More Recommended Reading

Both of today's readings have to do with the issue of "gay marriage," or same-sex unions. The first, directly; the second, tangetically.

First, read Elsbeth's impassioned essay, “Mrs. Omed Doesn't Care What You Believe.”

Then, read Real Live Preacher's “Where Is the Man”. This is the tangetical reading. It is part of a series in which Rev. Atkinson (RLP) retells a Bible story, and fills in some gaps in the retelling. A sort of Christian midrash, if you will.

The story here is perhaps one of the best known in the New Testament: the woman caught in adultery, normally placed at John 8:1-11. Some translations place it at the end of John, some place it Luke. So far as I know, this is the only story in the NT that doen't have a fixed home.

For me the point of the story is that we are all sinners. Or, if you prefer, all of us have fallen short of perfection. Elsewhere, Jesus advises a person to be more concerned about the huge cancer on their own soul before worrying about the speck in somebody else's eye.

So, where do our fundy friends get off striving to enact their prejudice against the (perceived) sin of homosexuality in state constitutions? Or worse, the national constitituion? Are one of them capable of picking up that stone?

How can my Episcopal brothers and sisters say this is the one sin that bars one from the ministry? Are any one of them free of sin?

I wondered for some time why this is the one sin that bothers some Anglicans so much. Aside from the obvious controversy of anything sexual, I can think of only one: the fact that the person persists in his or her sin. If a person concludes their sexual activity was indeed a perversion, and enters into a hetrosexual relationship, that person may be ordained. Or, even if that person sincerly believes their sexual preference is innate, they may be ordained so long as they don't act on that preference.

The first option seems alright, except for the fact that it contradicts twenty years of psychological theory (Anglicans are generally friendlier toward science than the fundies). The second option is just cruel.

Something that may be translated as "homosexuality" is mentioned about four times in the Bible (both testaments). The first, and most infamous, and Leviticus. I say "infamous" because there are so many things in Leviticus most modern Christians ignore. We eat pork. Women go to church during menses. We wear clothes made from a variety of fabrics (some totally unknown during Biblical times).

The fundies have a justification for this cherry-picking, of course. Something about Peter and being released from the dietary laws. And, apparantly, they've drawn a similar conclusion about social laws, such as women being unclean during menses.

Let's skip stuff like that. Let's go to the big ten. Do you know someone who truly honors the Sabbath? Our Orthodox friends, as I learned from The Rabbi of 89th Street, refuse to travel on the Sabbath. Their synogues, or other places of worship, are within walking distance. They won't fly on the Sabbath.

Do you know anyone who takes the Sabbath that seriously? Does one of our fundy friends? They tape their religious broadcasts on Sunday (the Christian sabbath), which means that they encourage others to work on that day.

Some fundies would ignore the Old Testament altogether, saying Christ's sacrifice released us from that old covenant. Yet, the divorce rate is highest among our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. In Matthew especially, Jesus condemns divorce. Paul has a pretty low opinion of it as well. It's even worse if the person remarries.

So, all those fundies who have divorced and remarried are persisting in their sin.

No wonder Brother Dave and Dr Omed think Christians are hypocrites. Because so very many are.