Tuesday, November 07, 2006
ARGH
Sigh. Some atheists are every bit as smugly self-righteous, arrogant and prejudiced as the religious extremists they decry.
Because "news" in America must have entertainment value, the public faces of religion in this country are loons willing to compress complex ideas into rhetorical soundbytes. I will grant that eloquent voices of moderation are hard to find in this world of infotainment.
I am the last person to claim religion is harmless. I frequently like to quote Bishop Gene Robinson: "Religion is the source of our oppression."
But it is an intellectually dishonest position to say that all religious ideas and all religious people are deluded and harmful. That idea isn't any more enlightened than creationism, or any more supportable by empirical study.
If atheists want to take pride in "reason" and "intellectualism," then perhaps they should take more of an interest in getting their facts straight.
Because "news" in America must have entertainment value, the public faces of religion in this country are loons willing to compress complex ideas into rhetorical soundbytes. I will grant that eloquent voices of moderation are hard to find in this world of infotainment.
I am the last person to claim religion is harmless. I frequently like to quote Bishop Gene Robinson: "Religion is the source of our oppression."
But it is an intellectually dishonest position to say that all religious ideas and all religious people are deluded and harmful. That idea isn't any more enlightened than creationism, or any more supportable by empirical study.
If atheists want to take pride in "reason" and "intellectualism," then perhaps they should take more of an interest in getting their facts straight.
Gender and Genitalia
What defines male and female?
The New York Times reports today that New York City is likely to adopt a proposal to allow transgender people to change the gender on their birth certificate even if they have not had reassignment surgery.
First, a primer on what is meant by “transgender.” Let us make a clear distinction – even as we acknowledge that these are blurry boundaries – between drag performers, or gender illusionists, who take on an alternate persona for the purpose of entertainment, transvestites or crossdressers, who enjoy dressing up as the opposite gender as a form of recreation, and people who suffer from gender identity disorder. One is an act, one is a hobby and the last is a psychological condition where a person’s self-perception of their gender does not match their genitalia.
This is a new and shocking social frontier for many of us, and let me be the first to admit I don’t fully understand it, myself – and to that end, I apologize in advance to any transfolks who might read this and infer insensitivity where really there is only ignorance.
Are men and women really only defined by their genitalia? Of course not. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have books like Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus trying to explain what the differences are, we’d have books called Men Have Penises and Women Have Vaginas, and it would be a very short book. A pamphlet, even. We wouldn’t have academic studies about why boys and girls tend to perform differently in school and we wouldn’t have had a big to-do when Larry Summers tried to explain why there aren’t as many women scientists. He could have said, “Because they have vaginas,” and, if that were truly what determined gender, he might have been right and that would have been the end of it.
In this year’s New York Court of Appeals ruling on same-sex marriage, Judge R.S. Smith argued that marriage should be limited to opposite-sex couples because “a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.” I don’t think he meant that children need to be shown a penis and a vagina every day to avoid confusion.
We can debate whether gender stereotyping is right or wrong, but however we feel about it we must admit it exists, and it starts at birth: babies with vaginas are dressed in pink, and babies with penises in blue. Some children get Barbies as presents, and some get fire trucks, and what they have between their legs determines how we talk to them, how we encourage them to behave, and what we expect of them. Yet when we say to children, “You need to behave like a big boy now” or “Act like a man,” that doesn’t really have anything to do with their penis. We usually perceive who is a man and who is a woman without needing to check below the belt. Quite simply put, one’s gender identity consists of a lot more than a reproductive organ.
[On a side note, we should really examine our ambivalence about our sexual organs, and why it is that we call people dicks, pussies and cunts.]
Gender is defined by more than genital status, and since hormone therapy and reassignment surgery are not covered by insurance (not to mention this country has 45 million uninsured people anyway), many transgender people cannot afford medical treatment. Also, given our larger social gender prejudices, it’s often difficult for transfolks to find meaningful work, because they are perceived to be mentally ill, or at a minimum, very weird, and somewhat threatening. Some transgender people do not feel a need for therapy or surgery. The new policy would allow birth certificates to be changed with recommendations from a doctor and a therapist and evidence that the applicant has lived with their current gender expression for two years.
Kudos to New York City for having the courage to confront this controversial issue and to come up with positive recommendations.
The New York Times reports today that New York City is likely to adopt a proposal to allow transgender people to change the gender on their birth certificate even if they have not had reassignment surgery.
First, a primer on what is meant by “transgender.” Let us make a clear distinction – even as we acknowledge that these are blurry boundaries – between drag performers, or gender illusionists, who take on an alternate persona for the purpose of entertainment, transvestites or crossdressers, who enjoy dressing up as the opposite gender as a form of recreation, and people who suffer from gender identity disorder. One is an act, one is a hobby and the last is a psychological condition where a person’s self-perception of their gender does not match their genitalia.
This is a new and shocking social frontier for many of us, and let me be the first to admit I don’t fully understand it, myself – and to that end, I apologize in advance to any transfolks who might read this and infer insensitivity where really there is only ignorance.
Are men and women really only defined by their genitalia? Of course not. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have books like Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus trying to explain what the differences are, we’d have books called Men Have Penises and Women Have Vaginas, and it would be a very short book. A pamphlet, even. We wouldn’t have academic studies about why boys and girls tend to perform differently in school and we wouldn’t have had a big to-do when Larry Summers tried to explain why there aren’t as many women scientists. He could have said, “Because they have vaginas,” and, if that were truly what determined gender, he might have been right and that would have been the end of it.
In this year’s New York Court of Appeals ruling on same-sex marriage, Judge R.S. Smith argued that marriage should be limited to opposite-sex couples because “a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.” I don’t think he meant that children need to be shown a penis and a vagina every day to avoid confusion.
We can debate whether gender stereotyping is right or wrong, but however we feel about it we must admit it exists, and it starts at birth: babies with vaginas are dressed in pink, and babies with penises in blue. Some children get Barbies as presents, and some get fire trucks, and what they have between their legs determines how we talk to them, how we encourage them to behave, and what we expect of them. Yet when we say to children, “You need to behave like a big boy now” or “Act like a man,” that doesn’t really have anything to do with their penis. We usually perceive who is a man and who is a woman without needing to check below the belt. Quite simply put, one’s gender identity consists of a lot more than a reproductive organ.
[On a side note, we should really examine our ambivalence about our sexual organs, and why it is that we call people dicks, pussies and cunts.]
Gender is defined by more than genital status, and since hormone therapy and reassignment surgery are not covered by insurance (not to mention this country has 45 million uninsured people anyway), many transgender people cannot afford medical treatment. Also, given our larger social gender prejudices, it’s often difficult for transfolks to find meaningful work, because they are perceived to be mentally ill, or at a minimum, very weird, and somewhat threatening. Some transgender people do not feel a need for therapy or surgery. The new policy would allow birth certificates to be changed with recommendations from a doctor and a therapist and evidence that the applicant has lived with their current gender expression for two years.
Kudos to New York City for having the courage to confront this controversial issue and to come up with positive recommendations.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Against the Use of Nature
We still don’t know the full story of what happened between megapastor Ted Haggard and the Denver-based male escort, so it’s premature to draw conclusions about this specific incident. Yet, like any parable, we can start to examine the lessons, even if we don’t know all the details.
That Haggard admits he purchased methamphetamines is, I think, the most significant part of the story right now. Sex and drugs tend to go together, but there are many, many drugs out there, like pot, cocaine and painkillers, that aren’t necessarily used in sexual situations. You can do a bump of coke in the bathroom at a club for a boost of energy, or you can stay at home on a rainy night, dim the lights, put on Coltrane and light up. You can pop a vicodin in your office before the board meeting. But meth is a sex drug, and while there are certainly straight people who use it, crystal, or “tina,” is ubiquitous on the gay party circuit.
It gives the user – so I’m told – an overwhelming sense of immortality and invincibility, as well as a raging, uninhibited sex drive. An acquaintance of mine who has used it said it makes you feel “amazing” and turns you into the Energizer Bunny in bed, except that the ad slogan would be “it keeps on coming” instead. The idea that someone would use methamphetamines without intending to use it to enhance sexual performance and experience would be akin to someone randomly taking a hit of Cialis without intending to get laid.
So while it may remain in the realm of possibility that Pastor Ted innocently arranged for a massage with a man he did not know was a prostitute, it defies credibility that innocuous conversation with a masseur would casually and naturally turn to discussions about how to obtain a gay sex drug.
Haggard’s evangelical colleague James Dobson was quoted by The New York Times today saying, “The situation has grave implications for the cause of Christ and we ask for the Lord’s guidance and blessings in the days ahead.” For once I agree with him.
In Paul’s letter to the Romans, there is a passage on sexual immorality that is at the heart of the ongoing discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. In the time and culture in which Paul was writing, as with today, many people believed that only heterosexual orientation is natural, and that gay people are folk who “exchange natural intercourse for unnatural” motivated by “the lusts in their hearts.”
But increasingly today we come to the awareness that sexual orientation is less about lust than something innate, with evidence that it is genetic in origin. This turns Paul’s sentence on its head, or at least opens it up to a new, more expansive reading: the sin is in the exchange of one’s natural sexual identity for one that is false.
We don’t know yet precisely what Mr. Haggard’s situation is, but the anecdotal evidence about what happens when a gay person suppresses their natural identity in exchange for an outwardly heterosexual lifestyle, including marriage and children, is vast, and it’s not pretty.
The problems arise not only because of sexual urges that are difficult to restrain, but because sexual orientation is an essential part of identity and self-awareness, quite apart from sexual activity. Sexual attraction and activity is merely a manifestation, an expression of who you are. Pretending to be heterosexual is not about refraining from gay sex, it’s about denying a huge part of what makes you you.
“The cause of Christ,” as Dobson puts it, is love. May we all come to understand that we do not serve Christ faithfully by only pretending to love someone. We do not serve Christ by loving someone only on the condition that they conform to ancient prejudices about sexual orientation. We will serve Christ best by loving honestly and sincerely, which can only be done when we honestly and sincerely love our own true natures.
As progressive Christians, we must resist the temptation to indulge in schadenfreude over an Evangelical’s hypocritical downfall. Mr. Haggard remains our brother in Christ. May he find healing through the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding.
That Haggard admits he purchased methamphetamines is, I think, the most significant part of the story right now. Sex and drugs tend to go together, but there are many, many drugs out there, like pot, cocaine and painkillers, that aren’t necessarily used in sexual situations. You can do a bump of coke in the bathroom at a club for a boost of energy, or you can stay at home on a rainy night, dim the lights, put on Coltrane and light up. You can pop a vicodin in your office before the board meeting. But meth is a sex drug, and while there are certainly straight people who use it, crystal, or “tina,” is ubiquitous on the gay party circuit.
It gives the user – so I’m told – an overwhelming sense of immortality and invincibility, as well as a raging, uninhibited sex drive. An acquaintance of mine who has used it said it makes you feel “amazing” and turns you into the Energizer Bunny in bed, except that the ad slogan would be “it keeps on coming” instead. The idea that someone would use methamphetamines without intending to use it to enhance sexual performance and experience would be akin to someone randomly taking a hit of Cialis without intending to get laid.
So while it may remain in the realm of possibility that Pastor Ted innocently arranged for a massage with a man he did not know was a prostitute, it defies credibility that innocuous conversation with a masseur would casually and naturally turn to discussions about how to obtain a gay sex drug.
Haggard’s evangelical colleague James Dobson was quoted by The New York Times today saying, “The situation has grave implications for the cause of Christ and we ask for the Lord’s guidance and blessings in the days ahead.” For once I agree with him.
In Paul’s letter to the Romans, there is a passage on sexual immorality that is at the heart of the ongoing discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. In the time and culture in which Paul was writing, as with today, many people believed that only heterosexual orientation is natural, and that gay people are folk who “exchange natural intercourse for unnatural” motivated by “the lusts in their hearts.”
But increasingly today we come to the awareness that sexual orientation is less about lust than something innate, with evidence that it is genetic in origin. This turns Paul’s sentence on its head, or at least opens it up to a new, more expansive reading: the sin is in the exchange of one’s natural sexual identity for one that is false.
We don’t know yet precisely what Mr. Haggard’s situation is, but the anecdotal evidence about what happens when a gay person suppresses their natural identity in exchange for an outwardly heterosexual lifestyle, including marriage and children, is vast, and it’s not pretty.
The problems arise not only because of sexual urges that are difficult to restrain, but because sexual orientation is an essential part of identity and self-awareness, quite apart from sexual activity. Sexual attraction and activity is merely a manifestation, an expression of who you are. Pretending to be heterosexual is not about refraining from gay sex, it’s about denying a huge part of what makes you you.
“The cause of Christ,” as Dobson puts it, is love. May we all come to understand that we do not serve Christ faithfully by only pretending to love someone. We do not serve Christ by loving someone only on the condition that they conform to ancient prejudices about sexual orientation. We will serve Christ best by loving honestly and sincerely, which can only be done when we honestly and sincerely love our own true natures.
As progressive Christians, we must resist the temptation to indulge in schadenfreude over an Evangelical’s hypocritical downfall. Mr. Haggard remains our brother in Christ. May he find healing through the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Fundy Fodder
What irks me most about the allegations surrounding Ted Haggard is that they reinforce the prejudices of the fundamentalists.
Religious fundamentalists will claim this is further proof that gay people are secretive, promiscuous drug users.
Secular fundamentalists will claim this is further proof that Christians are hypocrites.
Religious fundamentalists will claim this is further proof that gay people are secretive, promiscuous drug users.
Secular fundamentalists will claim this is further proof that Christians are hypocrites.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
I Want an Apology
Let's establish a new rule for politicians, shall we?
From now on, no one can demand an apology from anyone except the person who was actually the target of the alleged offensive comment.
*****
If I had known how today was going to turn out, I'd have stayed in bed with the covers over my head and the curtains drawn.
From now on, no one can demand an apology from anyone except the person who was actually the target of the alleged offensive comment.
*****
If I had known how today was going to turn out, I'd have stayed in bed with the covers over my head and the curtains drawn.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 30, 2006
Two Questions
1. Which movie adaptation of a book was your biggest disappointment?
For me, the easy answer is The Black Stallion Returns. That was a phenomenal book, on which the movie was VERY loosely based. A huge disappointment. The book was romantic, exotic, surprising, and highly evocative of time and place.
*****
2. Has anyone ever actually gotten a job simply from having posted a resume on a website like Monster.com?
For me, the easy answer is The Black Stallion Returns. That was a phenomenal book, on which the movie was VERY loosely based. A huge disappointment. The book was romantic, exotic, surprising, and highly evocative of time and place.
*****
2. Has anyone ever actually gotten a job simply from having posted a resume on a website like Monster.com?
Friday, October 27, 2006
And You Thought My Taste in Music Sucked
On the A train home tonight there was a man listening to a cutting board.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
NJ Marriage Decision: Initial Thoughts
Woot!
I know you have all been waiting impatiently for me to post on this, hungry as you are for the kind of insightful legal analysis that can only be provided by a human resources assistant with a master's degree in classical voice.
Yesterday was something of a nailbiter, having to wait until 3:00 (after having waited over eight months) to finally get the decision in Lewis v. Harris, the New Jersey Supreme Court case weighing whether same-sex couples were permitted to marry under the state constitution.
After a string of disappointments this year in New York, Washington, California, Nebraska and Georgia, I wondered if there was any cause for optimism. I also worried about potential ramifications of the decision this close to elections, whichever way it came down.
When the decision was finally posted, it was not immediately clear what it said. The first language that caught my eye, in the syllabus by the court clerk, was that the decision of the appellate court had been modified but affirmed, which -- since we lost at the appellate level -- to my mind meant that the court had reached the same conclusion by different reasoning, but we had still lost.
Furthermore, I saw that there was a split 4-3 decision, and Chief Justice Poritz, who I personally had assumed to be in favor of marriage equality based on watching her during the oral arguments, had voted with the dissent. That looked like trouble.
But in fact, it was one huge ginormous victory.
There was no "dissent" in the normal sense, where one part of the court reaches an opposite conclusion of the majority. All seven justices found that the present situation in New Jersey unfairly disadvantages same-sex couples and violates the liberty and equal protection guarantees of the state constitution. In short, the court ruled unanimously in our favor, which I think was both unexpected and unprecedented.*
The split occurred because the majority found that under their understanding of the term "fundamental right," there was no fundamental right to same-sex marriage (even though they explicitly state that marriage is a state and federally-recognized fundamental right) because it is not deeply rooted in history, tradition and collective conscience. So while they have instructed the state legislature to make available to same-sex couples all rights, privileges, protections and responsibilities of married opposite-sex couples, they chose to defer to the legislature on whether to call that "marriage" or instead set up an identical system (presumably civil unions) for same-sex couples.
The three dissenting judges, led by Chief Justice Deborah Poritz on the occasion of her mandatory retirement, disagreed with the majority conclusion. If the issue of same-sex marriage is one of equal protection, then a separate classification, no matter how closely it mirrors opposite-sex marriage, is by definition a violation of that principle. Judge Poritz also found that, based on Loving v. Virginia, it is not necessary that a practice (interracial marriage or same-sex marriage) be rooted in tradition or collective conscience in order for it to be qualified as a fundamental right. The dissent found that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, and call it marriage.
The New Jersey Legislature must act within 180 days. While of course I believe they should apply the term marriage to civil partnerships of both same- and opposite-sex couples, even should they choose "civil unions" or other terminology, it will be a huge step forward toward equality.
*****
As far as the elections go: in my deepest heart of hearts, I believe most Americans really do not give a flying one about gay marriage. I think people are concerned about national security, about the war in Iraq, about the economy, about fiscal responsibility, and about government transparency. The New Jersey decision may rejuvenate some of the disenchanted far right, but Democrats should not allow this silly wedge issue to overshadow the pressing questions of the day which affect us all. As Red Leader says in Star Wars, "Stay on target."
*****
* See comments for correction.
I know you have all been waiting impatiently for me to post on this, hungry as you are for the kind of insightful legal analysis that can only be provided by a human resources assistant with a master's degree in classical voice.
Yesterday was something of a nailbiter, having to wait until 3:00 (after having waited over eight months) to finally get the decision in Lewis v. Harris, the New Jersey Supreme Court case weighing whether same-sex couples were permitted to marry under the state constitution.
After a string of disappointments this year in New York, Washington, California, Nebraska and Georgia, I wondered if there was any cause for optimism. I also worried about potential ramifications of the decision this close to elections, whichever way it came down.
When the decision was finally posted, it was not immediately clear what it said. The first language that caught my eye, in the syllabus by the court clerk, was that the decision of the appellate court had been modified but affirmed, which -- since we lost at the appellate level -- to my mind meant that the court had reached the same conclusion by different reasoning, but we had still lost.
Furthermore, I saw that there was a split 4-3 decision, and Chief Justice Poritz, who I personally had assumed to be in favor of marriage equality based on watching her during the oral arguments, had voted with the dissent. That looked like trouble.
But in fact, it was one huge ginormous victory.
There was no "dissent" in the normal sense, where one part of the court reaches an opposite conclusion of the majority. All seven justices found that the present situation in New Jersey unfairly disadvantages same-sex couples and violates the liberty and equal protection guarantees of the state constitution. In short, the court ruled unanimously in our favor, which I think was both unexpected and unprecedented.*
The split occurred because the majority found that under their understanding of the term "fundamental right," there was no fundamental right to same-sex marriage (even though they explicitly state that marriage is a state and federally-recognized fundamental right) because it is not deeply rooted in history, tradition and collective conscience. So while they have instructed the state legislature to make available to same-sex couples all rights, privileges, protections and responsibilities of married opposite-sex couples, they chose to defer to the legislature on whether to call that "marriage" or instead set up an identical system (presumably civil unions) for same-sex couples.
The three dissenting judges, led by Chief Justice Deborah Poritz on the occasion of her mandatory retirement, disagreed with the majority conclusion. If the issue of same-sex marriage is one of equal protection, then a separate classification, no matter how closely it mirrors opposite-sex marriage, is by definition a violation of that principle. Judge Poritz also found that, based on Loving v. Virginia, it is not necessary that a practice (interracial marriage or same-sex marriage) be rooted in tradition or collective conscience in order for it to be qualified as a fundamental right. The dissent found that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, and call it marriage.
The New Jersey Legislature must act within 180 days. While of course I believe they should apply the term marriage to civil partnerships of both same- and opposite-sex couples, even should they choose "civil unions" or other terminology, it will be a huge step forward toward equality.
*****
As far as the elections go: in my deepest heart of hearts, I believe most Americans really do not give a flying one about gay marriage. I think people are concerned about national security, about the war in Iraq, about the economy, about fiscal responsibility, and about government transparency. The New Jersey decision may rejuvenate some of the disenchanted far right, but Democrats should not allow this silly wedge issue to overshadow the pressing questions of the day which affect us all. As Red Leader says in Star Wars, "Stay on target."
*****
* See comments for correction.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Gays and the Laws of Moses
Should gay and lesbian people be full members of the Christian community? Should they be priests? Should the sacrament of marriage be extended to them? Should they even be welcomed into the building?
A lot of people point to passages in Leviticus, which call homosexuality an “abomination.” But are those passages valid and binding?
For that we need to consider the book of Acts, written by the author of the Gospel of Luke. In the sixth and seventh chapters, Stephen is arrested by a religious council and charged with saying that Jesus came to “change the customs Moses handed down to us.”
Stephen does not (and cannot) deny the accusation, since Jesus did specifically reject Torah passages on vengeance, divorce and dietary restrictions, but instead, after demonstrating his full familiarity with Scripture, turns on the council and accuses them of “forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do.”
In the tenth chapter, Peter has a vision of “something like a sheet” coming down from heaven, and on it are all manner of animals designated by Moses as unclean. “Get up, Peter; kill and eat,” says God. Peter protests: “I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean!” But God responds, “What God has made you must not call unclean or profane.”
Then Peter goes to Caesarea to meet with Cornelius, a Roman centurion. Peter, remembering the lesson from his vision, greets Cornelius by saying, “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.”
After talking with Cornelius, Peter declares, “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation, anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” But Peter’s Jewish followers were troubled, because Hebrew Scripture quotes God as saying, “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant,” yet they “were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.”
Peter answered them by saying, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Just as Peter understood that his vision of the animals applied not just to dietary restrictions, but the inherent sanctity of all creation, it is to be understood that Peter is not referring just to circumcised or uncircumcised people, but rather the invalidity of Scriptural passages that put barriers between people and the God who calls them. God wants you just as you are. No man is unclean. No change is necessary to be worthy of God’s love.
Yet people still insist on building barriers to the church. Yesterday, The New York Times reported on an Episcopal bishop in Connecticut who has authorized religious blessings for civil unions.
Rev. Canon David C. Anderson, of the American Anglican Council, criticized Bishop Smith and called it “proof of his disregard for the larger Anglican Communion and further evidences his militancy with the homosexual gay agenda” (someone call the Department of Repetitive Redundancy!). “Bishop Smith and some other bishops as well are literally choosing to pull themselves and their churches out of the broader religious community. In the future…there might be no place for people like Bishop Smith.”
Anderson tries to blame Bishop Smith; but it’s not Smith trying to fracture the church, he’s one of the many heeding Peter’s lesson that the church is open to everyone. For all their citation of scripture in oppressing gay and lesbian people, what many Christians miss is that the New Testament explicity forbids restricting Christian fellowship. Anderson closes the door not just on gays, but on everyone who takes the Gospel message seriously. How does a priest manage to claim that “there might be no place” for anyone?
Bishop Smith said, “I believe that it is time for us to rethink, repray and reform our theology and our pastoral practices; to welcome, recognize, support and bless the lives and faith of brothers and sisters who are gay and lesbian in the equal fullness of Christian fellowship.”
A lot of people point to passages in Leviticus, which call homosexuality an “abomination.” But are those passages valid and binding?
For that we need to consider the book of Acts, written by the author of the Gospel of Luke. In the sixth and seventh chapters, Stephen is arrested by a religious council and charged with saying that Jesus came to “change the customs Moses handed down to us.”
Stephen does not (and cannot) deny the accusation, since Jesus did specifically reject Torah passages on vengeance, divorce and dietary restrictions, but instead, after demonstrating his full familiarity with Scripture, turns on the council and accuses them of “forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do.”
In the tenth chapter, Peter has a vision of “something like a sheet” coming down from heaven, and on it are all manner of animals designated by Moses as unclean. “Get up, Peter; kill and eat,” says God. Peter protests: “I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean!” But God responds, “What God has made you must not call unclean or profane.”
Then Peter goes to Caesarea to meet with Cornelius, a Roman centurion. Peter, remembering the lesson from his vision, greets Cornelius by saying, “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.”
After talking with Cornelius, Peter declares, “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation, anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” But Peter’s Jewish followers were troubled, because Hebrew Scripture quotes God as saying, “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant,” yet they “were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.”
Peter answered them by saying, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Just as Peter understood that his vision of the animals applied not just to dietary restrictions, but the inherent sanctity of all creation, it is to be understood that Peter is not referring just to circumcised or uncircumcised people, but rather the invalidity of Scriptural passages that put barriers between people and the God who calls them. God wants you just as you are. No man is unclean. No change is necessary to be worthy of God’s love.
Yet people still insist on building barriers to the church. Yesterday, The New York Times reported on an Episcopal bishop in Connecticut who has authorized religious blessings for civil unions.
Rev. Canon David C. Anderson, of the American Anglican Council, criticized Bishop Smith and called it “proof of his disregard for the larger Anglican Communion and further evidences his militancy with the homosexual gay agenda” (someone call the Department of Repetitive Redundancy!). “Bishop Smith and some other bishops as well are literally choosing to pull themselves and their churches out of the broader religious community. In the future…there might be no place for people like Bishop Smith.”
Anderson tries to blame Bishop Smith; but it’s not Smith trying to fracture the church, he’s one of the many heeding Peter’s lesson that the church is open to everyone. For all their citation of scripture in oppressing gay and lesbian people, what many Christians miss is that the New Testament explicity forbids restricting Christian fellowship. Anderson closes the door not just on gays, but on everyone who takes the Gospel message seriously. How does a priest manage to claim that “there might be no place” for anyone?
Bishop Smith said, “I believe that it is time for us to rethink, repray and reform our theology and our pastoral practices; to welcome, recognize, support and bless the lives and faith of brothers and sisters who are gay and lesbian in the equal fullness of Christian fellowship.”
Sunday, October 22, 2006
The Opera House is Half Full
In today’s New York Times, veteran critic Anthony Tommasini wonders, “Where have all the voices gone?” in an op-ed he actually calls a “lamentation.”
Along with the myth that opera audiences are shrinking, one of the favorite complaints of self-styled opera aficionadi everywhere is that there are no longer any great voices. I bet that if you could travel back in time fifty years, and wander around the standing room at the back of the Old Met during a Tebaldi-Corelli Bohème, you’d find someone whining that audiences are getting older and that there aren’t any singers anymore, like there used to be in the days of Ponselle and Martinelli.
The inspiration for Tommasini’s premature eulogy is the new Metropolitan Opera production of Madama Butterfly, directed by Anthony Minghella.
You know, the one that garnered rave reviews and is sold out for the rest of the season.
The cast is headed by Chilean soprano Cristina Gallardo-Domas, whose singing of the title role, according to Tommasini, was “courageous,” but “patchy, pale and shaky” on high notes, even though “she made up in intensity and vulnerability what she lacked in vocal allure.” Who among today’s sopranos should have been cast instead? “No one I can think of,” confesses Tommasini.
He then compares her to some of the legendary sopranos of the past, namely Geraldine Farrar and Renata Tebaldi. Tebaldi, who had a uniquely warm voice and an instantly recognizable timbre with an impossibly seamless legato, was not exactly renowned as an actress. And while her top may not have been “patchy, pale and shaky,” it certainly could be steely and flat. Check out her paint-peeling high C at the end of Act I of La Bohème in the famous Serafin recording with Bergonzi – and that was in her prime.
Farrar, who was renowned as an actress (and a glamorous social figure, too – the famous “flapper” look of the 1920s is an abbreviation of “gerryflapper,” for Geraldine) had a singing style that is no longer in vogue: someone singing Butterfly today the way she sang it would probably get booed off the stage, assuming she could get hired.
But let’s take Tommasini’s point seriously. Where are the Tebaldis today?
Remember from my previous post that the number of professional opera companies in America has grown 5700% in fifty years. In those days, Tebaldi, along with Franco Corelli, Mario del Monaco, Zinka Milanov, Jussi Bjoerling, Leonard Warren and a host of other operatic legends, basically shuttled back and forth between the Met and San Francisco. Alas, it is true that voices like these are not common; but now they are spread among 114 professional companies in the US, not to mention those in Europe and elsewhere. The supply/demand ratio has altered tremendously, but that doesn’t mean that the voices aren’t out there.
Two other phenomena are also at work, however.
One is the recording industry. Fifty years ago, great recording stars like Maria Callas, Robert Merrill, Anna Moffo and Fedora Barbieri had well-established stage careers before they began making studio recordings. It was their excellence on stage that led to recording contracts. That trend is basically reversed today.
In the early 1990s, a young Italian mezzo soprano by the name of Cecilia Bartoli overturned conventional wisdom by showing up for “weeks on end” on Billboard’s best sellers not with crossover work, or even with operatic chestnuts, but with her 1993 album “Se tu m’ami,” which featured 17th and 18th century Italian songs with piano accompaniment. Bartoli is an extraordinary artist, but with her large, dark eyes, lustrous brown hair and classic Roman features, she is beautiful and photogenic, too.
She was a recording superstar long before her much-anticipated Met debut. So was tenor Roberto Alagna. Soprano Anna Netrebko. Baritone Dmitri Hvorostovsky. What do these singers have in common? They’re all beautiful people. Not a dowdy, fat “opera singer” in the bunch.
Now, that’s good. Nothing wrong with a beautiful person with talent, too. But in our search to find ways to attract new audiences to opera, we have become too focused on physical appearance.
This is nothing new: the audience at the premiere of Verdi’s La Traviata had trouble accepting the voluptuous Fanny Salvini-Donatelli as the consumptive heroine. But the mindset found, perhaps, its apex in 2004, when soprano Deborah Voigt was famously canned from the Royal Opera at Covent Garden’s production of Ariadne auf Naxos – she remains the world’s pre-eminent interpreter of the title role – because she couldn’t fit into the little black cocktail dress that was, apparently, at the heart of the director’s vision of the opera. If she hadn’t already been an international superstar by virtue of her stupendous talent, it never would have made headlines.
Here we must concede something important to the future of opera: God does not always apportion gifts evenly. Opera is not Hollywood. Opera is a highly artificial form of entertainment. That doesn’t mean “fake”: look at the root of the word. ART. The roles were written for voices, not for bodies.
While it does appear that Aida is often a very well-fed slave, we have to admit that if our focus is on the physical attractiveness of the singer, rather than their vocal gifts, sometimes we’re going to have to make a tradeoff. And furthermore, we should examine our own bias in the process. There is deep, ugly prejudice in the suggestion that if Isolde is not thin and young, she’s not a worthy object of the eternal, transcendant love offered by Tristan. Unglamorous, unshapely people have lives, feelings, triumphs and tragedies, too. If people are serious about making opera more “realistic,” and therefore, more “accessible,” they’d recognize that human beings come in all shapes and sizes.
And they might find some voices, while they're at it.
Along with the myth that opera audiences are shrinking, one of the favorite complaints of self-styled opera aficionadi everywhere is that there are no longer any great voices. I bet that if you could travel back in time fifty years, and wander around the standing room at the back of the Old Met during a Tebaldi-Corelli Bohème, you’d find someone whining that audiences are getting older and that there aren’t any singers anymore, like there used to be in the days of Ponselle and Martinelli.
The inspiration for Tommasini’s premature eulogy is the new Metropolitan Opera production of Madama Butterfly, directed by Anthony Minghella.
You know, the one that garnered rave reviews and is sold out for the rest of the season.
The cast is headed by Chilean soprano Cristina Gallardo-Domas, whose singing of the title role, according to Tommasini, was “courageous,” but “patchy, pale and shaky” on high notes, even though “she made up in intensity and vulnerability what she lacked in vocal allure.” Who among today’s sopranos should have been cast instead? “No one I can think of,” confesses Tommasini.
He then compares her to some of the legendary sopranos of the past, namely Geraldine Farrar and Renata Tebaldi. Tebaldi, who had a uniquely warm voice and an instantly recognizable timbre with an impossibly seamless legato, was not exactly renowned as an actress. And while her top may not have been “patchy, pale and shaky,” it certainly could be steely and flat. Check out her paint-peeling high C at the end of Act I of La Bohème in the famous Serafin recording with Bergonzi – and that was in her prime.
Farrar, who was renowned as an actress (and a glamorous social figure, too – the famous “flapper” look of the 1920s is an abbreviation of “gerryflapper,” for Geraldine) had a singing style that is no longer in vogue: someone singing Butterfly today the way she sang it would probably get booed off the stage, assuming she could get hired.
But let’s take Tommasini’s point seriously. Where are the Tebaldis today?
Remember from my previous post that the number of professional opera companies in America has grown 5700% in fifty years. In those days, Tebaldi, along with Franco Corelli, Mario del Monaco, Zinka Milanov, Jussi Bjoerling, Leonard Warren and a host of other operatic legends, basically shuttled back and forth between the Met and San Francisco. Alas, it is true that voices like these are not common; but now they are spread among 114 professional companies in the US, not to mention those in Europe and elsewhere. The supply/demand ratio has altered tremendously, but that doesn’t mean that the voices aren’t out there.
Two other phenomena are also at work, however.
One is the recording industry. Fifty years ago, great recording stars like Maria Callas, Robert Merrill, Anna Moffo and Fedora Barbieri had well-established stage careers before they began making studio recordings. It was their excellence on stage that led to recording contracts. That trend is basically reversed today.
In the early 1990s, a young Italian mezzo soprano by the name of Cecilia Bartoli overturned conventional wisdom by showing up for “weeks on end” on Billboard’s best sellers not with crossover work, or even with operatic chestnuts, but with her 1993 album “Se tu m’ami,” which featured 17th and 18th century Italian songs with piano accompaniment. Bartoli is an extraordinary artist, but with her large, dark eyes, lustrous brown hair and classic Roman features, she is beautiful and photogenic, too.
She was a recording superstar long before her much-anticipated Met debut. So was tenor Roberto Alagna. Soprano Anna Netrebko. Baritone Dmitri Hvorostovsky. What do these singers have in common? They’re all beautiful people. Not a dowdy, fat “opera singer” in the bunch.
Now, that’s good. Nothing wrong with a beautiful person with talent, too. But in our search to find ways to attract new audiences to opera, we have become too focused on physical appearance.
This is nothing new: the audience at the premiere of Verdi’s La Traviata had trouble accepting the voluptuous Fanny Salvini-Donatelli as the consumptive heroine. But the mindset found, perhaps, its apex in 2004, when soprano Deborah Voigt was famously canned from the Royal Opera at Covent Garden’s production of Ariadne auf Naxos – she remains the world’s pre-eminent interpreter of the title role – because she couldn’t fit into the little black cocktail dress that was, apparently, at the heart of the director’s vision of the opera. If she hadn’t already been an international superstar by virtue of her stupendous talent, it never would have made headlines.
Here we must concede something important to the future of opera: God does not always apportion gifts evenly. Opera is not Hollywood. Opera is a highly artificial form of entertainment. That doesn’t mean “fake”: look at the root of the word. ART. The roles were written for voices, not for bodies.
While it does appear that Aida is often a very well-fed slave, we have to admit that if our focus is on the physical attractiveness of the singer, rather than their vocal gifts, sometimes we’re going to have to make a tradeoff. And furthermore, we should examine our own bias in the process. There is deep, ugly prejudice in the suggestion that if Isolde is not thin and young, she’s not a worthy object of the eternal, transcendant love offered by Tristan. Unglamorous, unshapely people have lives, feelings, triumphs and tragedies, too. If people are serious about making opera more “realistic,” and therefore, more “accessible,” they’d recognize that human beings come in all shapes and sizes.
And they might find some voices, while they're at it.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Department of Wishful Thinking
Here's another idea Democrats should take from the GOP and run with.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) sent out an email to the media alerting them to what will happen if the Democrats take over Congress this fall: “they will plot to establish a Department of Peace.”
Alas, I only wish the Democrats had that kind of succinct policy vision tied to a concrete plan.
Blunt seems to think a Department of Peace is some cockamamie idea. I guess the only thing more risible would be a Department of Alternative Energy and Conservation.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) sent out an email to the media alerting them to what will happen if the Democrats take over Congress this fall: “they will plot to establish a Department of Peace.”
Alas, I only wish the Democrats had that kind of succinct policy vision tied to a concrete plan.
Blunt seems to think a Department of Peace is some cockamamie idea. I guess the only thing more risible would be a Department of Alternative Energy and Conservation.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Lessons from the GOP
In just under a month, Democrats may well find themselves controlling Congress. Should that happen, they shouldn’t be too quick to pat themselves on the back. The Republican implosion is self-inflicted through a tawdry, heady cocktail of corruption, incompetence, hypocrisy and outright idiocy. The Democrats are like political vultures, picking up the seats of Republican congressmen who killed their own careers.
The GOP collapse is certainly entertaining to watch: Katherine Harris, Tom DeLay, Curt Weldon, Rick Santorum, George Allen, Randy Cunningham, Conrad Burns, Bob Ney, Tom Reynolds, and of course Mark Foley, whose scandal may yet ensnare Dennis Hastert. But Democrats can’t take much, if any, credit for the polls. They’re not winning voters on issues, they’re winning because the other candidates are too detestable to vote for. New York’s Republican candidate for Attorney General is such a disaster that she has inspired a new term meaning “major political faux pas”: a “Pirro-ette.”
So Republican comeuppance is taking care of the first, most immediate problem for Democrats: how to get elected. But once they’re in power, the trick is to stay there. For that, they should look closely at Rovellian philosophy. Adopt what works, avoid what doesn’t.
Democrats should not be afraid to pander to the base; forget “swing voters” and attempting to woo conservatives by being Republican lite. That’s not where the votes are. But they should also realize that the vast, untapped liberal resource in this country are the millions of people too disinterested or too disillusioned to bother showing up on election day.
To attract them, Democrats should abandon their two main themes: 1) “We’re not that different from Republicans!” and 2) “We’re not Republicans!” Start saying, “We’re Democrats!” and be prepared to explain what you mean by that.
Abandon the Bush emphasis on unity and loyalty. Mandatory group-think results in things like Iraq. In order to resuscitate bipartisanship, you must allow politicians to vote their conscience and express dissent.
Transparency, transparency, transparency. Give Americans reasons to trust you. Have a zero-tolerance policy for unethical behavior. Deny nothing. Roll heads.
For appointed positions, Democrats should look toward academics and other experts, not partisan loyalists, corporate donors, or college roommates. Stop putting industry executives in regulatory positions. Americans have had enough of the Bush hackocracy.
Engage the faith communities – not by faking it, as when Howard Dean famously said Job was his favorite New Testament book. Not all evangelicals are panicked about same-sex marriage: a growing number of them list poverty and global warming as their top priorities. Those are issues the Republican party will never embrace.
The Democrats are about to catch a lucky break this November. Let’s hope they don’t squander it.
The GOP collapse is certainly entertaining to watch: Katherine Harris, Tom DeLay, Curt Weldon, Rick Santorum, George Allen, Randy Cunningham, Conrad Burns, Bob Ney, Tom Reynolds, and of course Mark Foley, whose scandal may yet ensnare Dennis Hastert. But Democrats can’t take much, if any, credit for the polls. They’re not winning voters on issues, they’re winning because the other candidates are too detestable to vote for. New York’s Republican candidate for Attorney General is such a disaster that she has inspired a new term meaning “major political faux pas”: a “Pirro-ette.”
So Republican comeuppance is taking care of the first, most immediate problem for Democrats: how to get elected. But once they’re in power, the trick is to stay there. For that, they should look closely at Rovellian philosophy. Adopt what works, avoid what doesn’t.
Democrats should not be afraid to pander to the base; forget “swing voters” and attempting to woo conservatives by being Republican lite. That’s not where the votes are. But they should also realize that the vast, untapped liberal resource in this country are the millions of people too disinterested or too disillusioned to bother showing up on election day.
To attract them, Democrats should abandon their two main themes: 1) “We’re not that different from Republicans!” and 2) “We’re not Republicans!” Start saying, “We’re Democrats!” and be prepared to explain what you mean by that.
Abandon the Bush emphasis on unity and loyalty. Mandatory group-think results in things like Iraq. In order to resuscitate bipartisanship, you must allow politicians to vote their conscience and express dissent.
Transparency, transparency, transparency. Give Americans reasons to trust you. Have a zero-tolerance policy for unethical behavior. Deny nothing. Roll heads.
For appointed positions, Democrats should look toward academics and other experts, not partisan loyalists, corporate donors, or college roommates. Stop putting industry executives in regulatory positions. Americans have had enough of the Bush hackocracy.
Engage the faith communities – not by faking it, as when Howard Dean famously said Job was his favorite New Testament book. Not all evangelicals are panicked about same-sex marriage: a growing number of them list poverty and global warming as their top priorities. Those are issues the Republican party will never embrace.
The Democrats are about to catch a lucky break this November. Let’s hope they don’t squander it.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
I Miss My Toys
Last night, for no very good reason at all, I found myself trying to remember which Star Wars action figures I had as a kid:
Luke Skywalker (I think he met his demise under the lawnmower)
C3PO
R2-D2
Princess Leia (in the Cloud City outfit)
Han Solo (Hoth ice planet parka outfit)
Hammerhead
Boba Fett
R5-D4
At-At driver
Imperial Guard (with the awesome red robe)
Darth Vader (until Miss Crandall took him away because I was playing with him during math, and he was never seen again)
I also had a Millennium Falcon.
One of my favorite things to do was to freeze Han Solo in a block of ice in a tupperware box and then slowly melt him free on the deck. Yeah, good times.
Luke Skywalker (I think he met his demise under the lawnmower)
C3PO
R2-D2
Princess Leia (in the Cloud City outfit)
Han Solo (Hoth ice planet parka outfit)
Hammerhead
Boba Fett
R5-D4
At-At driver
Imperial Guard (with the awesome red robe)
Darth Vader (until Miss Crandall took him away because I was playing with him during math, and he was never seen again)
I also had a Millennium Falcon.
One of my favorite things to do was to freeze Han Solo in a block of ice in a tupperware box and then slowly melt him free on the deck. Yeah, good times.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Make it So
Sorry I've been quiet for the last couple of days. I can't emphasize enough how my recent theological epiphany has caused me to re-evaluate my outlook on basically everything. I'll probably have more to say about that later.
Suddenly familiar phrases have new meanings. The Beatles' "Let it Be" has always been one of my favorite, cherished songs...a real comfort in times of stress and doubt. But I have always interpreted "let it be" to mean, "leave it alone" -- trust that God will take care of it. And I still think that's valid, but I see now that it can also just as easily mean, "allow it to be." Imagine what you want, and simply let it be.
Suddenly familiar phrases have new meanings. The Beatles' "Let it Be" has always been one of my favorite, cherished songs...a real comfort in times of stress and doubt. But I have always interpreted "let it be" to mean, "leave it alone" -- trust that God will take care of it. And I still think that's valid, but I see now that it can also just as easily mean, "allow it to be." Imagine what you want, and simply let it be.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Liberating Theology
Does God have a plan for us?
A lot of people believe He does, and generally speaking, I have been one of them.
There is a tendency to evaluate our relationship with God based on the things that happen to us in our lives: when good things happen, it’s comforting to think that we have earned God’s favor. When bad things happen, we either assume we are being punished, or we explain it away by saying that all things happen according to God’s will, which is beyond human understanding.
I had a lot of these ideas during my career as a singer. I had certain physical and intellectual gifts which gave me advantages over other colleagues, and fantastic opportunities seemed to materialize from nowhere at lucky moments. There was a steady progression to my blossoming career, each step on the ladder more challenging, more important, more exciting, and more promising. I had a sense that what was befalling me was “meant to be.”
And then it all collapsed. Though I had always been borderline neurotic about taking care of my voice and my body, suddenly it seemed as though they were at war with one another. Through the scourge of acid reflux, my stomach attacked my throat. Each night as I slept, my dreams and hopes were slowly eaten away.
Why was this happening to me? Had I offended God? Was it a test? Temporary setback? Or was it a message that God wanted me doing something else? I think the only possibility I didn’t contemplate was that my misfortune was random and essentially meaningless.
I have always had the idea that God has a plan for us. In many places, the Bible tells us not to worry about our lives, but rather to put our trust in God. Many Christians believe in a “plan.” And I’m not saying there isn’t one.
But lately, this idea of “a” plan has been holding me back. I have been struggling to determine just what “the plan” is, what I am “supposed” to be doing, wondering whether “the plan” is something that is just going to happen at some point, or what. Do I search for it, or wait for it? Or, is this it?
If there is “a plan” for each of us, then why does an infinitely loving and compassionate God subject us to tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, plane crashes, heart attacks, or school shootings? Did those little Amish girls die according to God’s will? Was that the plan that was worked out for them from before Creation?
Last night in my bible study we were discussing whether God is “in control” of the world. The priest suggested we view God’s interaction with us in terms of “purpose,” rather than “plan.” And suddenly a light went on.
If we are all subject to “the plan,” then in a sense we are putting our faith in a God who uses violence and tragedy to further his will (which, depending on how much stock you put into the Old Testament, is a supportable idea). Why does a God who loves us all equally “plan” for some of us to be rich and comfortable, but most of us poor and miserable? There is an inherent inequity in the concept of “God’s plan” that can only be, and often is, explained as humanly incomprehensible.
But with the idea of purpose, there is complete equity. It’s a subtle but important distinction. We all have the same purpose (to love and serve one another), but each of us can serve that purpose in our own way. If there’s a plan, how can we have free will? But through free will, we can choose to fulfill our purpose.
These are new thoughts for me, not fully worked out. But I felt immediately relieved. Perhaps my previous career aspirations weren’t thwarted by divine intervention. Perhaps I don’t have to sit here and wait for God’s plan to start making me happy. Perhaps I can best serve God’s purpose by making my own plan.
A lot of people believe He does, and generally speaking, I have been one of them.
There is a tendency to evaluate our relationship with God based on the things that happen to us in our lives: when good things happen, it’s comforting to think that we have earned God’s favor. When bad things happen, we either assume we are being punished, or we explain it away by saying that all things happen according to God’s will, which is beyond human understanding.
I had a lot of these ideas during my career as a singer. I had certain physical and intellectual gifts which gave me advantages over other colleagues, and fantastic opportunities seemed to materialize from nowhere at lucky moments. There was a steady progression to my blossoming career, each step on the ladder more challenging, more important, more exciting, and more promising. I had a sense that what was befalling me was “meant to be.”
And then it all collapsed. Though I had always been borderline neurotic about taking care of my voice and my body, suddenly it seemed as though they were at war with one another. Through the scourge of acid reflux, my stomach attacked my throat. Each night as I slept, my dreams and hopes were slowly eaten away.
Why was this happening to me? Had I offended God? Was it a test? Temporary setback? Or was it a message that God wanted me doing something else? I think the only possibility I didn’t contemplate was that my misfortune was random and essentially meaningless.
I have always had the idea that God has a plan for us. In many places, the Bible tells us not to worry about our lives, but rather to put our trust in God. Many Christians believe in a “plan.” And I’m not saying there isn’t one.
But lately, this idea of “a” plan has been holding me back. I have been struggling to determine just what “the plan” is, what I am “supposed” to be doing, wondering whether “the plan” is something that is just going to happen at some point, or what. Do I search for it, or wait for it? Or, is this it?
If there is “a plan” for each of us, then why does an infinitely loving and compassionate God subject us to tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, plane crashes, heart attacks, or school shootings? Did those little Amish girls die according to God’s will? Was that the plan that was worked out for them from before Creation?
Last night in my bible study we were discussing whether God is “in control” of the world. The priest suggested we view God’s interaction with us in terms of “purpose,” rather than “plan.” And suddenly a light went on.
If we are all subject to “the plan,” then in a sense we are putting our faith in a God who uses violence and tragedy to further his will (which, depending on how much stock you put into the Old Testament, is a supportable idea). Why does a God who loves us all equally “plan” for some of us to be rich and comfortable, but most of us poor and miserable? There is an inherent inequity in the concept of “God’s plan” that can only be, and often is, explained as humanly incomprehensible.
But with the idea of purpose, there is complete equity. It’s a subtle but important distinction. We all have the same purpose (to love and serve one another), but each of us can serve that purpose in our own way. If there’s a plan, how can we have free will? But through free will, we can choose to fulfill our purpose.
These are new thoughts for me, not fully worked out. But I felt immediately relieved. Perhaps my previous career aspirations weren’t thwarted by divine intervention. Perhaps I don’t have to sit here and wait for God’s plan to start making me happy. Perhaps I can best serve God’s purpose by making my own plan.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Rubicund for a Diaphanous Day
It was a thuggish and deleterious October day, with the parsonage coming down in aqueous pilfers, foaming in the strainers like chocolate sponges. I felt a frisson of stoicism as I abdicated in the corner, clanging for an abbess I wasn’t sure would come.
Disqualified, I numbly felt the cold steel of the incandescence in my pocket. Just a few moccasins more, I ossified to myself.
A platitude lumbered past, splashing me with a cold wave of moratoria.
Time was passing like a proscenium. I tightened my prejudice around me, gazed upward into the metempsychosis, and breathed a deep sigh of transition.
And then, without disinfectant, suddenly I shrieked the antemeridian. Stepping out from behind the exegesis, I drew my sarcasm and halted the decasyllable. “You’re under arrest, crime-king,” I said, using my most sequacious vocable.
Disqualified, I numbly felt the cold steel of the incandescence in my pocket. Just a few moccasins more, I ossified to myself.
A platitude lumbered past, splashing me with a cold wave of moratoria.
Time was passing like a proscenium. I tightened my prejudice around me, gazed upward into the metempsychosis, and breathed a deep sigh of transition.
And then, without disinfectant, suddenly I shrieked the antemeridian. Stepping out from behind the exegesis, I drew my sarcasm and halted the decasyllable. “You’re under arrest, crime-king,” I said, using my most sequacious vocable.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Three Peeves
- I am really, really tired of women -- and it's always women -- who walk around Manhattan with their head up their ass, usually with a cellphone attached, not paying any attention to what's going on around them. These dingbats walk too slow and meander around like no one else is even in the vicinity. Inevitably, when I try to get past them, they change direction, bump into me, and say, "Excuse you! Watch where you're going, you jerk!" Someday, not only am I not going to apologize, I'm going to lecture the bitch on etiquette and self-awareness. The only women who should be allowed to walk and talk at the same time are ambitious, always-one-step-ahead-of-the-game Type A personalities like myself. Otherwise, find a bench somewhere, since you're clearly not in a hurry.
- Dear Manager at the Fort Washington Avenue Associated: Why did you put the trainee cashier in the express lane? Come on.
- Dear Starbucks: I don't mind your music promotion sideline. But nobody can hear each other over the music now, it's too loud. Mellower stuff, please, at lower volumes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
