear makeup out in public historically.  And now there’s women wearing makeup out in public all over the place, and it’s something that the Bible clearly says is sinful, and we can take several different verses out of context to point out how clear the Bible is.

This is simply my opinion, I just want to give you all something to think about.  I could write a lot more about this, but I’ve covered enough for now.  I’m sure several things will come up in comments anyway (in fact, I hope they do).  There is no conditional acceptance of comments from me. 

It’s amazing how much time and effort all of us humans put into pretending to be something we aren’t.  All of us.

You ever have an “ending of Sixth Sense”-ish flashback of all the girls who flirted with you in your life, and you realize they actually were hitting on you, and all your neuroticism was ridiculous and unnecessary, and it never shed any light on yourself, but rather prevented you from being happy?  *sigh* Me neither, I was just asking.

Here’s a bunch I posted over at my other blog that I occasionally post to:

http://pizappa.com/2008/06/30/cd-reviews-a-bunch-of-em/

Thought you all might like those too.

In the next few months you’re going to hear a lot of things.  You’re going to hear about how Obama has changed positions on certain issues over his political career, so clearly he’s a waffler (because if there’s one thing we want as a president, it’s someone who never changes their mind, despite evidence).  You’ll hear a mis-quoted McCain saying he wants to have us in Iraq for 1,000 years.  You’ll hear how Obama must be a terrorist because of his funny name and his clear lack of blind hatred towards people of other faiths (or even a Hamas fist jab, quite possibly the most laughable attempt at exploit ever dreamed up by the media).  You’ll hear about how old McCain is, and he’ll die in office because of it.

You’re going to hear a lot of things thanks to the circus that has become the American media.  I pray that you all can maintain objectivity.  I pray the same for myself.

Do you ever subconsciously flirt with the clearly gay very cute male barista at your favorite coffeeshop, even though you are not gay?  Me neither, I was just asking.

(Thanks for the title, Dad)

I haven’t been a regular member or attender of a church in a while, basically since the one I worship led at closed, and I’ve gone to a few different ones since moving to Chicago, both contemporary and traditional, so I feel like I’m in a somewhat interesting objective position, and figured it might be worthwhile to share some of my thoughts.  Ever since I became a Christian, there has been virtually nothing more frustrating than the seemingly meaningless barriers Christians insist on putting between each other.  So in the vein of breaking down barriers, I raise my fist of religious introspection.

Since moving here, I’ve been to a traditional Lutheran service, contemporary Lutheran, Catholic, traditional Methodist, contemporary non-denom, and probably a few others I can’t recall (I spent the first few months here drinking).  After going to several traditional services, I definitely realized that I need my “usual” church to be a contemporary one, as I just spiritually respond to the more emotional experiential style of contemporary services, however, I’ve still very much enjoyed traditional services, even the couple I’ve been to in which I’m one of maybe a dozen people in a giant sanctuary, and I’m the youngest by 30 years easy.  And after experiencing these various service styles, what I think all the little differences and rituals come down to is reverance vs. relevance.

Please forgive me as I generalize a little bit, I’m just basing these thoughts on my own experiences, and I don’t claim to speak for everyone.

The traditional services I’ve gone to have a sacredness embedded in every part of the service.  The building, the music, the sacrament, the benediction, everything.  There’s a comfort in reciting sacred liturgical texts, in performing rituals in the exact same way every time, in singing the tenor part in the hymns, and in the way the building makes you feel so small yet sacred.  It’s all about reverance.

Contemporary services on the other hand are usually acted out in found spaces - strip malls, school cafeterias, old movie theaters.  With contemporary services I often feel an inate sense of God being found everywhere, in all the mundane details of my life.  I go to movie theaters all the time, and in acting out church in an abandoned one, there’s a sense of God being in all aspects of my life.  There’s no space separation.  Contemporary services will often try to use cultural references as well - movies, TV shows, books, music, all in an effort to make God accessible to people who may not understand the rituals of Christianity.  The same rituals are often performed, but usually in inventive and unusual ways.  It’s all about relavence.

Here’s the catch, which seems so obvious to me, but seems to escape some Christians.  Neither of them are wrong!  Both have the benefits I describe above, and both have their shortcomings.  In traditional services, performed rituals can often become mindless and meaningless as they are performed over and over, and also a natural sense of God existing in the church but not outside of it can develop.  Contemporary services can often become very thin because of the intention of making church so acceptable that it loses its spiritual power, and also the services are often emotionally charged, and can lack a sense of intellectual learning and studying, leaving one to associate Christianity solely with an emotional high.  Traditional churches become known as places where just old racist people go to sing hymns in a monotonous drone, and contemporary services are where kids who like crappy emo music go to jump around and cry.

Though I do think that almost everyone tends to have a preference as to what service they will attend regularly, I wish people would not claim that their style is more “right” then the other.  Both are very necessary and powerful for Christianity, and for anyone seeking religious understanding, and they shouldn’t be considered so mutually exclusive.  After having attended a few different churches, I definitely would like to attend both traditional and contemporary services for the rest of my life, as there are different ways that I’m touched by both.

I always get a little agitated when my mother mentions that I’m a specific denomination (”Morgan’s Christian Reformed”) as if it were an ethnicity (sorry Mom).  I grow so tired of people treating their churches like they’re a baseball team.  There’s a certain sense of rooting for your church over another.  The superficial divisions between churches undermine all the power and good that the Church (big C) should be doing in the world.  I really do wish denominations could just be abolished, but I realize this isn’t going to happen.

One thing I’ve really appreciated about the Catholic church I’ve gone to a few times is that you often hear about how all the other Catholic churches in the city are doing and what’s going on in the big picture of the Catholic church.  Imagine if at a Protestant church, you end up hearing about how all the other Protestant churches in the area are doing, regardless of denomination?  Yes, it would be a tremendously long update, but there’s a certain sense of unity there, that the Protestant church (in my experience) just doesn’t have.  “I root for this church and no one else.”

So I guess my message is the one that I have in just about any subject, open-mindedness.  We need to accept this world is gray, no matter how desperately we want to make it black and white.  That includes our own religious rituals.

Congratulations Obama!

This really is an historic moment for the US. I’ve been pushing for Obama to run for president for a while (although I didn’t blog about it, I realize. Don’t know why I never did), but I initially was hoping he would not run this year, because I was afraid that he would get swallowed by the Hillary Circus. Well he did get caught up in the Hillary Circus, and he came through. I’m not only proud of him for not going apeshit and shooting everyone in the Clinton campaign, as many of us probably would have done, but I’m proud of this country. So often the arrogance, ignorance, bigotry, and mis-guided passion of this country can drive me nuts, but at least at this moment I’m very proud.

I’ve also been saying recently that I feel like at this moment in our history, we HAVE to elect Barack Obama. We just have to. He’s passionate, he’s open minded, he’s intelligent, and he’s (relatively) a Washington outsider. With the last eight years (and especially the last four), the American people have become more and more disillusioned with their government (for good reasons), and it’s time to get someone completely new in there. It’s time, and Obama fits the bill perfectly.

That’s the primary reason I was initially not for Hillary. At first I had no issues with Hillary, and in fact liked her, but she’s still a politician through and through. And though Obama is as well, and has had to become even more of one to really be a presidential candidate, the thing that has floored me since I first started subscribing to his podcast and following him on his run to becoming a senator was his refreshing honesty, even when what he was saying may not be popular (such as saying “we can’t just pull out of Iraq” when the Dems first really started pushing for that a couple years ago). Hillary will say what needs to be said, and that’s just the result of being in Washington most of her adult life. Nothing against her character, but I wanted someone new.

Now that was at the start of Hillary’s campaign. Now I can’t freaking stand her. Her campaign stopped being about what’s best for the United States and more about her ego for the last 3 months, maybe even longer. She was under the assumption that she was going to be president this year, and that’s what has been planned ever since Bill was in office, and now suddenly this other guy who was a total underdog shows up out of nowhere, inspires the nation and takes away what was hers. The last few months have been the political version of saying “Fine, I don’t even want to play with guys anymore, because you’re stupid and you have ugly faces!” And now when Barack doesn’t pick her as a running mate, she’s going to have even more fuel to gripe.

Regardless, she’s out now, and we can finally embrace Obama as the Democratic nominee. It actually makes me feel very giddy, like when a sports team you root for wins a big playoff game to advance to the next round. I know it’s a trendy thing to say “I’ll move to Canada,” but if we elect McCain….. I don’t know.

Terry McAuliffe

Sheesh, that was a long first thought. I’ll keep this one shorter. Did anyone see Terry McAuliffe on any of the thousand shows he was on this past week? The man has lost his mind.

Opposites in Cabinet

Whatever happened to the idea of surrounding yourself with people who disagree with you? You know, the idea that we always look back on with Lincoln and think “ah, that’s what made him a wonderful president” but then completely avoid in present day politics? I feel like Obama might be the first modern day president to really do that. Would it be crazy for him to have McCain and even Clinton in his cabinet? Neither as VP, but I wouldn’t be opposed to either or both of them being in his cabinet. Another thing I’m tired of in Washington is all the cronies. I’m not necessarily expecting Obama to do that, but why would that be such a crazy idea? One of our most idolized presidents did it, and was even more extreme.

The Media

It’s mindblowing how cable news networks blow things out of proportion. You’ve all seen the stories, you’ve all seen the same stuff, so I’m not going to go into detail. Just echoing the sentiment that it just blows my mind. Imagine if something you said one day was repeated by hundreds of people on television for the next two weeks, speculating from 15 to 20 words your entire character. But there’s air time to be filled, and easily manipulated minds to be molded.

I’ve tended to shy away from posting political thoughts in the last couple years, and I’m not really sure why, but I’ll try to be a little more open in the next several months. I may as well do like the rest of the country and take an interest in politics every fourth year.

And as always, feel free to completely disagree with me. I will always listen, and unless you’re really a nutcase, I will not dismiss or ignore your opinions. Politics already has enough arrogance and closed-mindedness for me to pretend like I’m always right.