Category Archives: David’s Blogs

I felt the need to weigh in on this controversial subject as soon as I heard about the new laws passed in North Carolina’s House Bill 2.  For those of you, perhaps living in a different part of the world, who have missed the furore arising from this legislation, let me explain.  North Carolina’s legislature took  it upon themselves to pass a law making it mandatory for its citizens only to use public bathrooms designated for their anatomical gender of birth.  The implication of this ruling was clearly designed to target transgender people wishing to use a bathroom associated with the gender with which they most strongly identify.  My immediate reaction to this development was to recall the discriminatory bathrooms of the apartheid era in South Africa, which I witnessed first hand on visits in the 80’s.  The exclusion of people of color from ‘white only’ bathrooms was apparently a feature of the deep south in the US not so many decades ago.  For the record, it is important to point out here that the law only applies to state owned bathrooms and not public bathrooms associated with private businesses.

But, to be fair, what were the salient reasons for passing such a law, and do they stand up to scrutiny?  Or is there another agenda at work here, and if so, what is it?  From all the research I have been able to do on what has become a ‘hot topic’ in the news feeds, it seems the predominant reason for this bill, presented by those in favor, is the protection of the general public from sexual predators and perverts able to operate in an inappropriate environment, i.e. a bathroom reserved for the ‘opposite sex’.  The other reason seems to revolve around a socially conservative agenda adopting a ‘bunker’ mentality when it comes to recognizing the shift in definition of gender roles.  As one commentator observed, ‘the train has already left the station’, and North Carolina’s stance simply highlights a rather old fashioned clinging to ‘Christian’ morals and social mores that are clearly not shared by a majority of the population of the US.

First of all, the argument that preserving birth sex only bathrooms provides protection against the actions of sexual predators seems, on the face of it, an admirable measure.  However, on further reflection, it seems to me that the issue we are dealing with here is the act of sexual predation, whether male or female and involving either gender.  What is to stop a man preying on young boys or indeed a woman doing the same with her own sex?  I am as keen as anyone to see the devastating effects of such abuse diminished, and the law, medical profession, social workers etc., who deal with such abuse should receive maximum support for anything that will help in this respect.  However, it seems the incidence of transgender people being involved in such activities is virtually zero, and paradoxically,  it is the transgender community who face far more abuse and even violent discrimination rather than the other way round.

Whilst I respect the social conservative fear of an erosion of so called ‘moral values’, the concern I have over this stance is this recurring theme of control over those who don’t agree or conform to their version of human behaviour.  I have seen the same attitude expressed towards the gay community with the desire to use legislation to prevent gay marriage.  I understand that some parents just don’t want to explain to their 7 year old daughter why a person with a beard is in the ladies bathroom.  But, whilst respecting those who wish to maintain more traditional values, there is no room for condemning or discriminating against those who choose otherwise.  And, we cannot bury our heads in the sand for ever.  Surely it would be better to explain to those who are growing up what the world really looks like and how a culture of tolerance and acceptance would go far in enhancing the world they are likely to grow up in.  I might not understand why someone chooses to reject their anatomical birth gender and prefer to associate with the opposite sex, but the fact is, this is not as rare as many might think.  It is also a dangerous throw back to darker days of discrimination, when any minority gender, race, religion or sexual persuasion are forced to conform to the wishes of those who secretly disapprove and seek to control them through force of targeted legislation.

Well, I have spent quite some time over the last week pondering the issue of ambiguity and with particular reference to religious dogma.  I use the word religious dogma advisedly, as although my treatise will focus primarily on Christianity, the insistence that most beliefs are black and white seems to be common across the religious landscape.  So where am I going with this?  For a long time, I would describe my own position on what I believed as somewhere between right and arrogant!  Despite the overwhelming number of different views on so many aspects of my belief system, I somehow persuaded myself at an early age that my views were the correct ones.  For example, back in my days in the Anglican church, when I took issue with the whole premise of infant baptism, I was unable to compromise my views for the sake of remaining in communion with friends I had made there, and subsequently ended up starting a new splinter group or as we called it, ‘church’.

Since the reformation, and the advent of the overarching ‘authority’ of the ‘word of God’, the number of splinter groups and denominational groupings has swelled to almost infinite proportions.  As I journey down the streets of the US, the plethora of church names sported gives testimony to the strength of division arising from diverse interpretations of this ‘word of God’.  Perhaps one of the most divisive and fundamental of these divisions revolves around two competing ideologies known as Calvanism and Arminianism.  The first posits a lack of individual freedom to choose but puts the onus on God himself to be the arbiter of our salvation, the latter affirms the opposite and claims the individual is in full control of their eternal destiny.  Rather than attempting an impossible reconciliation of these two tenets of faith, the Christian world is largely divided between the adherents of one or the other.  I once attempted to explain this dichotomy with a picture portraying the journey of the seeker responding to these words ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved’ on one side of a bridge.  As this same individual walks under the bridge, they turn round only to see written on the back side, ‘You were chosen before the foundation of the earth’.

Yes, you are right, this does not adequately explain a logical co-existence of the two, but attempts a clever visual to accommodate and unite them.  But what if they are both true, its just our human logic is unable to incorporate them into our black and white logic.  Frankly, I struggle to understand how entities can exist in more than one place at the same time, a fairly recent phenomenon belonging to the expanding physics of quantum theory.  What gives us the idea that we can somehow define the being/concept we call ‘God’ in our own terms and especially through the oh so limited words of the bible.  How do we accommodate the expanding knowledge of scientific discovery with the seeming contradiction of what we read in the scriptures?

What if, instead of an attitude of black and white insistence that we ‘know the truth’, we adopted an acceptance of ambiguity that acknowledged our inability to define everything in black and white terms and gave credence to those with whom we might have a difference of opinion?  Would this not give way to a much greater humility towards others, and a broader more encompassing acceptance of those we don’t understand.  Just as Darwin’s ‘Origin of the Species’ was never intended to deny the existence of God, but open our eyes to just how our world might have been ‘created’, embracing ambiguity allows us to expand our horizons and incorporate so many fascinating new discoveries about the world we live in.  It would also open the way for greater unity and acceptance in our relationships with others, surely one of the greatest positives deriving from the teachings of Jesus himself.

I see nothing wrong with having opinions, even strong ones, as long as we recognize they are just that, opinions.  Much of what is touted as ‘fact’ or ‘truth’ in the mouths of those who speak for so many branches of religion has no basis in scientific or even logical thought, but relies on an inerrant and fool-proof reading of words, though inspired, which contradict themselves at so many turns.  I for one have a growing ease with not understanding everything, but enjoying that which edifies and uplifts, even when it comes from sources with which I would not naturally ally myself.  I continue to have strong opinions about what I believe, but have slowly come to realize that, in the words of my one time Anglican Rector, if you are truly open to ambiguity and have a desire to learn, you may discover ‘All kinds of good things’ along the way.

So, I had a short break to recharge the thought processes, during which time I visited the dentist in Mexico; long story!  Anyway, whilst sitting in the torture room ante-chamber, I was able to hold some interesting conversations with the inmates.  One particular lady was intently reading her bible but took time out to hold forth on her views regarding the US election circus.  She was very quick to convince me of her qualifications in this respect.  She was a doctor with 3 degrees and was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that, in her words, ‘Donald Trump is the only hope for America.’

Now, don’t get me wrong, I have already made the comment that I understand why there is such a surge of support for this unlikely candidate.  For too many years now, the general public, I believe, has sensed that the career politicians supposedly representing them are generally acting in self-interest.  The recent lifting of restrictions on campaign contributions have resulted in the democratic interests of the masses being subsumed by the interests of the wealthy oligarchy that supports them.  Constant wrangling between the democratically elected president and a hostile congress have resulted in little political change or meaningful progress for many years.  The rise of Donald Trump and the unlikely Democrat, Bernie Sanders stem from a simmering dissatisfaction with the status quo.

What is truly difficult to understand, is the weight of support, typified by the passing conversation in the dentist’s waiting room, given by so many ‘Christians’ to Mr Trump.  Mr Trump recognizes this, and has sought to appeal to this substantial base, resulting in the Pope’s denouncement of his ‘Christian’ credentials.  I spent quite some time over the last few days seeking an explanation for why those who profess to follow a creed that has love and acceptance as its mainstay would throw their endorsements behind a man who represents intolerance, wants to exclude people by race or religion and in many ways stands in complete contrast to the message preached by Jesus.  Jesus himself showed amazing counter-cultural tolerance in his dealings with the woman at the well in John chapter 4 and disappointed his more zealous followers in his tacit support of their Roman overlords.

Unfortunately, since 9/11, it seems that alongside money, the predominant driver behind people’s political choices seems to be fear and self interest and preservation of a way of life.  Mr Trump and others on the right know how to exploit this fear, and use it to drum up support for their political movements.  For a long time now, the Republican right in the US have recognized the huge advantage in courting the church goers of the US with their stance on black and white moral issues that sway this subset of the electorate.  Abortion and gay marriage are probably the two most prominent influencers behind the religious right’s predominant Republican base.  It is remarkable that in eight years of a G W Bush presidency, clearly the religious right’s choice, there was no major change in the abortion laws, and the stage was set for gay marriage to be legalized at a federal level.

Driven by fear of terrorism, we see many on the religious right seduced by the push to exclude Mexicans and Muslims from the US.  Driven by irrational fear of a military government takeover, the protection of freedoms around the ownership of firearms seems completely contrary to the message of Jesus.  He urged his followers to ‘love your enemies’, ‘turn the other cheek’ and even rebuked his friend Peter when he used a sword to cut of the ear of one who had come to arrest him on false charges.  Lastly, a tacit support for the neoliberal economic mores of the Right are slowly eroding the living standards of the poorest and allowing the very small percentage of the very rich to dictate the political agenda.  In many ways, we should be more fearful of their agenda as those who are supposed to represent us all seem increasingly in its grip.

And so, although the famous words of the bible urge us that ‘Perfect love drives out fear’, I am beginning to think that fear does indeed determine much of the current political endorsement.  Unfortunately, most of us are swayed in our political endorsements by our own self – interest.  I see little evidence of a movement that seeks to put the common good above the individual, sacrifices for those who are less fortunate and is driven by a desire to embrace and welcome rather than exclude.  After all, isn’t the whole point of politics to work out how we can all best live together.  I think those of us who profess to follow that young radical from two thousand years ago need to do some serious thinking about where we are throwing our support.

“If you don’t love me, there will be consequences!”  said the husband to the wife.  And how would any wife respond to this?  I suspect this approach would not result in an appropriate mutual expression of love or become the foundation for a lasting, loving relationship.  And yet, isn’t this an integral part of the message being proclaimed by evangelicals the world over?  If you love me you will go to heaven, if you don’t, you will be condemned to eternal torment in hell.  For some background on my views on the whole heaven and hell issue, read my last ‘Thought Provoking Thursday’ piece.  Today, I wish to look at a slightly different aspect that goes to the heart of a message that has troubled me for a long time.

As you will gather from my previous posts, I do not believe heaven and hell are literal places, but rather concepts that describe our lives and experiences.  I also believe that the impact of what Jesus said and did has significance in our immediate time space continuum. The transition effected by physical death allows us to be free from much of what ails us on earth, but we all continue to be able to experience ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ in similar ways to our experiences on earth.  I believe the key to what Jesus did was to demonstrate a love that opens a door for experiencing the full effects of the life intended for every human being both here on earth and beyond.  I believe the balance of what we know, mostly from the writings in the bible, shows this love to be unconditional.  And if you believe that, then my opening statement has no place in describing how God expresses his love.  And yet, again, this is a fundamental piece of the prevailing evangelical viewpoint.

So, how does this viewpoint measure up with one of the most well known quotes in the new testament.  I don’t believe a sports event goes by in the US without seeing a placard bearing the words ‘John 3:16’.  The reference to this verse is probably much better known than the content itself.  Unfortunately, many of the most well-known english translations of this passage were fashioned by those who firmly believed in the ‘love me or else’ school of God’s love.  “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that those who believe in him might not perish but have eternal life.”  Hard to argue with this, and it does seem to suggest that not believing in Jesus means being destroyed.  How’s that for consequences?

I have looked into this and other words like this in the new testament and it would seem that translations can often put a very different spin on what might actually be quite compatible with the overarching message of unconditional love.  The word perish here is problematic until you realize that it is the same word in the greek used in the story of the ‘lost sheep’.  This is the one where the shepherd leaves the ninety nine sheep who are safe and pursues the one that is ‘lost’ until he is found.  Yes, the same word is translated as ‘lost’, not perished or destroyed.  In this context, the John 3:16 passage takes on a different meaning.

It is at least possible that what Jesus is offering here is an invitation to the full experience of life in the kingdom of God for now and beyond simply because we accept and embrace what he did for us.  But contrary to popular evangelical thought, the ‘lost’ are simply those to whom this fullness of life is lost for the moment.  And, even more surprisingly, it is God who pursues us with his unconditional love just as the shepherd does in the story until his plan to bring everyone into this life is complete.  The good shepherd does not rest until the last sheep is restored.  Is it not significant that following on from John 3:16, in the next sentence, Jesus states that he came ‘not to condemn the world, but to save the world’.  When this word ‘world’ is used in other places in the new testament, it clearly means ‘the whole world’.  Perhaps there is hope for us all after all!