Tolerance or Respect?

One of the words which I find most aggravating is the word "tolerance". We talk about religious tolerance, and racial tolerance - those two are really where it comes out the most. Frankly, I am tired of it. "Tolerance" is, to me, a power word in today's world.

Here's why:  'Dictionary Online' says  'tolerance' is "a fair, objective and permissive attitude towards those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

Oxford Dictionary says "The ability or willingness to tolerate the opinions or existence of behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with."

The word "tolerate" literally means "to allow something to exist or to happen, or to put up with" something. There is the implication of  'power over'. In the first case, the way the word is used today has been offered as the current meaning of the word. However, in my opinion the second case gets closer to the true meaning - tolerating something, allowing it to happen. The minute we use the word "allow", there is the crux of my disaffection for the word "tolerance", because when we talk about religious or racial tolerance, we are saying we allow it to happen - and the *unspoken* part of that is, we have the power to stop it from happening if we so desire. In my mind this is part of the root of current religious and racial *intolerance*; a struggle for power 'over'; and it doesn't really matter what the race or religion is, every culture and racial group has its intolerance and its tolerance. Japanese nowadays 'tolerate' indigenous Koreans born there; Israelis 'tolerate' Palestinians born in Israel. It's not restricted to just us North Americans, nor is it only whites - although it is mostly those of us who are descended from 'empires' in one way or another.

I really wish we humans would use the word "respect", and internalise respect so that we practice it. Oxford Dictionary offers this: "Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights and traditions of others."

Urban Dictionary provides this:  "Valuing each other's points of view - being open to being wrong  - accepting people as they are. It means being polite and kind always, because being kind to people is not negotiable.We are lacking respect for each other."

"Tolerance" is not a relationship word, it's a power word - with all the implied and inferred power to give or take away permission.We practice religious 'tolerance' in Canada - which really means we the power group (and we whites still are) can take away the ability to practice one's own religion, if we so desire.

Respect is a human relationship word. It means each human being intrinsically has value and worth, just as much as we do. It means that someone may not agree with our perspective; it does not mean we can be patronising towards them if they do disagree, or if they see things from a different angle, because then we are 'tolerating' and not respecting. It means, in the Christian parlance, to love our neighbour just as much as we do ourselves; to accord our neighbour all the rights and privileges we believe we deserve, *and more*. What we need in our world is less tolerance and a whole lot more respect for the experiences, desires, rights, and intelligence of others. If all of our governments, all of our businesses and structures, all of our religions, all of our human interactions were based on mutual respect and willingness to work together, surely the Realm of God would be here already.

All Creatures Great and Small

Leaside United Church June 29, 2014. (Originally preached in slightly different form as “Marriage” at St. Andrew’s United Church, June 2007)

********************************

It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. If those who live by law are heirs, then faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings anger and hatred. Where there is no law, there is also no sin. Romans 4:13-14

The most important commandment, answered Jesus, is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbour as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these two. Mark 12: 29-31

Genesis 9:12-16

“This is the sign of the promise I am making between us, and everything living around you and everyone living after you. I’m putting my rainbow in the clouds, a sign of the covenant between me and Creation. From now on, when the rainbow appears in the cloud, I’ll remember my covenant between me and you and everything living, my promise that never again will floods destroy all life. When the rainbow appears in the cloud, I’ll see it and remember the eternal covenant between God and every last living creature on Earth.”

                                                ******************************

All things bright and beautiful, all creatures great and small,

  All things wise and wonderful, the Lord God made them all.

Throughout June we have looked at Creation and faith from the standpoint of Earth, Fire, Air and Water. This weekend we’ve had World Pride Parade, and churches around the country are recognizing in one way or another our gay, lesbian, and transgender population.

So I want to tell you a story about a woman named Jane. When my husband first met her, Jane was John, a man physically, but in every way emotionally and spiritually, a woman. John as a man met my husband in a pub, at a conference many years ago, and as they got talking, John opened up to him, and talked about the process of changing gender, the drugs required, the hormones, the surgeries – but mostly about how lonely life was feeling trapped in the wrong body. Several years later, in 2011, I met Jane as a woman. She had been married for eight years to a man who accepted who she was – and yet as the conference week went on, Norio and I both noticed that others avoided her. When groups went to the pub, or out for dinner, we would be asked to go – but not Jane. So we started asking her too – and it was an eye-opener how uncomfortable other people were around her. My husband had never even thought of gender change, until he met Jane and found out how incredibly long and painful a process it is, in many ways – and he realized no one chooses to do something like that for frivolous reasons.

It’s no accident that the symbol God set in the clouds, and the symbol for the movement for recognition of gays, lesbians and transgender persons are both rainbows. The rainbow symbolizes all of God’s creation, and that means, inclusively, *all* of God’s creation – not just the parts we like, not our own narrow views or prejudices, but everything in Creation.

A century ago slavery had the potential to split entire denominations; justification for slavery involved biblical interpretation. Jews in the Bible had slaves, and Jesus never ever said owning slaves was wrong. Do we still do that today? The Bible was used to great effect in the apartheid regime in South Africa to keep an entire nation subjugated. Many evils were done to our own aboriginal peoples in Canada, using the Bible as a weapon, and the Christian faith as a club of oppression – justifying violence and sometimes murder. There was a threatened split in the church over the ordination of women, and many people left; Scripture has been used to say Jesus only “ordained” men, and hence women should not be ordained. Jesus didn’t ordain anyone, actually, but we behave as if he did. In 1988 the United Church issued a document called “Membership, Ministry and Human Sexuality” which stated that being gay “in and of itself” was not a bar to ministry. Some people left the United Church over the ordination of gays - only to find other churches facing the same thing. The worldwide Anglican Church is facing a schism  - most Anglicans I know say the split will come. The Church of Scotland in 2007 addressed ordination of gays at its General Assembly; the Lutheran Church of Norway found its anti-gay ordination position untenable under the Norwegian Constitution, and was required to allow a gay minister to take a congregation. There is no avoiding the conversation, and hence no avoiding a discussion of the interpretation of biblical texts.

I want to engage in a wider discussion of whether or not there is a specific sex ethic in the Bible, or if the ethic is one of full Creation, and love. Much of the proof-texting for an anti-gay marriage stance refers to a specific cultural and religious ethic of a particular people at a particular time in history. It bears no relationship to the world today.

Rev. Dr. Walter Wink was a Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York. He taught at Union Theological Seminary, and was a visiting professor at Columbia and Drew Universities. He says:

“There is no biblical sex ethic. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in a given country, culture or period.”

He also says:

“The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, is not homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today.”

As far back as 1978, Dr. Wink wrote on the issue of gays, ordination and marriage. In his writing he evaluates the Biblical texts which are always trotted out as proof that homosexuality is wrong. Yet, he says, some passages which have been advanced as pertinent are irrelevant, such as the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen.19:1-29). This was actually a case of heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them “like women”, that is, demasculinizing the conquered. This was common practice in those times. Their brutal behaviour has nothing to do with whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same sex is legitimate or not. Deut. 23:17-18 says “No daughter of Israel is to become a sacred prostitute; and no son of Israel is to become a sacred prostitute. And don’t bring the fee of a sacred whore or the earnings of a priest-pimp to the house of God, your God, to pay for any vow—they are both an abomination to God, your God”. Well, we have to prune that one from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites, which had infiltrated Jewish worship. 1 Cor. 6:9 says “Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom. A number of you know from experience what I’m talking about, for not so long ago you were on that list.” and 1 Tim. 1:10 says “It’s obvious, isn’t it, that the law code isn’t primarily for people who live responsibly, but for the irresponsible, who defy all authority, riding roughshod over God, life, sex, truth, whatever!” In fact, it’s unclear whether these two passages refer to the passive and active partners in a relationship, or to homosexual and heterosexual male prostitutes. To me these two passages address the difference between responsible loving *behavior* on the part of *all* people.

So, since we have to set aside those texts, we are really left with few references. Leviticus states “You (masculine) shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Lev.20 says that “if two men lie with each other, they should be put to death.” Interestingly, in this case, man means quite literally man; it says nothing about women – and there’s a good reason for that. This text was written almost three thousand years ago, when understandings of biology were limited. The early Israelites believed that all of the life force was contained by the male, and the woman provided only the incubating space. They knew nothing of eggs or ovulation. So any wasting of the life force - male sperm - was considered murder. This was a tiny band of people struggling to survive in a hostile land; procreation was critical to that survival. They believed they had been commanded to ‘be fruitful and multiply.’ and take over that land. So any action which wasted the seed of life and did not produce a child, was considered an abomination, because the only way they could occupy the ‘promised land’ was to have enough population to defeat the people who were already there. So, the question arises: were these strictly laws of God, all of them? Or were they laws of expediency for survival, based on culture and knowledge at the time? Note again that this text speaks only to men – women and presumably eunuchs were not worth worrying about.

The Bible says nudity is a crime punishable by death. Even a husband could not see his wife nude. Do we put people to death for that today? The Bible says *nothing at all* about relations between unmarried consenting adults, provided the woman was not a virgin; if she were a virgin, and engaged in sex, it might compromise her bride-price. Prostitution was considered natural and necessary, to safeguard the virginity of unmarried women. A man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, but the prostitute was considered a sinner. The punishment for adultery was stoning, but a married man who had a relationship with an unmarried woman was not considered an adulterer. Polygamy was acceptable – note how many wives and concubines Abraham had. In the levirate marriage, when a man died childless, his brother was required to marry the widow and have children for his brother; also because otherwise the woman might be reduced to poverty and prostitution. In fact, all these laws regarding relationships are based on the notion of women as property, and need for protection.

Celibacy in the Hebrew Scripture was considered abnormal, yet we continue to behave as if Jesus and the boys were all celibate. Timothy calls compulsory celibacy a heresy; yet the Catholic church continues to make it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some supposed Christians call for celibacy for gays and lesbians, but most certainly don’t promote it for themselves. The Apostle Paul, who we love to quote, remained unmarried. If celibacy was considered heresy, then Paul and Jesus were sinners, if they did not take wives. The reality is no good Jewish boy of 30 was likely to be unmarried – but we really don’t know if they were or not.

Scripture says no clothing made of two kinds of thread; no shaving; you can sell your daughter into slavery; you can stone your sons to death for being rude to you. Animal sacrifices on the altar were acceptable; certain foods were not acceptable. When was the last time any of us sacrificed an animal on the altar, or avoided pork and shellfish? We regularly eat foods which are lawbreakers in biblical law. The reality is that these are laws laid down for a particular group of people, at a particular time in history, in a particular place, with a different world view and understanding. They simply cannot be massaged to apply today, nor can certain bits be lifted out, independent of context.

Well, let’s talk Genesis, God creating male and female in God’s own image. Did God intend polygamy - because the Hebrews certainly believed in it. Polygamy is biblically acceptable, yet today we have laws against it. If we believe all humanity is created in the image of God, can we tack on exceptions, assuming we can second-guess God? The only time Jesus makes any statement remotely resembling a sex ethic is to speak against divorce. It was understood in Hebrew culture that a man could become “one flesh” with more than one woman; women didn’t have that option. So in Jesus’ time, the word marriage certainly didn’t apply in the sense we use now. Nor did Jesus ever utter a word,  that we know of, regarding the practice of polygamy.

Some will say that Christian marriage means a man and a woman married in a church in a Christian ceremony, for the purpose of procreation. Then, what about childless couples; or elderly people who wish to marry late in life? Do we deny these relationships, make them illegal because procreation is not possible? There was a time when marriage between Catholics and Protestants was not legal, marriages between white people and those of colour was illegal – and punishable by death.

Some suggest that homosexuals are all pedophiles. However, statistics demonstrate that the majority of pedophiles are straight married men, some with children of their own whom they abuse. Today more than 60% of first-time marriages now end in divorce; 25% of second marriages end in divorce. The Barna research group in the US found that the lowest percentage of divorces is atheists and agnostics; the highest percentage of divorces is among born-again Christians. So the argument of “Christian marriage”, or “traditional marriage”, or “family values” does not really hold much water – either in biblical times or today.

The Roman Catholic Church refuses remarriage to divorced people. So how many people have been forced to live in abusive situations because the church did not sanction divorce. How many people have been turned away from the church because they are divorced? Do we in our congregation turn away divorced people? Again, take Jesus’ words in their context: to divorce a woman meant to condemn her to poverty and possibly prostitution, to force her to commit a sin to survive. This situation clearly does not apply today.

We hear comments that allowing gays to marry will mean the whole institution of marriage will fall apart - that somehow all of the supposedly “normal” marriages will have less value. Quite frankly that’s nonsense. Ten years ago, I participated in a same-sex marriage. Both people are good friends and colleagues in ministry. It was without a doubt the most moving ceremony I have seen. These two people understood exactly what they were doing - exactly how they are viewed by society - but were still willing to make a commitment to each other. I have never married a young couple who had that level of understanding of the kind of commitment they were making.

I want to challenge you this morning, as we consider all of God’s Creation, including human beings all made in God’s image. How can a loving, kind, compassionate relationship between two people of the same gender be of less value than any other? God gave the rainbow as a sign to *all* of creation, every single thing in it…..

If we are Christian, then we are followers of Jesus. Jesus identified always with those who were outcast, deemed sinners by others, those of different faiths, those who were ‘lepers’. Jesus’ ethic, and the only ethic by which Christians can live, is a love ethic. The Romans passage talks about what happens when we try to work from a view of law only. Jesus is questioned about the greatest commandment. His answer is to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and to love your neighbour as yourself.  – and then he says *all of the law, and all of the prophets*, rest on these two. And in the words of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, everything else is just commentary.

God’s Creation was made in love, all creatures, great and small – every thing. So our responses have to be held up to that mirror for reflection – every part of creation is held in love, and that is the only ethic we need as followers of Jesus. Loving your neighbour as yourself means to accord your neighbour all the respect, all the considerations, all the rights and privileges which you think you deserve. Jesus’ command to love is incredibly difficult precisely because of that. Yet as Christians we are called to do no less. We are all created out of earth, air, wind and fire – we are all made of the stuff of the stars. May God’s grace be with all of us on this road. 

BucketTime

Oh dear bloggers you have sadly been neglected. Over the last eight months I have done little but rest, read, and travel with my husband. Then in May I took a short-term contract with a church here in Toronto, and a whole lot of things just kind of 'snicked' into place, beginning with a very random comment from a colleague who talks about introversion.

Remember Star Trek: Deep Space Nine anyone? Remember Odo the shape-shifting Changeling (played by the wonderful Rene Auberjonois), who from time to time had to revert to his proper semi-liquid form and pour himself into a bucket and just rest and restore...there's an episode where the Cardassian tailor Garak (played by the also wonderful Andrew J. Robinson) somehow reverts to his previous Cardassian self, and is able to prevent Odo from going to his bucket. Odo becomes so sick that parts of himself begin to fall off.

My recent experiences in ministry, while both wonderful and both of which I would not have passed up, have been opposite poles. The one I left was a busy church, but one in which some people felt the minister should be available at all hours, and time off should be minimal, and the minister should not travel as much as I did. Of course not all the congregation felt that way, but there were enough. The work of ministry was only the work of the minister. Pastoral care was the minister's job, not the congregation's. Responsibility for the life of the congregation is someone else's job. The more I worked with certain members of that congregation, while I love them dearly, I realised that my theology was undergoing a dramatic change. My age was also a factor - I no longer have patience with people who want to remain in the past. To me, someone who is mature theologically .recognises that life is about change, and that the church has to be able to be flexible to change, because the spirit is doing something new, and we have to be ready to be swept up and let the Spirit change us. By contrast, my current congregation is one which believes the congregation is responsible for all its members - pastoral care, Christian education, outreach ministry, youth, children. The musician and the staff work as a team. Once a month I sit down with the musician and we work at music for worship together. If there is someone who needs the minister to visit, they either can call or the Pastoral Care coordinator will let me know. Family time is handled sometimes by me, usually by the Christian Education coordinator. One of the Worship Committee arranges readers and works with them ahead of time. I have the incredible luxury of being able to sit in the office and read, and plan ahead for creative worship.

I realised the six months off were 'bucket time', where I was able to shed the demands of 'shape-shifting', and stop trying to be all things to all people.

It struck me that the Deep Space Nine story is a really good analogy for ministry. In a sense we are like the changelings, trying to balance who we really are and what we think, with the demands of ministry in a congregation - something which has been described as herding cats. We in ministry do try to be all things to all people, to see their personal pastoral needs as well as corporate needs - and often we see their needs and are not allowed in. There's a lot of fear out there - mostly fear of change. There's a lot of lament for things which have gone and are no longer the same. "By the rivers of Babylon, where we sat down, we wept when we remembered Zion." We in ministry often find ourselves defending who we are against those who think we should be what they want; people who are angry at life, jealous in some ways, and who will attack because the minister is a handy target and easier than admitting to themselves the real issues.

A minister's role is not to keep everyone happy. It isn't to give people what they want, but what they need. The issue is that when we try to help people see - as the corporate body - what they need, the background nattering and resistance begins.

And we are prevented from getting to our bucket and finding some quiet and restoration. Instead we become soul-sick; pieces of ourselves come off, and after awhile we lose ourselves. This six months of bucket time has been a soul-saver. I had spent three years saving for a trip to Norway, coincidentally something on my 'bucket' list. I went to Japan at cherry blossom time with my husband; to Hawaii for some education and sunshine. I've had time to spend with my grandchildren and children, and in the process also been able to reflect on all that and more, and look to some future plans, knowing that nothing can be planned or controlled completely.

Bucket time. Clergy need bucket time, to go back to ourselves and be restored, in order to be healthy for our congregations.