Gay Anarchist Arrested in Vandalism of Denver Democratic Party Headquarters

Nobody told me there’d be days like these,

Nobody told me there’d be days like these,

Nobody told me there’d be days like these,

Strange days indeed.    — John Lennon

Denver police arrested a transgendered anarchist, Maurice Schwenkler, also known as “Ariel Attack,” in the vandalism of the Denver Democratic Party headquarters in the early morning hours this past Tuesday.  Police said at least two hammer-wielding bicycle riders were responsible for the damage.  Ariel Attack was apprehended after police pursuit.

The motive for the vandalism remains unclear.   Ariel Attack has been linked with several anarchist and radical gay groups, including Denver Bash Back!

The Colorado Independent reports that Schwenkler was paid last November by a get-out-the-vote group working on behalf of the Democrats.  Yet Schwenkler also recently posted to the Queers Against Obama blog, denouncing Obama’s stance on the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

One of Ted Kennedy’s Best Speeches

He spoke as a guest at Liberty Baptist College in Lynchburg, VA, in the early 80’s.  Yep.  Rev. Jerry Falwell’s home turf.  Kudos to the folks at Liberty Baptist for having been (I assume) gracious hosts.   Ted is speaking from a time when the nation is still in the thick of the Cold War; is dealing with nuclear disarmament issues; is experiencing the the rise of the Religious Right (and Dominionism); and is in the midst of the ascendancy of Reagan Republicanism.

I have come here to discuss my beliefs about faith and country, tolerance and truth in America. I know we begin with certain disagreements; I strongly suspect that at the end of the evening some of our disagreements will remain. But I also hope that tonight and in the months and years ahead, we will always respect the right of others to differ, that we will never lose sight of our own fallibility, that we will view ourselves with a sense of perspective and a sense of humor. After all, in the New Testament, even the Disciples had to be taught to look first to the beam in their own eyes, and only then to the mote in their neighbor’s eyes.

I am mindful of that counsel. I am an American and a Catholic; I love my country and treasure my faith. But I do not assume that my conception of patriotism or policy is invariably correct, or that my convictions about religion should command any greater respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society. I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim a monopoly on it?

There are those who do, and their own words testify to their intolerance. For example, because the Moral Majority has worked with members of different denominations, one fundamentalist group has denounced Dr. Falwell for hastening the ecumenical church and for “yoking together with Roman Catholics, Mormons, and others.” I am relieved that Dr. Falwell does not regard that as a sin, and on this issue, he himself has become the target of narrow prejudice. When people agree on public policy, they ought to be able to work together, even while they worship in diverse ways. For truly we are all yoked together as Americans, and the yoke is the happy one of individual freedom and mutual respect.

But in saying that, we cannot and should not turn aside from a deeper and more pressing question — which is whether and how religion should influence government. A generation ago, a presidential candidate had to prove his independence of undue religious influence in public life, and he had to do so partly at the insistence of evangelical Protestants. John Kennedy said at that time: “I believe in an America where there is no religious bloc voting of any kind.” Only twenty years later, another candidate was appealing to a[n] evangelical meeting as a religious bloc. Ronald Reagan said to 15 thousand evangelicals at the Roundtable in Dallas: ” I know that you can’t endorse me. I want you to know I endorse you and what you are doing.”

To many Americans, that pledge was a sign and a symbol of a dangerous breakdown in the separation of church and state. Yet this principle, as vital as it is, is not a simplistic and rigid command. Separation of church and state cannot mean an absolute separation between moral principles and political power. The challenge today is to recall the origin of the principle, to define its purpose, and refine its application to the politics of the present.

The founders of our nation had long and bitter experience with the state, as both the agent and the adversary of particular religious views. In colonial Maryland, Catholics paid a double land tax, and in Pennsylvania they had to list their names on a public roll — an ominous precursor of the first Nazi laws against the Jews. And Jews in turn faced discrimination in all of the thirteen original Colonies. Massachusetts exiled Roger Williams and his congregation for contending that civil government had no right to enforce the Ten Commandments. Virginia harassed Baptist teachers, and also established a religious test for public service, writing into the law that no “popish followers” could hold any office.

But during the Revolution, Catholics, Jews, and Non-Conformists all rallied to the cause and fought valiantly for the American commonwealth — for John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill.” Afterwards, when the Constitution was ratified and then amended, the framers gave freedom for all religion, and from any established religion, the very first place in the Bill of Rights.

Indeed the framers themselves professed very different faiths: Washington was an Episcopalian, Jefferson a deist, and Adams a Calvinist. And although he had earlier opposed toleration, John Adams later contributed to the building of Catholic churches, and so did George Washington. Thomas Jefferson said his proudest achievement was not the presidency, or the writing the Declaration of Independence, but drafting the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. He stated the vision of the first Americans and the First Amendment very clearly: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”

Taking Courage in a Climate of Mounting Fear and Violence

Headline too extreme?  Consider these photos of yesterday’s vandalism of the Colorado Democratic Party Headquarters in Denver, where 11 windows were broken, causing over $10,000 in damage:

photos at Think Progress (www.thinkprogress.org)

Consider also the messages brought to Town Hall meetings:

“Obama is a fascist.”  “Obama is Hitler.”  “Death to all Marxists.”

“Death to Obama.  Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids.” That was on the sign of one man attending Sen. Ben Cardin’s (D-MD) recent town hall meeting.   The police had the good sense to detain him.

Two legislators have received ominous, anonymous faxes with the Obama-as-Joker graphic and the message, “Death to All Marxists!  Foreign and Domestic!”

People continue to show up outside town hall meetings making a public display of their pistols or rifles.   These are the sorts of messages one would normally associate with groups like this one:

This past February, the Southern Poverty Law Center released a report detailing the rise of hate groups by 54% since 2000.  And they also report the return of the right-wing militias:

They’re back. Almost a decade after largely disappearing from public view, right-wing militias, ideologically driven tax defiers and sovereign citizens are appearing in large numbers around the country. “Paper terrorism” — the use of property liens and citizens’ “courts” to harass enemies — is on the rise. And once-popular militia conspiracy theories are making the rounds again, this time accompanied by nativist theories about secret Mexican plans to “reconquer” the American Southwest. One law enforcement agency has found 50 new militia training groups — one of them made up of present and former police officers and soldiers. Authorities around the country are reporting a worrying uptick in Patriot activities and propaganda. “This is the most significant growth we’ve seen in 10 to 12 years,” says one. “All it’s lacking is a spark. I think it’s only a matter of time before you see threats and violence.”

The organized opposition to Healthcare Reform, which keeps burning with greater intensity as we approach Labor Day, appears to be that spark.  At the heart of the opposition figuratively stands a small group of people, much like a group of dull-witted 9-year-olds, each possessing a matchbook, eagerly flicking matches at a nearby gasoline pond,  determined to make a “big boom” irregardless of consequences.   Meanwhile, the elected “leadership” that opposes meaningful Healthcare Reform appears to lack any mettle or sense of responsibility needed to rein-in the mounting hysteria among their rank-and-file constituents.  (Hats off to Sen. John McCain for at least making this awkward attempt.)

These are the very signs that speak to the significant need and the achievable goal of enacting at least the opening stage of Healthcare Reform.  The effort thus far has been able to strike such a formidable blow against the Corporate Confederation that they’re resorting to extreme measures to create fear and uncertainty.  If violence results, well, they’re likely to feel some regret, while also likely feeling that such things must happen if their system is to be protected.

As we approach Labor Day, we find ourselves in a place similar to those who have historically had to put it all on the line to bring needed justice and change to our society.

Like these folks on a 5-day walk to Montgomery, AL:

Or like these folks in a 44-day sit-down strike in Flint, MI.

Their risk-taking and their sacrifices made in non-violent displays of solidarity overcame the fear-mongering, hate and violence brought against them.  It can be that way again, if enough people can grab hold of courage and not let go.

Such is the legacy of Sen. Ted Kennedy.  After assassins murdered his two brothers, he resisted the strong urge to abandon politics.   He endured and persevered through the shame and degradation he brought upon himself in the tragic moral lapse we’ve come to describe simply as Chappaquiddick.   Teddy was both sinner and saint:  seeking to gratify his own egotistical desires in the first condition; while in the second condition struggling to achieve better lives for millions of people he never would know or meet.   He did the best he could to live as the standard-bearer for the 20th century political movement  personified by the three Kennedy brothers.

We, who are also living in the duality of sinner and saint, ought to be reluctant to put Ted Kennedy’s image on a sole pedestal in either realm.   We can, however, look to his legacy of courage–displayed most greatly perhaps when he appeared to be in his greatest physical and political decline.  He never gave up, and neither should we.

Have courage.  The journey continues, and it’s worth taking, no matter what.

What’s So Great About the ELCA (continued)

Bishop Allan preaching at Rocky Mountain Synod Assembly, El Paso, TX (photo by Dale Horkey)

You get to experience sermons like this one, preached by Bishop Allan Bjornberg during closing worship at Churchwide Assembly.   Click here to listen.

It’s all about the punctuation.  Period.

A Baptist Perspective on Healthcare Reform

Dr. David Gushee, writing for the Associated Press Associated Baptist Press, offers a Christian perspective on the moral imperative for reform.   (Associated Baptist Press?)

(ABP) — The national debate raging over health-care reform has become a maelstrom of competing claims and counterclaims. It has been deeply infected by political demagoguery and hysteria.

The tenor of the debate raises the legitimate question as to whether our nation still has the capacity to tackle an enormously complex policy challenge such as this one. Each day we spend millions of dollars to defeat external threats — but if we cannot address our own domestic problems any more effectively than this, then it will not be al Qaeda that undoes us.

The primary Christian interest in health-care reform is the moral imperative to extend adequate health care to all of our nation’s people. Why is health-care access a moral imperative? Choose your Scripture text or your moral theory, but they all point in the same direction:

Those of us who enjoy access to health care could try a Golden Rule test, and ask whether we are doing unto others as we would have them do unto us if we do not fight for health care for those who do not have it. Is this how we would like our children to be treated when they are sick?

We could work from Jesus’ teaching of “love your neighbor as yourself” and ask whether we can simultaneously love a neighbor and not care if they die from a treatable disease because they cannot pay for care.

We could work from a theology of human rights that includes bodily rights, which includes a right to health care — at least in societies such as our own that have the capacity to deliver health care.

We could speak of basic principles of distributive justice in regard to the goods needed for a decent life in a community, and note the obvious fact that the unjust maldistribution of health care in this country is a huge national scandal and an affront to the God of justice.

We could focus on Scripture’s concern for the poor and the demand that they be provided for, and then link poverty and lack of adequate health care — for these are linked every day, in deadly ways, here.

The national debate over health-care reform has lost, or never developed, a truly moral focus. It has not been treated as the great moral crusade that it is. To find a way to extend quality health care to 50 million Americans who do not currently have it would be an extraordinary moral victory for this country. But except around the fearful edges of the debate — “pulling the plug on grandma,” “death panels,” abortion — the moral case has been muted, shouted down, abandoned or never made.

A word must be said about these most extreme fears. In my view they reflect some combination of honest grassroots-level misunderstandings of complex policy issues — misunderstandings that are often fed by purposeful misrepresentations by activists seeking to derail health-care reform or to deal Barack Obama a setback. Such misunderstandings have been enabled to some extent by a lack of message clarity on the part of those advocating various pieces of reform legislation.

No American Congress will pass health-care legislation with Nazi-type euthanasia panels. No one will start surreptitiously pulling the plug on grandma. And if some contingent tries to slip in expansion of taxpayer funding for abortion into the final bill, it will lose my support and that of many others.

It must be observed, however, that for a certain contingent of American Christians, issues only become “moral issues” at the edges of life — at the beginning and the end. Providing health care for 50 million people is not itself viewed as a moral imperative; the issue only becomes morally significant if it might, somehow, just maybe, lead to more abortion or to euthanasia. Is it not possible for Christians to care both about people getting health care when they need it, and about abortion and euthanasia?  Once again we see how important it is that Christians develop a holistic, comprehensive sanctity-of-life ethic concerned about human well-being from womb to tomb — and everywhere in between.

I have argued that extension of health-care access is a great moral imperative. I have also argued that it must not, cannot, and — as far as I can see — is not being purchased at the price of succumbing to euthanasia or taxpayer-funded abortion. It also seems clear to me that gaining this expanded access to health care at a reasonable price to the taxpayer, business and the federal budget is a highly important prudential goal.

Which kinds of reform strategies will be the most effective at extending coverage to the most people at the least additional cost are questions best left to those who have the expertise to make informed judgments on such matters. But that we need something like the health-care legislation now struggling through Congress seems to me very clear on Christian grounds.

-30-

David Gushee is distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University.

What’s So Great About The ELCA

1.  We’re finally beginning to make those connections between brand identity and evangelism.

more about “Television – Evangelical Lutheran Chu…“, posted with vodpod

2.  Pastor Bob just had a nifty article published in “The Lutheran.”  Here’s an excerpt:

Lutheranism was the flagship of the 16th-century Protestant Reformation, which opened the gates of exodus from the Roman Catholic Church. As millions of people left Catholicism, they embarked on a road away from what they disliked about religion. But not all were so sure where they were going. Some became as legalistic and controlling as Catholicism by prohibiting the use of statues, icons and stained-glass windows because they feared divine status would be given to these images. They proclaimed infant baptism ineffective, claiming true baptism can only occur when a person is old enough to choose Christ as Lord and Savior. Martin Luther wasn’t impressed and referred to these people as “radical reformers,” saying they had “swallowed the Holy Spirit feathers and all!”

Today Lutheranism calls this “decision theology” — where the act of deciding for Christ is viewed as a “good work” or “works righteousness.” Decision theology puts God’s grace under the power of human decision.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.  I had forgotten (maybe missed completely!) the quote from Luther about the Holy Spirit.  It will be hard now to be in conversation with modern proponents of decision theology without imagining a few feathers sticking out of their mouths.   Of course, I might also want to check and see exactly what might be tickling under my own nose from time to time!  Thanks, Bob.

Gay Response to Lutheran Vote: Define Monogamy

The can of worms is now officially opened.

tmatt, posting at GetReligion, responds to the recent vote at the ELCA Churchwide Assembly to allow for the ordination and service of openly gay/lesbian clergy in monogamous, same-sex relationships.  He writes that monogamy is defined differently in different cultural groups.  The traditional “twin rocking chairs” view of monogamy is only one viewpoint held by gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

First of all, there are gay theologians whose definition of this term is very traditional, arguing that gay unions are forever and that those taking vows must remain sexually faithful to one another. Twin rocking chairs forever.

Then, there are those who, in effect, say that “monogamy” essentially means serial monogamy (this, of course, is the definition used by most heterosexuals today in a culture rooted in easy divorce). In other words, things happen and relationships break up. However, partners are supposed to be sexually faithful to one another while the relationship lasts. Twin rocking chairs for right now.

Finally, some say that gay, lesbian and bisexual Christians can be “emotionally” faithful to a partner, while having sexual experiences with other people — secondary relationships that do not threaten the primary, “monogamous” relationship. The twin rocking chairs are symbolic.

There are, of course, lesbigay theologians who reject monogamy and almost all other traditional limits on sexual experience. Take, for example, the trailblazing Episcopal priest and seminary professor Carter Heyward, author of books such as “Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the Love of God.”

ELCA Bishop Hanson’s Pastoral Message From the Churchwide Assembly

After the ministry policies vote on Friday evening, Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson delivered the following message:

I want to share some words. As one you have called to serve as pastor of this church, I have been standing here thinking about my 23 years as a parish pastor and how differently I would go into various contexts. Gathering with a family or a group of people who had just experienced loss, or who perhaps were wondering if they still belonged, or in fact felt deeply that ones to whom they belong had been severed from them, I would probably turn to words such as Romans 8:  “Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? . . . .For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:34–35, 38–39).

But then I thought, what if I were going into a family, a group, or a community that had always wondered if they belonged, and suddenly now had received a clear affirmation that they belonged? All of the wondering about the dividing walls and feelings of separation seem to have dropped away. That would be a very different conversation. I would probably read to them out of Ephesians:  “But now in Christ Jesus, you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh, he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. . . . .In him, the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God” (Ephesians 2:13–14, 21–22).

But then I thought, what if those two groups were together, but also in their midst were those who had neither experienced loss nor the feeling of the dividing wall of separation coming down, but were worried whether all that had occurred might sever the unity that is ours in Christ, and might be wondering if their actions might have contributed to reconciliation or separation? If all those people were together in a room, I would read from Colossians: “As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.  And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teach and admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude in your hearts, sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:12–17).

That passage gives invitation and expectation that those deeply disappointed today will have the expectation and the freedom to continue to admonish and to teach in this church.  And so, too, those who have experienced reconciliation today are called to humility. You are called to clothe yourselves with love.  But we are all called to let the peace of Christ rule in our hearts, remembering again and again that we are called in the one body. I will invite you tomorrow afternoon into important, thoughtful, prayerful conversations about what all of this means for our life together. But what is absolutely important for me is that we have the conversation together.  I ended my oral report with these words: “We finally meet one another not in our agreements or our disagreements, but at the foot of the cross, where God is faithful, where Christ is present with us, and where, by the power of the Holy Spirit, we are one in Christ.”

Let us pray. Oh, God, gracious and holy, mysterious and merciful, we meet this day at the foot of the cross, and there we kneel in gratitude and awe that you have loved us so much that you would give the life of your son so that we might have life in his name. Send your Spirit this night, the Spirit of the risen Christ that has been breathed into us. May it calm us. May your Spirit unite us. May it continue to gather us. In Jesus’ name,  AMEN.

If the Apostle Peter had been a Biblical Fundamentalist

Chapter 10, verses 9 and following, in the chronicle of the Acts of the Apostles might have unfolded this way:

Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. Then he heard a voice saying, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat.’ But Peter said, ‘By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.’ The voice said to him again, a second time, ‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’

But Peter responded, “It is written in Leviticus, chapter 11 and Deuteronomy, chapter 14, that eating these creatures is an abomination.  I will not eat.”

The voice said again, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat.”  But Peter refused, saying, “I am a man of God, kept by the Word of God.  It is written in Deuteronomy 27:26, ‘Cursed be anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by observing them.’  I will not eat.”

The voice said again, “Peter, again, I’m telling you that these creatures are not profane.  Get up, Peter, kill and eat.”  Again Peter refused.  “The scriptures call this a great abomination.  I will not.”

“Peter,” said the voice, “God is doing a new thing and you are part of it.  You’ve been given this vision to prepare you for a visit by emissaries from a man I want you to go visit.  His name is Cornelius.”  Peter stroked his beard.  “That does not sound like the name of a circumcised man of God,” he replied.  “What is his trade?”

The voice, inflected with a barely perceptible trace of irritation, replied, “He is a centurion, of the Roman cohort, but a God-fearing…..”  Peter cut in with a shout: “Occupier!  Foreign devil!  Tool of Satan!  Idolater!  Blasphemer!  Never will I profane myself with the company of such as that one!  I am a man of God!”

“Peter,” said the voice, “I Am the Lord, your God, the God of your ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  I Am the God of Jesus, your messiah, whom you saw crucified and resurrected.  I Am the God whose Spirit filled you at Pentecost.  Now, prepare yourself for the journey to Cornelius’ house.  He and his household are ready to be received into the great household I am making in Christ.”

“Lord—if you really are the Lord,” said Peter, “what must I do?  I do not have the skills to circumcise them as your scriptures plainly require.  Is this why you brought me to Simon the tanner’s house?  Should I bring him along to do it?”

“I want you to baptize them with water and with the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus instructed you to do” said the voice.  Peter’s eyes flashed with recognition.  “Yes, I remember the instruction.  Then afterwards do we circumcise them, me and Simon, whom you’ve sent me to in order that he might do this task more familiar to his trade?”

“No circumcision, Peter,” replied the voice.  “Just baptism.”

“But, Lord—if you really are the Lord—it’s written that those who are chosen to be your people must be circumcised and must abide by your law–your holy, inerrant, written word– taught and handed down to us since the time of Moses.  Jesus himself was circumcised and was brought up in this inerrant word of life.”  Peter was on a roll, now, as he reached back into his Bible for the coup de grâce.  “As it is written in Psalm 1: ‘Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread, or sit in the seat of scoffers; but their delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law they meditate day and night.’”

There was a sheer stillness as somewhere, there was a pondering of circumstances.

“Peter,” said the voice, “forget about it.  Go back to sleep.  When you awake, go, return to Jerusalem and live among your own people.  I’ll get Paul to handle this one.”

ELCA Churchwide Assembly Adopts Human Sexuality Statement

By a 2/3 vote, delegates to the ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly meeting in Minneapolis yesterday adopted the social statement, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.  You can find it here.

This statement was developed through church-wide discussion over a period of years and is the result of a mandate from the 2001 Churchwide Assembly that the ELCA develop a social statement on human sexuality.

The statement is comprehensive and grounded on core Lutheran principles.  The most intriguing of these is the notion of mutual respect for the “bound conscience.”  An explanation can be accessed at the link given above.

The statement does not address proposed revisions to the ELCA’s understanding of who can and cannot serve on the active clergy roster.

But the statement is a thorough, well-thought-out and well-crafted document that speaks to the divergent positions held within the diversity of the ELCA.  It also moves the church forward, and makes a strong statement against any sort of discrimination or persecution of people because of their sexual identity.   It also condemns any and all sexual exploitation.  Some may bristle at the statement’s seemingly prudish opposition to cohabitation and to casual sex.  But when read in context, such a position is congruent with the overall message that human sexuality is a precious gift from the Creator that is to be cherished and valued, even when we cannot agree on its manifestations among people of the same gender.