Who does God Love More, Republicans or Gays?

I thought the title would get your attention. It is a contraversial topic that I will try to deal with sensitively - but don't be surprised if you disagree with me. This argument is from the Christian point of view and makes some assumptions that are not here argued (primarily the rationale behind the right/wrongness of homosexuality).

While conducting a Bible discussion recently a brother professed his support for former President Bush. I was initially baffled because I very rarely met any non-American or Black person who supported Bush. His reasoning was faith-based; Bush opposed gay marriage and Republicans are statedly pro-life in the abortion debate.  The developments in California in particular have shown that many Christians (and Afro-Americans as the case may be) will support the conservative values espoused by the Republican party.

This was kind of a shock at first - I couldn't imagine supporting Bush under any circumstance. The fact that he may share a couple ideals that reflect the position of some faiths or individual religious adherents, just isn't enough for me to jump on his band wagon - I suppose I should tell you why.

Firstly, politics is not all about faith, and the brand of democracy and capitalism practiced by the Bush administration was about nothing more than money. In fact, money seemed to be so important that an unjust war was started to get more of it, or so it would seem. The lack of credibility and integrity of the Bush administration supersedes any moral stance he may take. It's like a accepting a rotten banana split with maggots and raw fish because it has fresh whipped cream on top...kinda.

If you asked me what I prefer - married gay people or the Iraq War - I say ring the wedding bells! Some Christians might have been happy about Bush's anti-gay position but consider which has done more harm - gays or the War? The gays in question are consenting adults - the Iraqis who have been killed had no say in the decision to invade their once sovereign nation. Oil companies have posted record profits (spurred on by the instability created through the Iraq war) and American contractors (Haliburton and Blackwater for example) have made millions through reconstruction projects in Iraq. And Bush went on to cut taxes for oil companies only increasing their profit margins.

In my opinion, to support Bush on two points is to ignore a great deal of very questionable decisions and positions that are distractingly un-Christian. Further, politics itself is not a happy partner for religion, and while I have my own personal convictions I have no right to force others to abide by them.

But more on gay marriage. I am not particulary opposed to it for a couple reasons. Gays marrying each other won't make them more gay or more wrong according to Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine teaches that homosexuality is wrong - that is the sin. If they marry each other they won't be comitting an extra or bonus sin, but they will have rights available to them that are now withheld. Gay marriage, in my mind, is not a moral battle but a social one about rights and equality under the law. The spiritual aspect would need be dealt with in the appropriate context. I don't believe I have a right to judge those who make no claim to my faith. The only point where I feel I have authority to challenge someone on their morality with regard to changing behaviour, is if they claim to adhere to Biblical teaching or wish to adhere to it.

This points to another issue: the dehumanization of homosexuals. I am not here challenging Biblical doctrine on homosexuality but the attitude toward homosexuals often demonstrated by the Church as a collective. This may shock some but here goes: homosexuals are human too! Angrily condeming a community from a distance is easy - but put a face, name and relationship to that community and the game changes, especially if said face has never uttered a negative word about your faith and beliefs and is a really generous and good natured person. Am I saying Christian doctrine should change? No. I am saying that attitude should.

I cannot relate to homosexual desire and that fact may colour my view of the sin as more repulsive than others. But does God grade sin the way we do? Does He struggle to love homosexuals but look at George Bush and say 'well he doesn't like gays so he can't be all that bad'? I don't think so. If we are to imitate God we have to deal with people impartially. The notion that all gays can be 'cured', for example, can be more harmful than helpful to those who may wish to convert. Doubtless some have left the behaviour and desire behind while others may find it a part of themselves for life. Either way, grace is offered to them in the same portions as any heterosexual with the according desires.

A note on the 'causes' of homosexuality. I believe to say that no homosexual is thusly oriented due to some biological disposition is as simplistic as saying all are. I don't consider the orientation natural - if it was it would be more common than 10% of the population - but I do think there are times when it is far more complex than we understand. I do think there are a variety of issues to consider (social, psychological, relational, biological etc.) and a combination thereof. To oversimplify the issue may also lead to oversimplifying the approach toward the people involved.

More can be said on the issue and while we may disagree it doesn't mean we have to be hostile about it. If my brothers and sisters wish to support Bush or a Republican stance it is their choice to do so - that should not divide a spiritual family. In the end, as surprising as it may seem, God loves us all unconditionally and equally; gays, straights and yes - W - which might be harder to believe than anything else. ;O)

BUT SERIOUSLY: Men, Women & Love

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Now the reactions to this passage usually revolve around revulsion, incredulity, disgust, fear, and if you're a man, happiness - with convenient misinterpretation. But like many scriptures it is widely misunderstood. I'm not an expert on the Bible, but my intutition tells me that the Bible is not just a book of rules or commands, but an insightful text that points out facts about human and Divine nature and how both those things 'work'.

In my opinion, this passage is telling us about the most basic but profound needs of men and women in the love relationship. The person with the most power (and responsibility) over you on earth is the one with whom you are in love. They have the potential to hurt and/or inspire you more deeply than any other person.

Now each Biblical role is seriously challenging, submission for women and total self-sacrifice for men. But something tells me that a woman would have little trouble entrusting herself (and that is what I believe submission to be) to a man she felt completely loved by and who would die for her. Likewise, I can't imagine any reasonable man would hesitate to lay down his life for a woman he felt genuinely respected him and demonstrated loyalty and devotion.

It is my belief that the last sentence of the excerpt is the core statrement: men above all else desire respect, and women above all else desire love and affection. Both are experessions of love, but each incarnation is an articulation in accordance with the way the respective genders consume love.

Women look for a man they can respect, who knows how and when to 'put his foot down' with anyone - including her, but is also considerate and gentle though firm and strong in character. A man loves a strong and outspoken woman who wants to uplift rather than compete against him - who will 'be on his side' and truly believe in him.

We are in the realm of the ideal right now - so clearly this passage is proposing the goal and aspiration. Men may balk at the idea that such a woman exists and women laugh at the possibility of such a prince. But as much as we sometimes fall - sometimes we are this ideal. The idea would be to become this ideal more of the time than not - and that will take not just time but intent, effort, practice and yes - Divine intervention. The built in failsafe is that each role is meant to compensate for the reality of human frailty.

If you give thought to some of the central conflicts of the man/woman relationship they revolve around issues of love and respect - usually surfacing through communication. It would take a profound sense of security and self-confidence to fulfil either of these roles. A sense of security and strength that would not find its genesis in the relationship itself but, I believe, from the Divine and from within the individual. A relationship that demonstrates fluency in the stated direction is one where each individual is bringing that peace, security, confidence, strength and Divine connection to the table. And one can only get what one pursues.

Issues of authority and leadership also arise and make this passage ever more controversial. But ask yourself if fighting for 'control' ever made you happy. Then ask yourself is having complete control ever made your partner happy. For both men and women the issue is not control - it's surrender.

The roles outlined by the scripture, in my opinion, relate to the natural needs of the parties rather than enforcing some unnatural order. One can assume the roles imply silence and non-participation for the woman and complete control and lordship for the man - but that would be a mistake. However, if that's what one wants it may be what one gets. Either way, for any relationship to work there must be an agreed order of some kind with which both parties are happy. No order, no plan, no agreement will lead to more conflict - disorder always does. Leadership doesn't imply superiority but responsibility and servanthood and any sensible leader will recognize the strengths (and weaknesses) of those in his care. Indeed the kind of leadership that scripture advocates subordinates the needs of the leader for the needs of those in his care.

The problem is the 'you first' mindset. If no one wants to fulfil their role until they are sure the other does so first - then there will be an impasse; constant conflict. So, if one person fails the other withdraws their offer of respect or love, as the case may be. Or one partner spends more time pointing out the other's responsibility rather than fulfilling her own. If one does not consider their partner worthy of self-sacrifice or respect then one should consider the future, value or at least purpose of the relationship (perhaps it is purely for entertainment or self-satisfaction).

Now, when we bring weighty issues like abuse, infidelity/adultery, apathy and such into the discussion, things get more complicated. Not every relationship works out and it can't be fun to be in a one-sided affair. But if our actions and attitudes are completely dependent on another, then who is really in control? Perhaps if we pursued the kind of very profound Divine confidence, that no mortal can give to us, our relationships would benefit profoundly.

It is my belief that virtues like respect and love are not things you do - but things you are. And wherever you go and whomever you go with, there you are.

Women, Woe, Men & God

It was when I became a Christian back in '92 that I heard about this 'women must be submissive to men' business. It threw me into an uncomfortably confusing world that perhaps, 17 years later and some 7 years into marriage, has only just begun to make sense - only just...I think.

Now Paul mentions in 1 Timothy 2 that ' 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.' Calm down. I didn't write this - call Paul up and shout at him (there's context - but that's another note).

Then there are the passages on wives respecting husbands and husbands being the 'head of the house' etc. Now I heard these scriptures - but the confusing thing was what I saw. I have yet to meet an actual 'submissive' woman (I hear they exist but I don't believe it) - and back in my single days the wives always seemed to be in charge and to have the last word - the husband, as head of house, deemed his wife correct! I silently vowed to myself that I would not be such a husband. However, what made me even more disturbed and annoyed was that I always found the least submissive of women to be the most attractive - so I married one.

Now my wife was not in on my 'silent vow' so she hasn't paid any attention to it whatsoever - and since it completely slipped my mind to tell her my plan - well, I'm just going with the flow. But I was decidedly befuddled as a young man and young Christian as to what this submission was all about. Should I expect the women to wash my car on demand? Should they fawn at my feet and say that I am right even when I am obviously wrong? If I was about to walk into the street and into the path of an oncoming Tata bus; should they remain 'in quietness and full submission'? After all, as a man I clearly must know exactly what I am doing...right?

Well, since then I've come to a few conclusions - none of these conclusions apply to my wife, unless of course they are happy ones, and any resemblance to her is purely coincidental. At any rate I am being forced to write all this by some dude with a high-powered weapon that is dictating everything to me.

Ahem:

1. It WAS Eve's fault. Yes it was and I make no apologies. It has come to my attention that women think they are smarter than men at all times. It has also come to my attention that women are in fact smarter than men at all times. Eve should have known better - Adam was a complete idiot. This was confirmed when watching a UK TV show about pre-teen children sent to live on their own for two weeks. In innocence, a couple of them liked each other and started 'dating' (they are no more than 10 y/o). The undue attention caused the girl to do the most sensible thing and conspire with the boy to pretend they had broken up publicly and proceed to date 'secretly'. It was all her idea. A boy would never have even begun to think this - we are not smart enough. Later we discovered that she already had a boyfriend. Sigh. IT WAS EVE'S FAULT.

2. Men will do anything to get a woman to shut up...including make her happy. Yes, it's true. But women know it's true. Nagging is an age-old technique to getting what she wants, and in lieu of the man doing the right thing ad libitum, she must talk incessantly until he does it. After the 4th year, 3rd if she is proficient, a man will do almost anything to get her to stop talking for as long as possible. If the woman is made happy as a result of his efforts to get her to stop talking - this is only a pleasant side effect. Now we know why Adam ate the fruit. See point 1.

3. The most confusing and dangerous moment in the Universe is when a woman asks her man 'What do YOU think/want?'. Most men know that the woman does not want to know what he thinks/wants...or does she? His experience will tell him that she only wants to know if he knows what she thinks/wants. The seconds in which he deliberates what it is she REALLY wants to know are the most painful in a man's life. He must determine whether he will be talked at for not knowing what she thinks (by saying 'I don't know') or for not caring what she thinks by insensitively expressing an opinion different from hers aka his own opinion. How very dare him... I mean us. By far, the safest answer (since you asked) is 'whatever you want/think'. However, this will work for only a limited time.

4. Women are experts at deceiving...themselves. The illustration in point 1 would have already helped. Men are liars - but they absolutely suck at it. Women, on the other hand have perfected the art. But what makes a woman a good liar is that she genuinely believes what she is saying, as a lie, to be the truth (hence all women reading this have no idea what I'm talking about). This is also what makes women right most of the time - they have the ability to change the parameters of correctness to suit their conclusions. Amazing. I'm beginning to seriously doubt if there was snake in the tree and that it said anything at all to Eve. Indeed, if there was a snake in the tree it was minding its own business. But if you were to ask Eve if there was a snake and it told her to eat the fruit she would say 'yes' and pass a lie detector test to boot. That said, the fruit has been eaten and we are now in a grand cosmic mess. Adam still continues to be an idiot and somewhere in creation there is a very offended snake.

5. All wars are caused by women. Shakespeare (via Macbeth) and the the Iliad (Helen of Troy/Trojan War) prove this point, if at least theoretically. You don't have to believe me but I guarantee it's true. Wars are generally fought by men for money and power - money and power are for getting things done - women want things done. Consequentially, the Iraq war was a result of Bush doing his best to get his wife to stop talking. See point 2.

6. God is having a good laugh...and then a good cry.

Even in nature, the female of the species is the more aggressive and usually does most of the nesting, feeding, raring, hunting etc. Take lions, the females do the hunting and raring of the cubs. The males however, rule the pride based on their decidedly more stylish hairdo and larger size. But the females get the job done.

Why all the submission for women then? Well, men need it - their self-esteem and masculinity depend on it. And since there is no woman known to man who will be submissive on purpose, well we have to at least present the illusion of it. As the saying goes 'the man is the head, but the woman is the neck that nods/shakes the head'.

Anyway, the dude with the high-powered weapon wants me to get him something to eat. Till next time.

C. Arthur Young