Les Mis

I had heard, more than once, how spiritual Les Miserables was, but the only version I had ever seen was the one with Liam Neeson in it. Although there were a couple of scenes that could be seen as spiritual, that was about it. But the latest version with Hugh Jackman is much different. I now understand.

We watched the Hugh Jackman version the other night. Unlike some people I don't hate musicals, in fact I actually like some. But I must admit there was a bit too much singing in this one; it all became tiresome quite quickly. But don't let that ringing endorsement turn you off to this movie.

This is a story of Legalism and Grace.

Jean Valjean is an ex-con who's paroled, but goes on the lam, with his arch nemesis Javert trying ever after to recapture him. Early on in the movie Valjean experiences unmerited, radical grace and it colours everything he does after that. At one point Valjean even extends this grace to Javert who is, ultimately, incapable of accepting it.

What a picture of the religious community today. You have those who are either outside, or on the margins of religious acceptance. You have the unmerited, radical Grace of God practiced by a few. And you have the majority ready to defend their borders at all costs.

Which is better?

The Eunuch

Lisa Salazar is a trans-gender Christian who was married for many years, but then made the agonizing choice to become the female she always felt she was. You can hear her story on the Drew Marshall archive from last week if you want. Drew had a one hour Round Table segment with 3 different guests; Lisa, Wendy Gritter from New Direction ministries, and Dr. Lawrence Brice author of "The Uncomfortable Church: Can Gays be Reconciled to the Body of Christ". After Lisa told most of her story Drew turned the mic over to Brice to explain what his book was all about. From that point forward the conversation was dominated by the Church's lack of acceptance when it comes to LGBTQ's.

Brice's book was, in a nutshell, the concept of "love the sinner, hate the sin". After hearing him talk I was left with the impression that if anyone could actually live out that concept it would be him. He says we do it all the time; we love certain people even though we don't agree with them: we love our family, people at work, people in our social groups, even though we may not agree with certain thoughts or aspects of their lives.

On the surface this makes a lot of sense; however, there's something visceral, even primal, when someone disagrees with our basic belief system - something that defines who we are - it's not like disagreeing with a cat person when you're a dog person. And from what I have seen, and experienced, 99.999% of people, especially the religious community, are incapable of truly loving someone whom they fundamentally disagree with.

While Lisa was very appreciative of Brice's attitude of acceptance, she felt it didn't go far enough. You see, in Brice's church, even though they foster an attitude of acceptance, they won't let an LGBTQ person serve in any capacity.

In Lisa's eyes, and I suspect in most LGBTQ's eyes, this isn't true acceptance. She told of a pivotal moment in her life when she read the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in the book of Acts. Most Christians think a eunuch is someone who has chosen a life of celibacy, but this isn't accurate. I saw a TV show awhile ago about India where there is quite a large population of eunuchs. Eunuchs are people born with ambiguous gender - they are basically trans-gender people. Lisa then went on to make several points.

She wondered why the story even mentioned the person in Acts was a eunuch if it wasn't of some importance. If the story was simply about someone being baptized, or someone who comes to a sudden realization of the transcendence of the new Christian movement, or someone from the royal court, then there's no reason to even bring up their sexuality. Obviously it was significant.

She then brought up the part where the eunuch asks Philip, "What prevents me from being baptized?" The answer - nothing. The eunuch was fully accepted into the family of God, based completely on faith. There was no, "first you have to say the prayer", no "first you have to give up your lifestyle" - just complete and total acceptance.

Grace.

What became extremely obvious throughout the interview, bolstered by comments from Wendy Gritter who works with LGBTQ people, was that anything less than complete acceptance by the church equals rejection. While they appreciate anyone who is truly capable of "love the sinner, hate the sin" it doesn't go far enough. It's not the radical Grace exemplified by Jesus.

I deeply respect Dr. Brice and his views - it can't be easy putting forth even the limited view of LGBTQ acceptance that he has within the conservative Christian community. The problem is that he and his church still view LGBTQ's as a mission, a project, a person or group to be consumed.

Neat, with a Splash of Water

I received a News Letter today from an acquaintance of mine who, in the past, had been very involved in the home-school / private Christian school movement. He felt he needed to address the anti-bullying legislation that has been raging in the media lately.

Let's just say I'm beginning to think that substance abuse is a gift from God to those of us trying to separate ourselves from our fundamentalist past.

Now...where did I put that bottle of Scotch??

Driving God to Drink

The camera slowly pans the auditorium from left to right. It's jammed with people. The voice-over tells us it holds 900 people, and the crowd has even spilled over into another room. It then starts to cut in closer and we see there are nests of people in the chairs -  six to eight - some hunched over with their elbows on their knees. They seem to be examining the floor like it's going to start talking to them. Others are sitting upright with their arms outstretched slightly, their palms facing up ready to catch a baby being tossed from a burning tenement house. It looks like their eyeballs would escape if it weren't for their lids being closed so tight. Their lips move, but we can't hear what they're saying. The little groups are everywhere. All doing the same thing.

It turns out this is a school auditorium. The voice-over tells us this school is located in a small city known for it's plethora of car dealerships - and it's religious conservatism. And they are praying. But what has happened? Has there been another senseless slaying of innocent children? A hurricane swept through town leaving hundreds dead? An ax murderer from Hawaii prowling the streets looking for wayward fruit?

No. They are fervently petitioning the Almighty because of anti-bullying legislation. The government has said that if you are a public school, or a private one that gets money from them, you have to have certain anti-bullying policies in place. And what, exactly, are they so upset about? Two things. They have to allow anyone who wants to set up a group such as a gay-straight alliance to do so, and they think the definition of bullying is too broad.

What is a gay-straight alliance you ask? Here's a definition from Wiki.

Gay–straight alliances (GSAs) are student-led organizations, found primarily in North American high schools and universities, that are intended to provide a safe and supportive environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) youth and their straight allies.

Sounds horrible! How can you possibly expect people who worship a God that defines himself as Love to be so accepting? Impossible, I say. Next you'll be expecting them to love their neighbour as themself. Not gonna happen my friend.

And what about this broad definition? The issue is that the legislation includes a statement that defines one of the symptoms of bullying as hurting someone's feelings. Now, I admit, this one could go sideways.

What it says is, any behavior

"intended to cause, or should be known to cause, fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other forms of harm to another person’s body, feelings, self-esteem, reputation or property.”

 I'm not exactly sure how you remove the word "feelings" from that statement and still have anything worthwhile left over to work with.

Are we seriously fighting over the protection of vulnerable people because we don't want our religious sensibilities offended? Is this what conservative fundamentalism has come to? Besides, do you honestly expect someone who attends one of these conservative private schools to put up their hand in class and announce they are gay - even if there is a gay-straight alliance? This is why people send their children to a private christian school in the first place: so they won't be sullied by the world; so they won't have to deal with what the rest of us call... life. You'd be better off wandering into the polar bear pit at the zoo with your pockets full of hamburger. It would be worse than hell. You'd have half of them ostracizing you, and the other half trying to convert you. I don't know which would be worse. Maybe the bureaucrats in these private schools are actually doing the gay community a favour by classifying them as sub-human.  Now I realize there are other people that are bullied, but by far the largest group is the LGBTQ's, and the religious community has made it quite clear that these people are the problem.

It's at times like this that I imagine God walking to the front of his mansion, drawing the blinds, locking the front door, going up stairs and packing a small bag. He then sneaks out the back door for an extended vacation in the eastern Uzbekistan so the reporters can't find him. Perhaps drinking himself into a stupor on the flight over.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel... ...you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."