Book Review: Kissing Fish

I just finished a really interesting book yesterday. It’s by Roger Wolsey and it’s called Kissing Fish. The book is somewhat of a spiritual manifesto on a movement that is taking shape in America: Progressive Christianity. Notice I didn’t say liberal Christianity or modern or postmodern. I said progressive. Roger is an extremely approachable guy. He’s ordained Methodist and ministers at the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado – a place not exactly known as a bastion for conservative Christianity. And that’s what I like about this book: it gives real and practical thoughts about ministering to a generation where they are, not where we think they should be.

Roger puts it this way in his opening chapter: “I discovered the disappointing gap between idealistic notions of what the Church can and could be – and the decidedly non-ideal, petty, political, conflicted, dysfunctional beautiful messes that most of them are” (45).  Hopefully, that doesn’t put you off…particularly since Paul Tillich voiced similar sentiments in his History of Christian Thought: “…the gap between its claim and its reality.” Anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski has said the same about primitive religions. So, Roger is in good company.

Progressive Christianity seeks to develop a something other than a religion about Jesus. It focuses on the religion of Jesus: “his actual beliefs, practices, and lifestyle” (58). Sanctification is at its core: the slow gradual growth towards Christ-likeness in individual piety and social justice. Not one of the other. Both. Progressive Christianity is more tolerant for the sake of inclusion, reconciliation, and healing. Along with that is a level of inclusivism for other religions and alternative lifestyles and a blending of religious traditions that may make conservative evangelicals nervous.  That’s okay. The label “progressive” appeals to a different demographic. And as a wise woman told me a few weeks ago, “alternative” is quickly becoming “mainstream” where religious preference is concerned.

For the first half of the book, Roger works his way through a loosely knit systematic theology, tweaking it as he goes. He says gems like “…what Jesus talked about most wasn’t himself…”(161) or “”[Progressives] concern is more upon living and loving in God’s Kingdom right now and faithfully helping to manifest it all the more” (177).  These quotes don’t sound progressive to me – they sound like accurate notions of biblical Christianity. Even in the deep South (where I live), people are whispering similar phrases in dark alleys where it’s safe.

The second half of the book is a more practical outworking of these ideas. Roger starts off this way:

As the old Swing era hit put it, “‘It don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that swing” and brother-sister, love is that swing. You can meditate and pray, go to church, get baptized and take communion, light candles and burn incense, read sacred texts, chant, fast and do yoga, and even help out at soup kitchens, but if you aren’t doing them with love, it’s all a bunch of vapid, empty horse apples. I know what I’m talking about. I’ve got a shed full of them (250).

See why I like this guy?! He then spends several chapters unpacking the practical nature of love in action. He covers everything from practical acts of kindness to the spiritual discipline of “centering prayer.” Now, what’s great about that is usually we lean to one side of the other: we focus on Christianity as meeting the needs of others or meeting our own needs. Roger holds them in tandem…just like God probably designed to begin with.

This is good book. Particularly if you’ve never read something from this paradigm before. I have one drawback: it could’ve been shorter and had the same impact. The word “redaction criticism” should’ve never made it in this work simply because those concerned with hermeneutics won’t be reading it. Still, it’s a fun, personal and engaging book. I liked it. Roger tells you in the postlude that’s he’s not saying anything new…and that’s true. I would add the names, Richard Rohr, Dallas Willard, Henri Nouwen, John Wesley, and (my theological hero) Horace Bushnell to the list. But what Kissing Fish  does represent is a growing ensemble of voices originating in places other than what some would call “left field.” There was very little I disagreed with in this book and I consider myself to be a “post-conservative” evangelical. Roger may use the word “progressive” but what he is describing is very quickly becoming the norm. And for that, Kissing Fish is worth the read.

I Love Gay People

I’m going to embark upon a topic that is fraught with emotion for most folks: Christianity and homosexuality. Few topics anger, confuse, and sadden more than this one. And what I have to say will merely flow into the larger spectrum with little impact one way or the other. I have not touched this subject in three years of blogging for that reason. Still, I feel that I am at a place where I can speak frankly, yet in a balanced and gracious way. In other words, I’m gonna make everyone angry by not making anyone happy. So, here it goes.

I really like the gay people I know – the friends and the acquaintances. They are hysterical and fun-loving. I find them to be quick-witted, open, honest, and real. Often times, much more authentic than the straight folks I know. They embrace a life of artistry and humor and make me laugh out loud at their clever perspective and charming love of the finer details of life…once again, something often missed by my straight friends. I love their take on the arts, particularly music. In fact, some of the musicians I listen to most often are gay (I’m actually listening to Rufus Wainwright as I write this). One of Beth’s best friends in college was gay – while waiting tables at a restaurant, their friendship began when they both broke up with their boyfriends on the same weekend. Misery loves company I suppose. They have names, live accomplished lives, and their sexuality is merely one aspect of their rich identities. I don’t label/group them anymore than I would call all Germans Nazis or all whites imperialists. And they don’t label me. Neither am I for banning gay marriage - refusing to allow two people to marry  insults the dignity of two people in love and denies equal rights that are vital to the civil fabric of our nation. 

At the same time, I am a minister. Many of my Christian friends are anti-gay. Although the Methodist Church desires to create and open and welcoming atmosphere for the gay community, other friends of mine who are also in ministry take a very hard line on the issue of homosexuality. And that’s understandable. The Bible really is fairly strict about homosexuality and anyone attempting to call his/herself a Christian must deal with that. Sorry - there’s no way around the biblical passages that condemn that sexual orientation. No, David and Jonathan weren’t in a relationship. The intimate language associated with those passages has to do with the covenantal context that we also see in the biblical language God uses towards humanity. Though it hinges upon unconditional love and acceptance, there’s nothing sexual about it.

So, what’s a minister to do? I made myself a promise several years back that I would not make a doctrinal point at the expense of someone else. I believe that I can uphold a scriptural position without sacrificing the dignity and individuality of others. So, here’s my solution. For Christians, the issue of homosexuality shouldn’t be addressed in the area of conversion (“You’re a Christian, therefore you can’t be gay”). For me, it seems to be more of an issue concerning sanctification. What’s sanctification? It’s the idea that as part of our journey with Christ, there is a slow and gradual change in our behavior. Our likes and dislikes begin to reflect our Maker.

So, how does that work in the gay debate? Well, let’s take a heterosexual male. The New Testament is pretty clear that all sin (though having different ranges of consequence) is equal in spiritual significance. That means there are no “pet” sins that separate us from God more than the others. More significantly, all sin stems from our unwillingness to yield our individuality to God…including the area of sexuality. So for a heterosexual male, Christians celebrate the transformation of his sexual identity using concepts of abstinence, selfless acts of romance, and monogamy. Often times, it takes time for these traits to fully take hold of the male sexual identity – they are entrenched in genetic disposition as much as anything else that makes us human. From what I can tell (and this is going to sound simplistic), the propensity to be gay can be seen in the same way…whether you believe it’s a lifestyle choice or DNA-driven.  If  God is able change the heart of someone in any area, then over time God can also change the parameters of their sexual orientation.

People are always messing around with the core element of Christianity. Most people say that the good news would be “forgiveness.” I’m not so sure that’s the case. I think the core of Christianity is “change.” It’s the chance to allow God to transform your predispositions towards something more like him. I don’t think homosexuality is any more “wrong” than pride and judgment – which is what most gays hear from the church. But it’s important for anyone who wants to change in any area to know that Christianity promises they can. Now, notice I didn’t say anyone had to change. That’s different than wanting to change. I also didn’t say it was easy to change. But that’s the beauty of the Christian message: unconditional love and acceptance surrounds those who decide to undertake change.

My title is slightly misleading…actually, I just love people. And I love watching God change people as they fellowship with him. We all need God to bring change in our lives. For me, sexual orientation/identity is just as subject to sanctification as gossip, gluttony, or legalism. It falls within the scope of a loving God who sees his reflection in our faces.

When “Going Green” Goes Bad…

That title sounds like one of those reality shows about car chases or wild animals – “When Animals Attack!, Part 17″ or something…

I’m an eco-friendly guy to a degree. I don’t recycle everything possible or buy those cool looking light bulbs for every light in the house. But I try to recycle when the opportunity affords and practice energy and water conservation. We don’t make a huge deal of it at our house. We have recycling bins at our church office and I use those. But something happened the other day that really angered me. Claire Grace came home after preschool and began to lecture me about the plastic bottle in the trash can. She then proceeded to tell me about the inevitable destruction of all rain forests and how we needed to do something about that as a family right now! Let me remind you that CG is still 4 years of age (at least for a few more days). Four! That’s a little early to be looking for numbers on the bottom of plastics, isn’t it? So, I told her not to worry about the rain forests and recycling so much. Right now, her main job in life is to “have fun with reckless abandon.” Before you taunt me with accusations of morose parenting, let me explain my logic. You may find it commendable in the end.

Claire Grace got her urgent messages about the environment from two places: public television and preschool. Part of my response to her was to relay the often missed fact that people take various stances on the issue of the environment. Last time I checked, people have a choice to be eco-friendly. Yet, that’s not the message she was receiving. She was being indoctrinated. Come on, Sam – that’s a little harsh isn’t it? Well, look at it this way. Along with the basics of what it takes to care for the environment (something certainly worth knowing), CG was also getting a healthy dose of valuation without really asking for it. Morality was attached to the message of environmental conservation. So, she assumed that my decision to throw a plastic bottle in a standard trash can was an immoral or unethical decision. The inherently right decision would’ve been to find a recycling bin. We use this lingo all the time with secular/social/philosophical themes. After all, we need to “save” the earth, right? Yet, no one likes to point this out…mostly because we get enough righteous indignation from folks without asking for it.

Sadly, those who attach moral significance to the “right to choose ” in one agenda will completely disregard it in other scenrios. The same “choice” of individuality that was denied me by my daughter where going “green” was concerned is forced down my throat when it comes to abortion, for example. Women have a choice. And when the issue of gay marriage comes up, I’m denied that same right to choice used to support abortion when I disagree with same-sex unions. Funny, huh? I’ve never really met the “freedom of choice” police, but evidently that freedom only applies in pre-approved situations. I’m waiting for my manual to arrive in the mail so I can be up to date on which decisions have already been made for me.

I’m a minister. I believe in Jesus Christ. I also believe Christians have a responsibility to the environment.  Though I would like for you to believe in Jesus, I cannot make you. It’s your choice. It may surprise you to know that I am totally okay with that. I am constantly amazed at those who malign religion and those who want to “legislate” morality. Yet they have no qualms about applying a similar level of religious “fervor” to their own fashionable cause. All I’m asking for is the same professional courtesy I give you. Please don’t indoctrinate my daughter. She can make the choice to be “green” for herself one day.

I guess it just goes to show that we are all religious about something…

Lynyrd Skynyrd and Funerals

I officiated at a funeral yesterday. The guy was unchurched and had made a commitment to Jesus at some point but lived a life relatively devoid of Christianity’s practical aspects. The wife had been involved in various churches, but the husband had not. So, they really didn’t have a “home church” where they could request a “Christian burial.”  Out of the blue, they asked me. And Methodists will take anybody, right? 

 The funeral crowd was a wild one – a lot of what people in the South would call “unchurched.” There were several firsts at this funeral for me, but probably the biggest one was the music the family had chosen for the postlude. They played “Free Bird” by Lynyrd Skynyrd. Excellent song…though a little out of place at a funeral home chapel. After I said yes to officiating, I got to thinking about something: who actually deserves a “Christian” or a “church” funeral?

I know of plenty of folks considered occaisional attendees or inactive by a church who have been turned down by ministers. Senior ministers often have the luxury of choosing which funerals or marriages they can officiate. But what about everyone else who wants to get married or properly bury a loved one? Though the church doesn’t think about this too often, I wonder what type of message we send to those we refuse. Are we telling them that they’re not good enough? Or maybe we feel that if we perform a funeral for someone who isn’t a shining example of Christianity, that we are condoning their behavior.

Beth and I watched that musical “Rent” several months ago when it came on TV. The whole story revolves around behavior the church would never condone and even the “TV version” was a little much for me. One scene was particularly interesting, though. After one of the main characters (a drag queen I believe) dies, they have his funeral inside a church. In a church. Beth actually paused the movie and asked me what I thought about that. I honestly wasn’t sure what I thought about it. The questions that finally came to my mind were, “Is the church doing more by refusing a gay funeral than it is by hosting one?…and if the church does host one, is that seen as condoning homosexual behavior?”

I thought about those same questions during “Free Bird” yesterday. Was I codoning the behavior of this family by officiating their funeral? I don’t think so. If anything, there were a whole lot of people who heard about a side of God (a loving, gracious Father) that they rarely see from those who go door to door in their neighborhood. To me, that was worth the “risk” of others thinking I agree with immoral or unscriptural behavior. Same with the funeral in “Rent” – does the chance to minister to the gay community increase once they are inside the church or are we appropriately “admonishing” them by rejecting their overtures for a church funeral? That assumes they are interested in a Christian funeral at all. I have to say I would be compelled to invite them in…just for the chance to minister to them. Last time I checked, a church building is just that: a building. So, the funeral on screen and the one from yesterday were similar. That may get me in trouble with some of my blog readers. You can disagree and there’s a comment section below where you can tell me all about it. But I suspect any chance to minister to someone is better than no chance at all.