Recently in Justice Wednesday Category
I attempted to register for a class at Northern Baptist Seminary.
The seminary I attend, Chicago Theological Seminary (CTS), is part of the Association of Chicago Theological Schools (ACTS), which "was formed in 1984 by twelve theological schools located in the Chicago area to provide means for cooperation among the member institutions in the areas of student cross-registration, library access and acquisitions, interchange among faculty members in the disciplines of theological education, and communications between the schools." - http://www.actschicago.org/index.html
Students at ACTS schools may register at other ACTS schools:
Now, granted, there is a stated exception:
I attempted to cross-register for a class at Northern Baptist Seminary (which has the awesome domain name of seminary.edu). I was aware that the seminary was more conservative, and I did not expect it to be easy to take a class there. But I was willing to sit with far more conservative students in a far more conservative school, in part to keep from having my graduation date from being pushed back another two years, and in part because I do not want to be estranged from my more conservative brothers and sisters in Christ.
I didn't want to go stealthily into the seminary for several reasons. First, I am not ashamed of who I am, nor the path taken to get here. While I don't advertise my sexual orientation or transgender history to everyone, I don't take steps to hide these parts of my life either. To do so is to walk in shadow, and I prefer to be in the light.
Second, to hide an aspect of one's life can result in feelings of betrayal should the secret be found out. It is damaging to a relationship when trust is broken: witness what happened with Ted Haggard.
Third, even if the secret is never found out (unlikely as a simple web search will find enough information about me), keeping a secret from those with whom one is in relationship creates an inauthentic, dysfunctional, and, dare I say it, sinful relationship.
So, to be as honest and authentic as possible in my relationship to the class, I sent e-mail to the professor teaching the class. I explained my background (Evangelical Free, Bible Students, Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, and United Church of Christ), my school affiliation (CTS), and my sexual orientation and transgender history. I asked for advice on what I could do to make the situation easier for everyone involved.
I did not expect the culture clash to be easy. I also did not expect, however, to be rejected from taking any classes whatsoever.
My e-mail to the instructor was apparently forwarded to the administration who, in a very polite but firm e-mail, explained to me that the school's admission policy is applied to cross-registered students. The seminary, in their catalog, under code of conduct, states:
Northern Baptist may believe my twenty-one year relationship with my spouse to be sinful and unChristian. They may believe my transition, twenty-five years ago, to living as my identified gender to be a violation of Deuteronomy 22:5.
They may well object to my behavior off school grounds, but they were not going to change that by rejecting my cross-registration. They can't make me a straight white male again by denying me the chance to study with their professor and students.
So exactly what is sinful or harmful about my taking a class at their school? Exactly what is made worse by my presence there?
At their school, I'm certainly going to hear about their viewpoint on homosexuality and transgender issues - especially since the class I was going to take was on the Pentateuch, which includes Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Were they afraid that I would rebut the reading of the few verses applied to homosexuals as they were glossing over the dietary laws, mixing of fabrics, wearing of tassels, uncleanness of women during their periods and after giving birth, trimming of beards, and the Jubilee year? Were they concerned that I would point out that Levitical law says nothing about Lesbian relationships? Did they worry that I would point out that the word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is the same as the word "know" in Genesis 18:19? (I really wasn't planning on it.)
And, perhaps more to the point, how is this following Jesus' example? Did Jesus teach only the holy? Did Jesus not teach prostitutes, lepers, tax collectors, Samaritans, Syrophoenicians, Roman soldiers, and (at the cross) thieves and murderers?
I am disappointed that Northern Baptist Seminary chose to not honor its covenant with the Association of Chicago Theological Schools.
I am also sad that sixty faculty and staff are more afraid of me than I am of them.
The seminary I attend, Chicago Theological Seminary (CTS), is part of the Association of Chicago Theological Schools (ACTS), which "was formed in 1984 by twelve theological schools located in the Chicago area to provide means for cooperation among the member institutions in the areas of student cross-registration, library access and acquisitions, interchange among faculty members in the disciplines of theological education, and communications between the schools." - http://www.actschicago.org/index.html
Students at ACTS schools may register at other ACTS schools:
Available to the approximately 3,000 students currently enrolled at its member schools are 400 faculty, about 900 courses offered annually, and library collections of 1.7 million volumes and nearly 5,000 currently received periodical subscriptions.Except, in the case of at least one school, if you're gay.
- http://www.actschicago.org/index.html
Now, granted, there is a stated exception:
Exceptions to the process of cross-registration exist (1) during the summer term when tuition is normally paid to the school offering the course; (2) for D.Min. courses other than Pastoral Care and Counseling and for those students in the ACTS D.Min. in Preaching Program; and (3) in certain courses with limited enrollment. Each school in ACTS reserves the right to limit enrollment in certain courses for pedagogical reasons and to set its own policies for the admission of students from other schools to such courses.
- http://www.actschicago.org/catalog2009/cat06.html#how, emphases mine.
I attempted to cross-register for a class at Northern Baptist Seminary (which has the awesome domain name of seminary.edu). I was aware that the seminary was more conservative, and I did not expect it to be easy to take a class there. But I was willing to sit with far more conservative students in a far more conservative school, in part to keep from having my graduation date from being pushed back another two years, and in part because I do not want to be estranged from my more conservative brothers and sisters in Christ.
I didn't want to go stealthily into the seminary for several reasons. First, I am not ashamed of who I am, nor the path taken to get here. While I don't advertise my sexual orientation or transgender history to everyone, I don't take steps to hide these parts of my life either. To do so is to walk in shadow, and I prefer to be in the light.
Second, to hide an aspect of one's life can result in feelings of betrayal should the secret be found out. It is damaging to a relationship when trust is broken: witness what happened with Ted Haggard.
Third, even if the secret is never found out (unlikely as a simple web search will find enough information about me), keeping a secret from those with whom one is in relationship creates an inauthentic, dysfunctional, and, dare I say it, sinful relationship.
So, to be as honest and authentic as possible in my relationship to the class, I sent e-mail to the professor teaching the class. I explained my background (Evangelical Free, Bible Students, Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, and United Church of Christ), my school affiliation (CTS), and my sexual orientation and transgender history. I asked for advice on what I could do to make the situation easier for everyone involved.
I did not expect the culture clash to be easy. I also did not expect, however, to be rejected from taking any classes whatsoever.
My e-mail to the instructor was apparently forwarded to the administration who, in a very polite but firm e-mail, explained to me that the school's admission policy is applied to cross-registered students. The seminary, in their catalog, under code of conduct, states:
In matters related to homosexuality:
1. Northern will not knowingly admit as a student any person having a homosexual lifestyle.
2. If, without the knowledge of the Admissions Committee, a person is admitted to the Seminary and is found not to be a practicing homosexual, but to be striving to overcome homosexual tendencies, such a person will, in Christian love, be counseled to obtain the best help available so that with the power of God such a person may overcome the problem.
3. If, without the knowledge of the Admissions Committee, a practicing homosexual is found to have been admitted to the Seminary, when such knowledge is discovered, such said practicing homosexual would be counseled to seek education elsewhere and to enter some other vocation, and failing voluntary withdrawal from Northern, would be disallowed to continue at the Seminary.
4. In no case would the Seminary recommend for ordination or for ministry any practicing homosexual or an advocate of a homosexual lifestyle.
This means they are reinterpreting the ACTS policy to say:5. Congruent with its policy of institutional integrity, Northern Baptist Seminary will not hire a practicing homosexual or an advocate of a homosexual lifestyle, and it reserves the right to dismiss from employment any such person on the grounds that it would conflict with the purpose of the institution.
- http://www.seminary.edu/about/PDFs/Seminary%20Catalog%202008-2009%20Revised.pdf
Each school in ACTS reserves the right to limit enrollment in all courses for pedagogical reasons and to set its own policies for the admission of students from other schools to all courses.This in order to prevent any homosexuals from taking any courses at their school, ever.
Northern Baptist may believe my twenty-one year relationship with my spouse to be sinful and unChristian. They may believe my transition, twenty-five years ago, to living as my identified gender to be a violation of Deuteronomy 22:5.
They may well object to my behavior off school grounds, but they were not going to change that by rejecting my cross-registration. They can't make me a straight white male again by denying me the chance to study with their professor and students.
So exactly what is sinful or harmful about my taking a class at their school? Exactly what is made worse by my presence there?
At their school, I'm certainly going to hear about their viewpoint on homosexuality and transgender issues - especially since the class I was going to take was on the Pentateuch, which includes Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Were they afraid that I would rebut the reading of the few verses applied to homosexuals as they were glossing over the dietary laws, mixing of fabrics, wearing of tassels, uncleanness of women during their periods and after giving birth, trimming of beards, and the Jubilee year? Were they concerned that I would point out that Levitical law says nothing about Lesbian relationships? Did they worry that I would point out that the word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is the same as the word "know" in Genesis 18:19? (I really wasn't planning on it.)
And, perhaps more to the point, how is this following Jesus' example? Did Jesus teach only the holy? Did Jesus not teach prostitutes, lepers, tax collectors, Samaritans, Syrophoenicians, Roman soldiers, and (at the cross) thieves and murderers?
I am disappointed that Northern Baptist Seminary chose to not honor its covenant with the Association of Chicago Theological Schools.
I am also sad that sixty faculty and staff are more afraid of me than I am of them.
I was watching a rerun episode of South Park ("Make Love, not Warcraft") the other night. In it, the boys find a player who is just "killing" other payers' characters for no good reason, ruining the game for everyone.
Have you ever played a game with someone who doesn't play fair? Maybe it's someone who hides a card up a sleeve, or has a hidden stash of Monopoly money, or uses a non-regulation bat. Doesn't that take the fun out of the game?
But it is just a game, after all. So does it really matter if someone cheats?
I think it does matter. It matters to those who have been cheated and, if we're honest, it takes some of the fun out for the cheater. In some cases, not playing by the rules can raise the risk of physical injury to players.
So why do we play fair? Not because of some reward or punishment, but because playing fairly makes the game more enjoyable.
I think life is like this. There are some who believe in a single afterlife, some who believe in many reincarnations, some who believe this life is but a dream, and some who believe that the only reality is the one right here. One thing that is true for all of these ways of looking at life is that playing fair makes life better, and cheating makes it worse.
We need not rely on the carrot of Heaven nor the stick of Hell to tell us to be respectful and honest in our dealings with each other. All we need to understand is that life is better when we play fairly, even when we are in competition with each other for resources, ideas, or respect.
Love builds up. And what builds up helps everyone.
Have you ever played a game with someone who doesn't play fair? Maybe it's someone who hides a card up a sleeve, or has a hidden stash of Monopoly money, or uses a non-regulation bat. Doesn't that take the fun out of the game?
But it is just a game, after all. So does it really matter if someone cheats?
I think it does matter. It matters to those who have been cheated and, if we're honest, it takes some of the fun out for the cheater. In some cases, not playing by the rules can raise the risk of physical injury to players.
So why do we play fair? Not because of some reward or punishment, but because playing fairly makes the game more enjoyable.
I think life is like this. There are some who believe in a single afterlife, some who believe in many reincarnations, some who believe this life is but a dream, and some who believe that the only reality is the one right here. One thing that is true for all of these ways of looking at life is that playing fair makes life better, and cheating makes it worse.
We need not rely on the carrot of Heaven nor the stick of Hell to tell us to be respectful and honest in our dealings with each other. All we need to understand is that life is better when we play fairly, even when we are in competition with each other for resources, ideas, or respect.
Love builds up. And what builds up helps everyone.
Those of us who call ourselves Christians might want to look to our "big brother" as an example.
Many non-Christians revere Jesus as a prophet. There is much in Jesus' teachings that is prophetic. Yet there was also much in Jesus' actions that was prophetic.
Jesus healed the sick. What many of us today would consider "doctor work" was much more. In healing the sick, Jesus restored people to community. He changed their status from untouchable to respectable.
Jesus ate and drank with sinners. What many of us today might call "slumming" was much more. In eating and drinking with sinners, Jesus restored people to community. He changed their status (at least among his followers) from undesirable to acceptable.
Jesus fed the multitudes. What many of us today might call "line cook's work" was much more. In feeding the multitudes, Jesus strengthened people. He changed their status from hungry to full.
Jesus cast out demons. What many of us today might call either "exorcism" or "psychiatry" was much more. In casting out demons, Jesus made people whole. He changed their status from struggling to healthy.
So what about prophetic churches?
More after the fold...
Many non-Christians revere Jesus as a prophet. There is much in Jesus' teachings that is prophetic. Yet there was also much in Jesus' actions that was prophetic.
Jesus healed the sick. What many of us today would consider "doctor work" was much more. In healing the sick, Jesus restored people to community. He changed their status from untouchable to respectable.
Jesus ate and drank with sinners. What many of us today might call "slumming" was much more. In eating and drinking with sinners, Jesus restored people to community. He changed their status (at least among his followers) from undesirable to acceptable.
Jesus fed the multitudes. What many of us today might call "line cook's work" was much more. In feeding the multitudes, Jesus strengthened people. He changed their status from hungry to full.
Jesus cast out demons. What many of us today might call either "exorcism" or "psychiatry" was much more. In casting out demons, Jesus made people whole. He changed their status from struggling to healthy.
So what about prophetic churches?
More after the fold...
Continue reading Finding the Prophetic in the Pastoral.
Autumn Sandeen, in her post on Pam's House Blend, has a good point about opposition to hate crimes laws based on free speech.
If you think hate crimes are thought crimes, and that hate crimes laws attack freedom of speech, you may want to look at what you're trying to protect.
You're protecting a man who murdered a 15 year old girl for being Lesbian.
You're protecting two men who murdered a young man for being gay.
You're protecting two men and two teens who repeatedly gang raped a 28 year old woman because she was Lesbian.
You're protecting a man who murdered a young transgender woman.
Hate crime legislation does not prevent your pastor from saying "homosexuality is a sin". It doesn't even make it a crime for Westboro Baptist Church to march with signs that say "God Gates Fags" and "Matthew Shepherd Is In Hell".
Hate crime legislation enhances penalties for those crimes where the victim was selected because of race, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation - whether actual or perceived - and which were committed to cause fear in a group of people.
References:
If you think hate crimes are thought crimes, and that hate crimes laws attack freedom of speech, you may want to look at what you're trying to protect.
You're protecting a man who murdered a 15 year old girl for being Lesbian.
You're protecting two men who murdered a young man for being gay.
You're protecting two men and two teens who repeatedly gang raped a 28 year old woman because she was Lesbian.
You're protecting a man who murdered a young transgender woman.
Hate crime legislation does not prevent your pastor from saying "homosexuality is a sin". It doesn't even make it a crime for Westboro Baptist Church to march with signs that say "God Gates Fags" and "Matthew Shepherd Is In Hell".
Hate crime legislation enhances penalties for those crimes where the victim was selected because of race, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation - whether actual or perceived - and which were committed to cause fear in a group of people.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
References:
- Was Allen Ray Andrade Expressing The Kind Of Christian Free Speech That FOTF Is Talking About? [Pam's House Blend]
- Ryan Skipper [Wikipedia]
- Man Charged With Bias Crime for Girlâs Killing in Newark [NY Times]
- Lesbian Rape Called Hate Crime by Police [LA Criminal Defense Blog]
- Transgender murder, hate crime conviction a first [CNN]
(Crossposted on Pam's House Blend)
A friend of mine changed his Facebook status to "...lost his fundamental civil rights today."
This got me thinking: Can we lose our fundamental civil rights?
I thought about the Declaration of Independence:
There is also the ninth amendment to the US Constitution:
A friend of mine changed his Facebook status to "...lost his fundamental civil rights today."
This got me thinking: Can we lose our fundamental civil rights?
I thought about the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,Please note that the founders did not say the government created these rights, only secured the rights people already had.
There is also the ninth amendment to the US Constitution:
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.So can a law or constitutional amendment remove a person's rights?
Continue reading Why no one lost their rights in the "marriage protection" amendments.
I don't even think there is an L community, a G community, a B community, or a T community. There are too many layers of class and empowerment in each group to consider any one of them a community.
There are homeless gay youth who turn tricks to survive. There are rich closeted men who pay them. Are they part of the same community?
There are "heterosexual crossdressers only" organizations. There are people taking black market hormones and getting silicone injections. Are they part of the same community?
I find it hard to believe in community when I read about, and hear, comments like:
- (by a gay man about transsexuals)Men in women's bathrooms.
- (by lesbians about mtf transsexuals)A man in a dress is not a lesbian.
- (by gay men)Women are taking over the HIV/AIDS organizations.
- (by crossdressers)I'm not confused like a transsexual.
- (about crossdressers) I'm not a man in a dress.
- (by heterosexual crossdressers)No homosexuals allowed
While we're saying "were the same as everyone else", we betray our real feelings by declaring ourselves different from each other.
It's not bad enough that there are a bunch of us locked outside the big tent that calls itself "normal". We have to divide ourselves up into smaller camps of "more normal than thou". And, by exploiting our divisions, those who control access to the big tent will continue to keep us out.
Continue reading What... Who... Where is the LGBT community?.
There have been reports of child molestation by church leaders. Firearm discharge inside churches seems to be on the rise.
With these and other recent events, any organization would do well to examine their security policies. Yet for churches, we might well consider the theological basis of our choices.
For Christians, there is the example of the one who walked with lepers, the lame, adulterers, prostitutes, people with boils, the demon possessed, women with chronic bleeding, and tax collectors. Yet we also have a duty to protect those who are vulnerable.
How do we live grace and faith in God's protection, while caring for those around us?
With these and other recent events, any organization would do well to examine their security policies. Yet for churches, we might well consider the theological basis of our choices.
For Christians, there is the example of the one who walked with lepers, the lame, adulterers, prostitutes, people with boils, the demon possessed, women with chronic bleeding, and tax collectors. Yet we also have a duty to protect those who are vulnerable.
How do we live grace and faith in God's protection, while caring for those around us?
Continue reading What Would Jesus Do... ...about Church Safety?.
I sometimes wonder whether I have early-onset Alzheimer's disease. I forget a lot of things, and I seem to remember things that never happened, or were never the way I remember them.
This might be one of them.
I seem to remember a time when places of worship were held sacred, even by people outside the faith. I seem to remember a time when people respected these places even when those people did not believe at all.
This might be one of them.
I seem to remember a time when places of worship were held sacred, even by people outside the faith. I seem to remember a time when people respected these places even when those people did not believe at all.
Continue reading Misremembering the Sanctity of Sacred Space.
Candidate and ordained minister the Reverend Michael Dale "Mike" Huckabee find support for capital punishment in the death of Jesus:
Well, why didn't he say something about his unjust treatment on the cross, like "you guys are wrong" or, knowing his gracious nature, "Father, forgive them." Oh, yeah, he did - as documented in Luke 23:34.
Yet if we are going to use the death of Jesus, who by tradition and faith was innocent and blameless, as justification for capital punishment, it is only a minor step to say that it justifies the execution of the innocent.
That's the problem with using past violence to justify violence in the present - it assumes we cannot learn a better way. The rule of "an eye for an eye" was meant as a limit - that one could not extract more in vengeance than the initial harm. Yet even "eye for an eye" leads to the eternal violence of retaliation.
There is a better way - the way of deescalation, of relaxing the tensions, of mending relationships. That does not mean we should let murderers go free - but it means that revenge does not offer anything more than temporary satiation of our own blood lust.
I cannot make my enemy stop hating me by killing his loved ones.
References:
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/12/huckabee-faith-baptist-pastor-sermons.html
Interestingly enough, if there was ever an occasion for someone to have argued against the death penalty, I think Jesus could have done so on the cross and said, "This is an unjust punishment and I deserve clemency."After all, if Jesus wasn't OK with it, he might have prayed "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want." Oh, yeah, he did - as documented in Matthew 39, Mark 14:36-39, and Luke 22:42-44.
Well, why didn't he say something about his unjust treatment on the cross, like "you guys are wrong" or, knowing his gracious nature, "Father, forgive them." Oh, yeah, he did - as documented in Luke 23:34.
Yet if we are going to use the death of Jesus, who by tradition and faith was innocent and blameless, as justification for capital punishment, it is only a minor step to say that it justifies the execution of the innocent.
That's the problem with using past violence to justify violence in the present - it assumes we cannot learn a better way. The rule of "an eye for an eye" was meant as a limit - that one could not extract more in vengeance than the initial harm. Yet even "eye for an eye" leads to the eternal violence of retaliation.
There is a better way - the way of deescalation, of relaxing the tensions, of mending relationships. That does not mean we should let murderers go free - but it means that revenge does not offer anything more than temporary satiation of our own blood lust.
I cannot make my enemy stop hating me by killing his loved ones.
References:
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/12/huckabee-faith-baptist-pastor-sermons.html
The City of Chicago has awarded $14 million to a man who accused two Chicago Police Department officers of doing a "cavity search" using a screwdriver, causing internal injuries. While the officers claimed innocence, they could not explain the presence of screwdrivers in the glovebox of the police car, not the presence of fecal matter in the glovebox.
Meanwhile, a New Jersey woman was followed by a car registered to a company that doesn't exist. The Postmaster of the town in which the car is registered cannot comment because "it's a sensitive matter".
Are these our public servants?
It's certainly not the way I understand service.
While the disciples argued over who would be the greatest, or requested the favor of sitting at the left and right hands of Jesus, Jesus told his followers that the greatest would be the least, and the least: greatest. Jesus's own humility in serving the disciples - demonstrating hospitality to his own followers - shows his own ability to be a servant.
True servants do not spy on those they serve. Those who do right do not hide in shadows - or behind post office boxes for companies that don't exist. And true servants are not cruel, and do not seek to debase those they serve - even if such a person is a suspect.
The heart of service is in respect and in love. If we love one another, we will respect each other. Jesus taught his followers to even love their enemies - how much more should we love those of whom we only have suspicion?
References:
Meanwhile, a New Jersey woman was followed by a car registered to a company that doesn't exist. The Postmaster of the town in which the car is registered cannot comment because "it's a sensitive matter".
Are these our public servants?
It's certainly not the way I understand service.
While the disciples argued over who would be the greatest, or requested the favor of sitting at the left and right hands of Jesus, Jesus told his followers that the greatest would be the least, and the least: greatest. Jesus's own humility in serving the disciples - demonstrating hospitality to his own followers - shows his own ability to be a servant.
True servants do not spy on those they serve. Those who do right do not hide in shadows - or behind post office boxes for companies that don't exist. And true servants are not cruel, and do not seek to debase those they serve - even if such a person is a suspect.
The heart of service is in respect and in love. If we love one another, we will respect each other. Jesus taught his followers to even love their enemies - how much more should we love those of whom we only have suspicion?
References:
- http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Cityroom_Read.aspx?storyID=13705
- http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Cityroom_Read.aspx?storyID=13731
- http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Cityroom_Read.aspx?storyID=13741
- http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Cityroom_Read.aspx?storyID=13767
- http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Cityroom_Read.aspx?storyID=13917
- http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Cityroom_Read.aspx?storyID=13999
- http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Cityroom_Read.aspx?storyID=14060
- http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nyroc245387882sep24,0,1911059,full.story
- http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/09/is-that-wiretap.html
