While Listening to Hamilton: my questions for today's politicians

“Death does not discriminate between the sinners and the saints; it takes and it takes and it takes.” Hamilton, the musical.

Dear Politicians, 

I get it, your hideous hair makes for excellent meme and any media exposure is still exposure. Fighting over who speaks better Spanish to get the Latino vote makes for good sound bites. And no one’s going to hold you accountable for lying when the masses don’t do the hard work of fact checking. And for those of us who do, it’s a matter of discerning whose pants are up in flames and whose are just sort of smoldering.

But I’m tired of all that. Here’s what I want to hear from the presidential wanna-be’s. 

Parading the Party Line

There's a Parade at Ground Floor Theatre and you need to buy your ticket before it passes you by.

Sarah Danko is a gorgeous actor and paired well with Scott Ferguson who we found annoying as Frank the Jew, creepy as Frank THE JEW (emphasis Mrs. Phagan) and eventually lovable as Frank, Lucille's Jewish husband. Travis Gaudin's voice is like a glass of whiskey you hold in your hand swishing and sniffing over and over. We hung on his every word and saw every scene he sang. Vincent Hooper is an all around dream performer from his mannerisms to his vocal belt on the chain gang. Lovely, dedicated voices rang out from the ensemble - especially Chelsea Manasseri and Kristin Hall's solo performances. Kyle Coughlin was delightful (can one use that word when describing Parade?) to watch as Craig. And who are Matrex Kilgore and Dale Sandish?!... um welcome to Austin and bravo.

When Lisa Schepps wants to make a point. She does it with an exclamation. And  mazel tov to her. She directed a great show despite the apparent challenges with sound in the space. (Why couldn't we hear the voices in this brand new venue?)

Before Lisa's curtain speech, a video from the 100th anniversary of the anti-defamation league was played. It took our collective breath away and was a brilliant way to start the show and remind the audience that it was this real life event that brought the league into existance. 

Because this is important. I want to stand up and scream and say all the bad curse words and pull my hair out and even lay naked in the street for a year (the Jews and maybe a few Christians will get that reference), but my fiancee won't let me. 

If you think we live in a world or a county that isn't racist, sexist, and classist, you're wrong. And Parade is a beautiful, if sad, reminder of that truth. Let me put it in perspecive for you.

Look at the difference in the way this Euro-American (caucasian) mother is treated in the comments versus how the African-American mother is treated. 

SICK.

And if you're about to throw that "meme's are hard to fact check," crap at me, here's a strain that I personally responded to when a "Facebook Friend" of mine posted "Comply, don't die!" after Michael Brown's death.

Or how about this? 

Here's a gun store that won't allow Muslims to purchase their merchandise. Even though WHITE PEOPLE are the numbers one terrorists against Americans a poll released in June reported.

White, right wing Americans have killed way more people than Muslim radicals here in America since 9/11. But you know, white people have mental health issues and black people are thugs. It's true because our culture tells us its true.

And that's the party line Parade exposes. Vilifying a person because you hate a people group (in Parade it's the Jews) makes you a racist bigot. Not a hero. Not ever a hero. Not for hating a race or people group. 

Or hating women...

Or gay people...

Or anyone who isn't like you. Or who you don't understand.

AMERICA, wake up. The beautiful search for diversity which gave birth to you is dwindling away as we allow the right wing fundamentalists spew their white supremacy and male chauvinism on us. We're drowning in it. America has lost her melting pot and is drowning in witch's brew.

So to organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and Ground Floor, I say thanks. This little white girl says thanks. And hopes more people will go catch the Parade playing two more times on Nov 5 at Ground Floor Theatre in East Austin.   

Mother's Day Turns 100... and a blind eye.

I don't want to come across as a hater. And Lord knows I love my mother (and am the spittin' image of her). But I do not like Mother's Day.

And I'm not the only one.

In 1923, nine years after Anna Jarvis talked President Woodrow Wilson into establishing a national "Mother's Day," Ms. Jarvis turned around and began protesting it.

On facebook today, fourteen months after the death of his mother, Jason Nethercut describes Mother's Day as "prominent, glaring and threatening."

And for five years when I served at First Baptist Church in Austin, TX, I could be counted on to cry (hopefully non-conspicuously) at one service every year: Mother's Day.

Why don't we like it?

Well, Anna Jarvis hated how commercial it became in just nine years (oh Lord, she'd HATE it now). You see, she didn't start the movement to create a national holiday for "we the people" to give our moms flowers, and candy and cheesy greeting cards. She petitioned for this national holiday because her own mother organized "Mother's Work Days" to improve sanitary conditions and try to lower infant mortality, to tend to soldiers who had been injured in the Civil War.  Anna's mother's contemporary, Julia Ward Howe (who composed "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"), issued a widely read "Mother's Day Proclamation" in 1870, calling for women to take an active political role in promoting peace.

Mother's Day, for Anna, was to recognize extraordinary women, and specifically the one she was the closest to: her mother.

In other words, "Mother's Day was born in the aftermath of the Civil War, as a rallying cry for women worldwide to oppose war and fight for social justice." It wasn't actually about mothers being good moms, it was about women being good people.

Mother's Day was a cry to action. It was a call from the feminist and Christian communities for women to live to their fullest potential as God's children... and to protect God's other children.

Happy 100th Birthday, Mother's Day. You have forgotten who you are.

I'm Working on MLK (and what it means to me)

It's MLK Day.

I've written about this day before. And over the years, I've spent it in a variety of ways: playing in the snow since I didn't have to go to school in Missouri, raking leaves when I didn't have to go to work in Texas. And one year I even attended an MLK Day breakfast at Huston-Tillotson University with Austin icon, Volma Overton.

This year though, I will go to work (ah, corporate America); and I admit MLK Jr. is on my mind.

I can't pinpoint why. Maybe it's because I listened to this weird "I'm over MLK" discussion on NPR. I mean, I can't even...

Or maybe I'm paranoid about the gentrification of my neighborhood. Though admittedly, on my block, its affected the poorer Latino families more than it's affected the African Americans.

Or maybe I'm dreading all the MLK meme that will undoubtedly be posted on FB tomorrow - by conservatives trying to show they're not racist and by liberals trying to tell people to stop being racist. (None of it really matters as history suggests that few change their mind because of Facebook posts). (Furthermore, I will post some lovely meme on this blog to break up the text and appeal to visual readers).

The Eve of the Election

It's been ugly, really ugly.  And now I have a stomach ache.  I hope that after tomorrow, we will know the results of this election and it will be over for a least another four years.  And I hope that the election is successful... that voter fraud, while I know it won't be eliminated, will be kept in check.  Just this afternoon, Clarence, my next door neighbor, asked me if I had voted yet.  I told him the line at Randall's near where I work was too long on Friday and I had decided to wait til Tuesday.  He said he was voting tomorrow too.  He had tried to vote last week, but they said they couldn't find him in the system and he wouldn't be able to vote.

WHAT?

He's over 70 years old.  He's lived in Austin probably longer than I've been alive.  He's lived in the same neighborhood, in the same house.  He has the same Texas drivers' license that the rest of us do.

Oh, but he's black.

And smart too.  So he came home and did his research and found his voter ID card and tomorrow when he shows up at the pools, he'll have a pad and paper with him to record the names and details of any situation that arises when he makes a second attempt to vote.

One of my girlfriends from Ragtime (shameless plug: 10 performances left!) applied for her absentee ballot, she never got it.  She called and bugged them again and again.  A neighbor finally brought it to her door, it had been delivered to the wrong house just last week.  She wouldn't have gotten it at all had her neighbor returned it to sender.

She's black too.

Wake Up Missouri

Okay Missouri, I love ya.  You're my home state.  You have the most caves out of any state in the U.S.  You even elected a dead man as your Governor because you knew John Ashcroft would be a horrible choice (unfortunately, George W. promptly appointed him Attorney General - you win some, you lose some).

But you are kinda embarrassing me on the political front.

First off, one of your candidates running for the United States Senate "isn't sure" what the Violence Against Women Act is.  And the candidate is a WOMAN.  Sigh.  You guys, seriously?  Don't elect this person.  Granted, I no longer live there, but if you want my two cents, you should keep Claire McCaskill representing your state.  She's conservative (in my opinion) but at least she probably knows what the Violence Against Women Act is... Sheesh.

And speaking of violence against women what is this I'm reading about legislation you passed nicknamed the "don't say gay" bill?

Ugh.

This is seriously awful, you guys.  How can kids learn about sexuality, their own or their peers, if you make it illegal to talk about it?

Here's the bill if you want to read it yourself, but here's a nice excerpt... 170.370. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no instruction, material, or extracurricular activity sponsored by a public school that discusses sexual orientation other than in scientific instruction concerning human reproduction shall be provided in any public school.

This is bad, y'all.  How can kids learn about sexuality, their own or their peers', if you make it illegal to talk about it?  

TEACH them about reproduction, TEACH them about menstruation, TEACH them about childbirth, TEACH them about sexually transmitted diseases, TEACH them about birth control, TEACH them about masturbation, TEACH them about homosexuality and gender issues, TEACH them about hygene, TEACH them about their bodies!  

You don't have impregnate them so they understand giving birth, you don't have to turn them gay to bring awareness to sexual orientation, you don't have to infect them with the human papillomavirus to make them understand STDs.  But you do need to teach these kids what these words mean, what happens to their bodies and how to make healthy choices now that they have this information!

Make school a safe place to talk about sexuality.  The teenage years are confusing enough without y'all making it illegal to talk about it.

Locate your district.  Find your senator.  And then write him or her.  

Then, to find your representative in the house, look him or her up here.

Or just send the senate a general email: sweb@senate.mo.gov.

Okay, that was easy.  Speak up.  It's your state.  It's your kids.  Speak out against violence and speak on behalf of education.  Go Missouri.  Show me what you're made of.

Six Months of Madness

So, I've been pretty silent for the past six months or so when it comes to politics. This is probably due to the fact that I got a lot of hate mail on FB about my politically charged posts that I posted on my very own facebook wall (yes, that's a soapbox). People de-friended me (were they really friends at all?), sent me emails admonishing me in my Christian faith and witness (perhaps I should stop calling myself a "Christian" so people will stop judging me by their Christianity), or people just wrote dumb blurbs in my comments section.

On the other hand, it would seriously take me a week to comment on all the ridiculous crap being spewed by conservatives, not to mention the junk I'm-not-actually-liberal back bending non-conservatives have been doing lately. A week. I work full time and do full-time theater. I don't have time to solve America's problems in my spare time. But I do have time to vote, and read facebook. And what I discovered was that much of what I want to say has been succinctly and humorously summed up in graphic art and quotes. So... here is my latest political blog. And it's in pictures. Because sometimes creativity is a more effective communicator than we are.

Here we go...

Regarding the Republican platform...

Lance Hutchins 
4 hours ago

These days, they call everything a "war" except our actual wars.
.

P.S. If your presidential candidate can be compared to a character on The Simpsons, there is something wrong with your political party. And no, I didn't get all the answers correct on that quiz. How absurd is that?

Regarding women's rights...

Regarding homosexuals (and other sub-humans)...

Regarding separation of church and state (or the inability of people to stop calling their sexism, racism, homophobia and greed "Christianity") ...

Regarding Rush Limbaugh...

Enough said.

When Americans Occupy

When Americans occupy Wall Street or anywhere for that matter, it is unclear to me why is it okay for this to happen. Aren't we supposed to be a civilized nation? Why is it okay to treat our own citizens like this?

Can someone please explain to me why this is happening?

Furthermore, I have a question for rich people.

Perhaps it is okay for you to oppress your fellow Americans. To call us names and tell us if we just had more drive, a greater perseverance, we could be wealthy too; to ask us to bear the burdon of the tax load while your second and third vacation home gets off scot free, but in the grand scheme of things, keep in mind that someday you may be held accountable for all of this: for the way you treated us when we tried to exercise our right to freedom of assembly and our right to petition the government. And in the grand scheme of things, keep in mind that we, the American poor, we the American middle class, we the American upper middle class, are the 1% ourselves. So what does that make you compared to this...

Shame. On. Us. All.

Thinking and Other Fun Things

I like interesting videos. Especially ones that make my mind go places it hasn't gone before. So today's post is merely a post of interesting videos I've watched lately. Most of them come via my friend who used to write haikus. Scan thru them and see if there's one or two that interest you...

This first one is a video posted by an Australian TV show that recruits ad agencies to sell "things" people would never really sell or buy for that matter like say "An invasion on New Zealand" or as this episode shows, "A Ban On All Religion." Wow. While I (and most of them) obviously think this is a horrible idea (and an assault on human rights), it was interesting to me to see the two angles the ad agencies took to "sell" this "product." Check it out...

This second is spoof on one of my favorite movies of all time, originally owned on VHS (though I do lack the DVD version - for shame!). It is the opening scene of Disney's version of Beauty and the Beast as told by a gay man. It is titled "Bonjour, Girl."

And then there's the counterpart, "Advice for Young Girls From The Little Mermaid" by Second City. Or what a feminist hears when she hears Ariel sing. "My best feature is my voice so I sold it for plastic surgery :)"

This final set of videos arrived in my inbox the same day that I posted my thoughts on literalism and the Adam & Eve story. I guess evolution was in the air. The first video is the Miss USA 2011 contestants and their responses to the question, "Should evolution be taught in schools?" The second is a spoof of this legitimate (if startling video) titled, "Should math be taught in schools?"

Because the first video is long, I'll recap for you...

• Best Response: Miss Vermont.
• Worst Response: Miss Georgia even though, yes, "we're smarter than ever these days."
• Dumbest Response: Miss Indiana who thinks we should leave the decision "up to the government... leave [evolution] out of the equation." We don't understand what you mean either.
• Most Ridiculous Response: Miss Kentucky who said, "You can't ever have too much knowledge on any subject but I do feel evolution shouldn't be taught in schools." Are you even listening to yourself.
• Miss Missouri: I got bored. You don't represent me. Quit being so wishy washy and SHOW ME what you're made of.
• Miss Texas: Really? Science is just "something extra for kids to know about"? Obviously the heat has messed with your brain.
• And Miss Hawaii... What is "creationtism"?

The spoof is short. But awesome.

Enjoy!

Elderly Protesting

I'm kind of obsessed with elderly (or at least old-er people) who protest.

I admit, I google image them.

But look at these people?! Don't you just want to be their friend?

Cause I do.

On Adam & Eve, Or Why No One Would Be Shocked If We Could Read From Left to Right

Adam and Eve weren't real people.

Why?

The Bible tells us so.

Let me back up.

Recently published by NPR, this article discusses the Evangelical trend of late in "not believing" Adam and Eve were real people. Evidence cited relies heavily on science (mapping the human genome and evolution) to which the rest of the world (non-literalist, non-Evangelicals) says, "Duh."

I too say, "duh," but I don't need to be a scientist or take a biology class or even read scientific articles or to know that.

All I have to do is read left to right.

And so do you.

Which means that anyone completing, I don't know, how about the second grade, should be able to tell biblical literalists that Adam and Eve aren't read people. Because "the Bible tells me so."

Here's why. Get out your Bible.

Genesis Chapter One starts off with a void and then we get some order and God makes a bunch of stuff in a fairly systematic way, it's even ordered systematically: Day One... light... it was good. Day Two... sky... it was good. Day Three... seas and plants... it was good. Etc. You get the picture. And the pictures of Days 1-6 were probably hanging up all over your Sunday School classroom as a kid. Super.

Fast forward (Day Four: sun & stars, Day Five: animals & birds) to Day Six when God creates humanity. I'll go ahead and cite this directly instead of just summarizing so we're all on the same page...

Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’ God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so. God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Okay, Day six, God created humanity (italics mine): male and female it says (i.e. both genders) at the same time. Hmm. Cool. Day Six: humanity. And while we don't know how many men and how many women, humanity is definitely plural. And just to make sure we get it, the text says, "Men and Women God created them."

(P.S. This will be an general overview of Genesis 1-4 for the purposes stated above; if you're wondering about stuff like "let us make humankind in our image" that will require another blog. Or hire me to come speak, teach or lecture on the topic of Creation or Genesis at your church, school, or convention!)

Day 7: God takes a nap (that's a Pittman paraphrase).

Then Genesis 2:1 says, "Thus the heaven's and the earth were finished..." and the reader recognizes the story drawing to a close. God takes a breather (It's exhausting being that powerful - have you seen Harry Potter?!). And it's a good - pardon me - very good story.

But then in Genesis 2:4 we read, "These are the generations of the heaven and earth when they were created." Okay, I know, the reader thinks. I just read that.

But then a new story starts. Or starts over maybe.

And all of the sudden we're back at the beginning when nothing existed and we find ourself reading, yep, you guessed it, a second creation story.

Again, to let you read the text directly...

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

So we appear to have started over. And the chronology of this creation story doesn't match the first one. Remember the first one? Really organized, right? (Day One: light, Day Two: sky, Day Three: vegetation, Day Four: celestial beings, Day Five: living creatures, Day Six: humanity). Well this second creation account tells the story a little differently. If we had to ascribe an order (though the text doesn't lend itself well to that) it might be: 1. Water (Streams & Rivers) 2. A Man 3. Trees and then here's the rest of the text

Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. So the LordGod caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

So we add 4. Animals 5. A Woman to our list.

Wow. That sounds nothing like the first creation story we just read. I mean there are some similarities; God is in both stories, trees and animals are in both stories, people are in both stories, but that's about where the similarities end.

And my two lists... Day 1-6 (From Genesis 1:1-2:4) and Events 1-5 (From Genesis 2:4-22) are neither in the same order, or (based on what God says) created for the same reasons.

How do I know this? Because I can read from left to right.

Please note that I have thrown in nothing that the average 2nd grade reader could not tell you.

I haven't mentioned that the word for "God" used all the way through Genesis 1:1-2:4 is "Elohim" or that in Genesis 2:5 the word for God changes to "Yahweh" which is used for the remainder of the chapter and several of the following chapters. Neither have I told you that the groups of Israelites who used these separate words for God lived hundreds of years apart. Neither have I mentioned that the group of people who called God "Elohim" were priests who loved order and systematized theology and probably would have read the first Genesis account in worship kind of like you recite the Lord's Prayer or the Apostle's Creed. Neither have I told you that the people group who called God "Yahweh" lived during the exile when all the things God promised them like a land and a people and a Temple (remember Abraham and those promises a little later in Genesis?) are all gone and they have to find God somewhere else. Lo and behold, they find God in their hearts! God was with them all along! God is not in a land or living in a Temple, God is with us - hallelujah! So in the creation story they write, God is with Adam and Eve on the earth. God walks. God talks. God makes a mud pie. God is "immanent." God is with the people.

I didn't tell you all the things I would have told you if I was teaching a class on Genesis 1-2. All you had to do was read the Bible yourself, from left to right. TWO STORIES. And any literate second grader could have told you that.

So what does it mean then when NPR reports that Evangelicals can "no longer believe the Genesis account?" "No longer believe it?" I want to ask. "Why not?" If the people who put the book of Genesis together (And no, Moses didn't write the Torah i.e. Genesis thru Deuteronomy. That'd be pretty miraculous considering he dies in Deuteronomy. Again, please put two and two together by reading left to right) intentionally put two creation stories right next to each other, then maybe the point of the story(ies) is not the literal how (order of creation, how long it took, etc.) the world was created.

And if that's not the point then we need to ask some new questions.

Like, "What do the creation stories teach me about God?" "What do they teach me about God's relationship with men and women? What do they teach me about how I should treat the world God created? What do they teach me about the purpose of existence?" In which case, based on what you answer these questions with, the statement "no longer believe the Genesis account" takes on new meaning. Do I "believe" what the Genesis creation stories teach me about God? Well, they teach me that God was so powerful that merely speaking a word made life come into existence (1st creation story), they teach me that God loves me so much that God got down in the dirt and created me with His own hands (2nd creation story)! They teach me that God is sovereign, powerful, and kind of freaking awesome (1st creation story) but not so cool that God can't come on down here to earth and be with me and talk through things with me (2nd creation story). Do I believe Adam and Eve were real people? No. Do I believe the Genesis accounts? Yes.

But maybe you don't. Okay, so let's keep going. I call this section "Further Proof That Adam & Eve Don't Exist Thanks to My Ability to Read From Right to Left."

So according to the second creation story which keeps going (it's several chapters long), Adam and Eve get pregnant and have a son. Aw... so sweet. And then they have another son. And we begin to read about the first nuclear family. Super. I just love it when people get married and have babies and live happily ever after.

Except this family doesn't. Sibling rivalry rears its ugly head even in a family who's parents got to freakin' walk and talk with God Herself in the God (except God is described as male in Genesis 2, but I like to be inclusive). These two kids, Cain and Able are like PKs on steroids. And one thing leads to another and Cain murders his brother, Able.

And tries to pretend like it doesn't happen.

I'll let you read it for yourself...

Cain said to his brother Abel, ‘Let us go out to the field.’ And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is your brother Abel?’ He said, ‘I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?’ And the Lord said, ‘What have you done? Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground!And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.’ Cain said to the Lord, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear! Today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me.’ Then the Lord said to him, ‘Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.’ And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him. Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

God, being God, knows exactly what happened, but here in this story God tries to give Cain a little grace and let him fess up to what he did. He doesn't. So God calls him out on it. And then, realizing that you can't hide from God, Cain starts to freak out. "My punishment is more than I can bear! I'll be a vagrant, I'll be like those men who stand with a cardboard sign underneath I35. It'll be awful. And anyone who meets me may kill me!" Yes, this is a very flawed world we live in where eye for an eye is still the preferred road toward reconciliation. But that's not the point. The point is, anyone who meets me might kill me... anyone who meets me... anyone. Anyone? If we take this creation story by itself (i.e. skip Genesis One) and if we read it literally, then anyone is only Cain's parents, right? A literalist has to say that anyone would be only Mom and Dad, Eve and Adam. But that's obviously not who Cain is referring to. He speaks of being exiled and being afraid that his past, his story, will follow him and people won't want a murderer living among them. His life is in danger from other people in the world.

Hmm.

And here's the second major setback for literalists. If they can find someway to get past two creation stories, now they have to get past Four people becoming three people becoming lots of people populating other cities.

And a second grader could tell you either the author didn't know what she was writing, or there's some other point to the story.

Again, I didn't point out that the early Israelites were shepherds and in a battle between shepherds and farmers (if you are the shepherd and you're telling the story) who would you say God would favor (i.e. who's offering would God like the most). Neither did I point out that the first few chapters of Genesis reflect lots of similar etiological explanations (Why don't snakes have legs? Why is childbirth painful? Why do we raise sheep? Why do people speak lots of different languages? Where did the rainbow come from? Etc.) Neither did I mention that there are several other very similar creation stories pre-dating the second creation story with slight variances. And I didn't mention that the slight variances the Israelites probably put on those stories - and retelling them as their own - have major theological significance (ex: in the Babylonian creation myth, humanity was created to be servants to the gods - the Israelites re-tell the story claiming humanity was created at the climax of God's creative genius and God called us very good). I didn't do any cultural exegesis of the text or delve into the Hebrew language or anything. I just read from left to right. And that's all anyone has to do to understand that the people who put the Bible together (inspired by God) didn't mean for Adam and Eve to be read as real people. They didn't put these stories next to each other for us to choose to triumph one over the other. And they didn't mean for them to be scientific evidence of the creation of the world.

Are you with me?

So when NPR quotes Fuzale Rana as saying "I think this is going to be a pivotal point in Church history because what rests at the very heart of this debate is whether or not key ideas within Christianity are ultimately true or not," I'd have to ask, what do you mean by true? Because the truth I ascertain from these two creation accounts and their subsequent stories is not how the world was literally created. That truth isn't even offered. Unless of course you're referring to how the world was created in a different way... i.e.... how it was created in love, in tenderness, in a very colorful, creative way. And if that's what you mean by truth, then NO, I don't think science is a threat to key ideas within Christianity. Because it isn't science's job to interpret events, only we can do that. And through storytelling and imagination, the early religious leaders put together the stories their people had collected about the beginning of the world and beyond, and finally in written form, these stories were passed on and on and on and eventually to us.

So let's do these ancient texts the service of reading them. From left to right. And over and over again. And let's stop talking about whether or not the earth was created in 6 days and whether or not Adam and Eve were real people. Their stories are real in our hearts and our minds as we do our best to walk with God here and now.

And that, indeed is very good.

On Freedom of Religion

On Freedom of Religion, or One Thing the Baptists Got Right.

I had the following conversation on Facebook the other day (names have been omitted)...

And if that's too small for you to read, here's a recap:

FRIEND: We've taken God out of our schools and the the Christian beliefs that this great country was founded are getting pushed more and more out of areas they are needed the most.

ANN: Just because the law won't allow one religion (Christianity) to be the official religion of the public school system doesn't mean God isn't in schools. What if the government decided Hinduism should be the main religion in school and every morning there was a prayer to Krishna over the intercom and little statues with food offerings for them outside the cafeteria? There's a reason we have separation of church and state. If you want your child to attend school where Christianity is overtly practiced then send them to a Christian school. Our founding fathers were indeed Christians, but their theology was more deism and in NO WAY resembles the Christianity (especially the conservative Christianity) of today. Furthermore, they founded America because they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs in England and wanted to create a country where anyone could worship freely... so...

YEARS ago (in blog years it was, like, way back at the beginning of time) I posted an email I wrote to a minister/friend who asked me about the Christian right and why I thought they got it wrong. This was during the re-election of Bush when things were really getting out of hand. I made the following argument about Freedom of Religion:

We live in America, a country that is founded on free rights for everyone. I love this. I hate it though when people call us a "christian nation." We are not a christian nation and perhaps shouldn't be. I know the conservative christians are gasping now, but hear me out. Christian nations don't allow for dialogue among people of different views, christian nations have a history of oppression (the crusades, germany in ww2, england with regard to ireland, etc.) - why would we want to live in a nation like that? God created us with free will - wouldn't he want us to live in a world that allows for that? Plus, in America, I can talk freely with my hindu and muslim and atheist friends about my faith, and they can talk to me about theirs. We can dialogue and discuss what we have in common and what makes us distinct. The Muslim faith is growing across the world and in America. If you have a school where a muslim or a hindu is elected student body president, do you want his prayer to be prayed for your son and all the other students? If you want prayer in school then you better be ready to be more accepting of all types of people and all types of prayers (and time for dialogue to develop!!). But most people wanting prayer in schools want "christian" prayer in schools. They have an oppressive, exclusive agenda. Besides that, look at our models for people who pray. I don't care if George Bush says he prays every day. So did Hitler!!

I pretty much have the same opinion now. Maybe this is because I'm a liberal (so the slurs are slung), but maybe it's because I'm a Baptist.

You see, Baptists were founded on several guiding distinctives among which are the following: priesthood of all believers, autonomy of the local church, soul competency, and separation of Church and State.

Non-Baptists or people not familiar with protestantism may wonder at a couple of these distictives, but "Separation of Church and State," we are all familiar with (or should be - do they still teach that in schools? Cause I'm pretty sure Gov. Perry tried to take it out of Texas textbooks), as it became part of our Bill of Rights, thanks to, you guessed it, Baptist John Leland (though Jefferson received most of the credit).

Here's some other notable Baptist "fighters" from way back when. From the BJC website (the Baptist Joint Committee works in Washington to secure freedom of religion for all people): After establishing the first Baptist church on English soil, Thomas Helwys (1550-1615) authored a seminal treatise on religious liberty, A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity (1612), and sent a copy to King James I. In his inscription, he wrote: "The king is a mortal man and not God, and therefore hath no power over the immortal souls of his subjects to make laws and ordinances for them and to set spiritual Lords over them." For his trouble, Helwys, along with his wife, Joan, was severely persecuted. He later died in Newgate Prison.

Wow. Persecuted just because he wanted to do a Baptist church plant? And then he died in prison.

And check out this Baptist... Roger Williams (1603-1689) came from England to Massachusetts Bay in 1631 preaching and teaching "soul freedom" - the notion that faith could not be dictated by any government authority, but must be nurtured freely and expressed directly to God. He advocated a "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." The theocrats in Massachusetts were so offended that they kicked Williams out of the colony. He trekked to what would become Rhode Island and founded a city he called "Providence," because he judged that God's providence had directed him there.

And here's where my FRIEND gets it right. While many of the early colonizers fled England because of persecution, many turned right around and began persecuting their neighbors whose (variation of protestantism) faith was different than theirs. Because we never learn. Because history repeats itself. Because the oppressed when he receives power often becomes the oppressor. We demand rights for ourselves and then turn around and trample on the rights of those around us.

Thankfully, Leland, Jefferson and Madison were discerning enough to establish freedom of religion as an essential right due to any man or woman (of course, these rights would be reserved for men and women of the "Caucasian" persuasion, but no one's perfect).

Part of what established who these early Baptists were as advocates and protesters and people who spoke out on behalf of their fellow young Americans was their convictions as Baptists. Articulated by Baptist historian Walter Shurden, Baptists are unique in the Four Freedoms they embrace:

• Soul freedom: the soul is competent before God, and capable of making decisions in matters of faith without coercion or compulsion by any larger religious or civil body
• Church freedom: freedom of the local church from outside interference, whether government or civilian (subject only to the law where it does not interfere with the religious teachings and practices of the church)
• Bible freedom: the individual is free to interpret the Bible for himself or herself, using the best tools of scholarship and biblical study available to the individual
• Religious freedom: the individual is free to choose whether to practice their religion, another religion, or no religion; separation of church and state is often called the "civil corollary" of religious freedom

Now you understand why I wonder if I believe in separation of church and state because I'm a freedom-lover or because I'm a Baptist. The big picture: you get to decide your own faith and how to practice it. I can't deny you that right nor can the state.

Awesome. Amen.

On the other hand, this sucks. What Martin Luther set in motions hundreds of years ago when he demanded (among 98 other things) that the common person have access to the Bible herself is the folk religion (arguably the religious right) prevailing in America today. In other words, this not very Biblical "pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps, God-helps-those-who-help-themselves, love-your-family-hate-your-enemy, I-can't-tell-you-the-Ten-Commandments-but-by-God-it-better-be-hanging-in-the-courthouse" Christianity modeled by the religious right is a direct result of Luther's insistance that the biblical scholars (who also happened to be horribly corrupt church leaders) get out of the way and let each person meet God where they are. Check out this article on "phantom Biblical passages" where culture has corrupted what the Bible actually says, or doesn't say.

In other words, soul competancy... religious freedom...? They're a double edged sword.

But that's just what the Baptists believed.

So what was the predominant religion of our forefathers? Well, according to Benjamin Franklin's autobiography (thank you Billy Jewell Bible School "Responsible Self" class 1996): My parents had early given me religious Impressions [Roman Catholocism], and brought me through my Childhood piously in the Dissenting Way. But I was scarce 15 when, after doubting by turns of several Points as I found them disputed in the different Books I read I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my Hands.... It happened that they wrought an Effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them: For the Arguments of the Deists which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much Stronger than the Refutations. In short I soon became a thorough Deist. Revelation had indeed no weight with me as such; but I entertain'd an Opinion, that tho' certain Actions might not be bad because they were forbidden by it, or good because it commanded them; yet probably those Actions might be forbidden because they were bad for us, or commanded because they were beneficial to us, in their own Natures, all the Circumstances of things considered.

You still with me?

And how about Thomas Jefferson? Well, you've probably heard of the Jefferson Bible... Our third president's cut and paste version of the text (explicitly leaving out Jesus' miracles). While I don't have a biography of him on hand, Jefferson's move through religion (he hated the Catholic church, thought clergymen to all be corrupt and rejected most Christian doctrine including the doctrine of the Trinity) was generally based on his belief in Jesus as a Moral Teacher and God a material (not Spirit). In private letters, Jefferson refers to himself as a "Christian" in 1803, "a sect by myself" in 1819, an "Epicurean" later that year, a "Materialist" in 1820 and finally a "Unitarian by myself" in 1825. Most scholars would just classify him as a Diest who liked to cut up his Bible.

Needless to say, he was too liberal (in the true sense of the word - as such I, truth be told, am not) to attend the Episcopal Church of America at that time, let alone Willow Creek or The Potter's House or Saddleback or Salem Lutheran Church or Wasilla Bible Church or Trinity United Church of Christ or Wyatt Park Baptist Church or even First Baptist Church of Austin Texas.

Do I need to go on? John Adams - Unitarian. Alexander Hamilton - Evangelical Presbyterian who tried to start "Christian Welfare Societies" for the poor. James Madison - attended an Epsicopalian church (but most scholars consider him a Deist as well). George Washington - wouldn't take communion and never mentioned Jesus Christ in any of his writings. Considered a Deist but since he left virtually no writings in which he wrote about God, church, theology or religion (twice in his life he commented on a sermon), we don't really know.

So what then, about the founding father's faith do you FRIEND and all other people seeking to get back to those times, is so appealing? The fact that they picked and chose what they wanted to believe despite orthodoxy (although most conservative churches do a similar thing) or the fact that they intellectualized and internalized their faith, brooding over it, writing about it, and wrestling with it? The fact is, they believed that faith should be the choice of the people, paid for by the people and attended freely by the people so much so that they believed it is an essential right afforded to every human being and protected and ensured by the government.

Amen. On Freedom of Religion. And why I think the Baptists got this one right.