There is an age-old neighborhood prank that I have never executed myself, but have heard of from older, braver pranksters than myself.  The prank goes thusly:

One places dog-doodie in a paper bag and then lights that paper bag on fire on the doorstep of a particular unlucky neighbor.  The elated prankster, after lighting the bag aflame, rings the doorbell of the unlucky neighbor (who is likely the father of some young woman who was probably of of the prankster’s league anyway…) and runs away.  When the unlucky neighbor opens his door, he is left with the unlucky choice of either letting the bag burn, posing what threat fire may be or stomping out the flame, thereby putting his or her foot in the poopous caninous.

The more I read about and wrestle with CA Proposition 8, the more I feel like that unlucky neighbor, left with a choice between two rather unsavory options.  A “Yes” vote or a “No” vote on this Prop equally misrepresent my worldview.  In fact, I am of the opinion that this conversation or debate is taking place in the wrong arena and at the wrong trajectory altogether.

My decision to abstain from voting on Prop 8 is not a matter of the marital rights of homosexuals or even the preservation of the institution of marriage (though I will say more on this later); it is strictly a matter of the relationship between the Church and the State.

That marriage is a union between a man and women, approved by God and held together by His Grace and His People is a uniquely religious understanding.  In fact, part of the sacred nature of marriage is derived from the very fact that marriage’s blessedness is rooted in this religious understanding and NOT the laws of the land.  In the eyes of the state, marriage is not sacred and has never been.  The case for the sanctity of marriage is lost the moment we attempt to make it on the State’s terms.

It is greatly unfortunate (though understandable) that the language in California’s Family Code uses the world “marriage” at all.  I think much of our issue originates here.  The word is culturally convenient, yes; but it is also loaded with a long history of religious context and content.  The State’s definition of marriage does not include this unique context, making the use of it, as it pertains the the States responsibility to its citizens rights, rather messy.  Oh, how things would be if in 1977, when the Code was written they had used any other word… Civil Union… Banana Pancake… Anything.

Tony Campolo simplifies this thought when he writes:

“I propose that the government should get out of the business of marrying people and, instead, only give legal status to civil unions. The government should do this for both gay couples and straight couples, and leave marriage in the hands of the Church and other religious entities. That’s the way it works in Holland: If a couple wants to be united in the eyes of the law, whether gay or straight, they go down to city hall and legally register, securing all the rights and privileges a couple has under Dutch law. Then, if the couple wants their relationship blessed – to be married – they go to a church, synagogue or other house of worship.

“Marriage should be viewed as an institution ordained by God and should be out of the control of the state. Of course, homosexual couples could go to churches that welcome and affirm gay marriage and get their unions blessed there, but isn’t that the way it should be in a nation that guarantees people the right to promotion religion according to their personal convictions?”

I believe in the sanctity of marriage and that the biblical definition of this relationship, including the exclusivity of male and female relationships,  is the most complete and best definition and understanding.  But I do not believe the state’s responsibility extends to the defense of that understanding or definition.  I believe that a case needs to be made for marriage but only in the same way that I believe that a case needs to be made for the whole of the christian life and marriage as a part of that.  But I do not believe that the case is made well by Proposition 8.  A “Yes” vote seems to ask the state to affirm a uniquely religious definition of marriage and that is not the State’s role and, if anything, this lessens the case for the goodness of the christian life by asking the State to affirm and defend the sacred nature of our way of life rather than simply protecting our right to live that way.

Meanwhile a “No” vote makes the issue no clearer and is no progression towards “tolerance.”  It is not in the State’s power to bestow the blessing of God upon a marriage  and meanwhile there are numerous religious communities who recognize same sex unions as “marriage.”  Let me also be clear here in saying that “Yes” voters are not bigots by default.  I realize that it is simpler to rally against a mass of the simple-minded.  But the people who wrote and defend the proposition hold to a particular knowledge of marital relationships. As a believer, I see the world as working in a particular way and believe that when we move in a way contrary to what is designed or intended, we do violence to ourselves and our world.  For the vast majority of “Yes” proponents there is, at heart, a sincere motivation to shape the world around them to the best and healthiest way; for them it is not about hate or bigotry at all.

Furthermore, whether the prop passes or fails, the opposition will take the issue back to court after which we will see another proposition and then another court case and onward towards the dull eternity of heartless, opposition politics.  The hope of the christian community will continue to rest in a show of strength to stave off the wave of it’s “opposition.”  This is, of course, how we find ourselves here.

I’d like to change the tone here and make a broader statement in the direction of my family, the Church.  Whether you decide to vote “no” or “yes” on this proposition, do not be deceived by the notion that the conversation ends there.  There is a case to be made for the life you have chosen…

A friend of mine who pastors a church in the Mission District of San Francisco where the church’s intersection with gay culture has been greatly publicized and often distorted has many stories to tell about his own church’s involvement in the collision of what many, if not most, would consider opposing cultures.  My pastor friend (whom, in an effort to protect the identity of my subjects I will henceforth refer to as “Thor, god of thunder”) tells a story about his church’s more redemptive role in the relationship between gay culture and the Church right around the same time Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to gay marriages.

There had been a series of break-ins in the neighborhood around “Thor’s” church, including a break in at the home of a same-sex couple in an apartment attached to and owned by the church.  The couple lost quite a bit and much of what remained was trashed.  In the midst of all the clamorous noise created by the clash of opinions and agendas focused on the topic of gay marriage in SF, a very quiet, seemingly small thing happened in the direction of healing.  A group of elderly women from the Thor’s church went shopping.  They went out and bought gift cards from bed Bath and Beyond, from Crate and Barrel and from Pottery Barn.  Then they baked some cookies (because that is what women over 70 do when they get riled up… they bake) and paid a visit to these young men, stating simply “We attend the church around the corner and we heard about what happened.  We just wanted you to know that we love you and we’re sorry for what happened here.”

I do believe that the people of God need to make a case for marriage; much in the same way I  believe we need to make a case for the christian life as a whole, and marriage as a part of that life.  I sincerely wonder if, unless we are able to make the statement made by the elderly women of that church, that we are willing to actively share the burdens and joys of life with the homosexual community, we have any right to make any other statement at all.  One of the principles I learned on Young Life staff is that one can only instruct a person (and how much more so and entire culture) so far as we are willing to love that them;  That the effectiveness of transformational discipleship does not hinge on the strength of my case, my ability to make it or the volume with which I do, but on the depth to which the person I am working with knows they are loved.

Put another way

“…when these referendums come up in state after state after state, I think that the Roman Catholic bishops were right when they said, ‘We do not approve of this form of behavior but we will not allow anyone to take the rights away from those who are citizens of this country.’  Because I want to tell you something:  After you say ‘You can’t live in my community’; after you’ve said “You can’t teach in my school”; after you’ve said ‘You can’t go to my church’ and after you’ve said ‘You can’t come to my college’… after you’ve said all of this stuff – don’t think for one moment it’s going to wash when you smile that plastic smile that I see in the Christian community and say, ‘But we love you in the name of Jesus.’

-Tony Campolo

I fear that the case we have too often taken has been one of protectionism and fear rather than a sincere desire to see the transformation of the neighborhoods we live in; too often we’ve acted out of a desire to create an environment in which we feel safer and more comfortable to live the way we have chosen (this is actually the very topic that originally spawned the song “Safe“).  This leads me to a final and brief word on fear…

Much has been made in the case for Prop 8 about the long-term consequences of a “No” vote:  Marginalization of the church, law-suits, etc… The images amount to a picture of persectution.  Have we grown so comfortable?  Were we not warned?

18“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’^[a] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.

-John 15:18-21

Christians have chosen to live in a way that is sincerely counter-cultural.  There are consequences to this choice. Our King was crucified and we ought to expect no less for ourselves.  I believe that part of living counter-culturally often means making our case in a different arena.  The court and the state are very rarely that arena.

The heart of the church-state separation is the protection of the church from political poison, rather than the other way around.  We’ve spent so much time recently scratching and clawing our way to what we see as our “rightful place” at the center of American culture, we’ve failed to see how deeply the political poison has penetrated our vital organs and how very sick we are.

As an example, a proclaimed christian political figure recently made the statement publicly that “We see America as the greatest force for good in this world.”  Can we see the distortion in this statement?  The GREATEST force for GOOD in the world is one of its nations?  This idea is rooted in the notion that America’s particular way of being is, as a whole, beneficial to the entire globe.  Is it the American way of living and being that we are committed to multiplying throughout the earth?  Is this what is good?

As responsible citizens we have a responsibility to be culturally critical.  It should be a given that our first allegiance is to a King and a Kingdom, yet somehow being a follower of Jesus has come to be equated to being a patriot, while in the meantime, being a patriot has come to mean having a nearly blind allegiance to and defense of “the American Way.”  But even the briefest critical look at the Way of Jesus and the “American Way” makes clear that there are some rather large gaps between the two.

As an example, the emphasis on productivity and growth as a determinant of worth and success has gone greatly unchecked here in the States.  While this characteristic is not entirely unique to America (China seems to hold its own in this regard), I can only speak to the length of my own experience and understanding, which is with American culture.  While the size of the average home in the US has grown almost exponentially in the past few years, the number of people living in those homes has declined by an equally alarming rate… Fewer people needing more space; is this a life-principle worth passing on to the rest of the globe?
Even the sacred concept of freedom we find at the center of much patriotic conversation has morphed into an idea more closely tied to limitlessness (and that limitlessness tied to consumer greed) more characteristic of gods than humble, responsible human beings.  As Wendell Berry writes;  “Hell is the place where we believe no limits apply, where we believe our power and knowledge to be limitless, and thus become slaves to our appetite and lose freedom in the name of false liberty. “ (Read the rest of this article here.)

The US victory over the Nazis reinforced the idea that America was on the side of good by its very nature.  It is this dangerous mixture of political and religious zeal that certain political elements have seized in an effort (and a successful one at that) to solidify political allegiance among evangelical christians.  “Good” in this light has come to be closely and deeply tied to “American” and has us held so closely to it’s bosom that we cannot see our beloved nation from a sufficient distance to judge its health.

Now, besides the fact that empires who claim the will of God moves upon their moving have a rather nasty track record, the people of God living in a nation gone awry have often had much explaining to do when they’ve assimilated to that nation’s ways.  In this light, being critical IS being a patriot.

America and the Soul

I was recently told a fascinating story about a conversation between the Pope and Michelangelo.  This is not that conversation:

The actual conversation I am referencing was one in which the Pope, after seeing Michelangelo’s David asked Michelangelo “How do you know what to cut away?” The artist replied, “I cut away everything that is not David.” This is the heart of the song “Deconstruction.”

Deconstruction is not a function of a lack of faith. Nor is deconstruction a function of a mind with a disregard for (or even mistrust of) truth. It is, in fact a necessary and responsible activity of a vibrant and living faith; faith that if I shake it all down and tear away what is superfluous, I will be left with what is essential, true and beautiful. Faith that I cannot evade the truth and that, should I sincerely seek Truth, I will either find it or be found by It.

Tearing away the superfluous can be, and often is, extremely nerve-racking. I would imagine that Michelangelo’s work near the ankles of the David, which is nearly 14 feet of solid marble, was somewhat daunting as well. Without belittling the skill and magic of one of history’s greatest artists, one might imagine that he was extremely cautious when determining what of the marble to remove in order to shape ankles that would support David’s body while remaining proportionate in relation to the rest of the piece. He cared about the piece first and foremost; believed that there was an image to be discovered.

When it comes to American culture and it’s relationship to Jesus, I believe that, similarly, there is much that is superfluous: Allegiance to a particular political platform; an extremely limited notion of the role of art; an unhealthy suspicion of science overall; assumptions about the nature of human sexuality; an assumed agreement on the preferred method of dealing with abortion; an assumed agreement with market principles or even an assumed agreement regarding the superiority of a particular economic theory; a narrowing understanding of the goal of education; the assumption that our nation is inherently “good” or at least on the side of “good”… Etc..

(As a kind of side note, the intimate relationship Christianity has with America and her ways is particularly disturbing. A christian’s questioning US foreign or domestic policy ought not be met with questions and suspicions about his allegiance to Jesus Christ and His Kingdom. The fact that this happens is evidence to me that, for too many of us, they Way of Jesus and the way of America are either one and the same or so closely related that we cannot separate the two. Love for my country should not look the same as love for my God.. but that’s another blog.)

Yet just as with Michelangelo’s great piece, deconstruction of the superfluous in American culture and religious life means removing at least some that is difficult to remove in fear that the whole structure of what we have determined as Truth may collapse. But if we believe in truth as Truth there need be no fear. This is the major difference between the philosophical reality of the christian journey and the creation of Michelangelo’s David; there was a legitimate cause to be concerned that the artist’s beautiful creation could be toppled by either a mistake of his own hand or the violence of others. If I ‘believe’ in God as God and not as an Idea, I should suffer no such fear. My fear shouldn’t be that I may topple the image of Christ but instead that, in an effort to support that Image, I might bury it beneath those very ‘supports.’

Deconstruction is a necessary element in the effort to discover, from beneath the ruined and rotten corpse of cultural consumer religion, a political energy that is rooted in a desire for redemptive justice rather than party affiliation and the defeat of ‘the opposition’; to discover or rediscover the power of the teachings of Jesus; to rediscover what it in fact means to ‘be saved’, to be a ‘christian” or to even have or be a ‘soul’ at all.

The song Deconstruction is the heart of an album that I hope inspires its listeners towards a healthy re-examination of established religious, consumer and scientific world-views.