Why I'm Looking Forward to November

Three days ago, we were in the pub and I was despondently explaining why I wasn't looking forward to the November elections, because in that month the most powerful man in Canadian politics - despite being unelected in that sphere - was going to step down and be replaced by someone who wasn't nearly so funny or nearly so stupid. On the bright side, Bush's successor probably won't be nearly so warlike, either, which is some comfort.

Today, however, I'm in slightly better spirits because I've realized there's hope after all.

First of all, there's Barack Obama, the closet sexist who keeps calling female politicians and reporters by inappropriate pet names.

Then there's John "No Change" McCain, a demonstrable bigot who looks uncomfortable as hell here while Ellen Degeneres tries to provoke him into slamming her upcoming marriage. McCain, quite the religious right asshole here, insists on calling her marriage nothing more than a "legal contract." Heh. I never thought a Christian conservative would reduce marriage to a scrap of paper. McCain didn't used to be such an idiot. Pandering to the religious right has made him into an asshole.

And finally there's Hillary, God bless her. This week she made the absolutely unbelievable gaffe of implying that she wasn't going to withdraw from the Democratic primary campaign because Obama, like Robert F. Kennedy in the 1960s, might always be assassinated before the end of the race, and if he is, that would leave her as the winner.

It's too bad Hillary has almost no chance of winning at this point. She's also the one who a little while ago concocted a fictitious story about being shot at in Bosnia, then tried to excuse it away on the grounds she "forgot [she] wasn't shot at." I'm sure there are yet more chillingly asinine statements in her head, waiting for a chance to emerge and cause yet more trouble.
Continue reading

The Church of the Orange Sky Condemns the New International Version

If you're interested in dry self-defensive commentary by the International Bible Society, here's a link for you, where they defend their badly flawed New International Version of the Bible, as well as their strategy of "translating" the Bible by secretly "correcting" flaws in the "inerrant" original texts, all before the text gets to you, the reader, so that you never have to know just how seriously not-perfect the book really is.

Among other things, the conservative and pro-inerrancy NIV translators proclaim the authority to add words into the Bible whenever they think it's appropriate. Grand irony and hypocrisy, all in one.

The best part, however, is on p. 67, where the NIV committee discloses that - oh, no! the horror! - one of the consultants to the translation, Virginia Mollenkott, was a lesbian. I guess that will teach them to use women as consultants. In true Christian fashion, the committee promptly washes their hands of the evil woman and casts her to the wolves:

Virginia Mollenkott was consulted briefly and only in a minor way on matters of English style. At that time she had the reputation of being a committed evangelical Christian with expertise in contemporary English idiom and usage. Nothing was known of her lesbian views. Those did not begin to surface until years later in some of her writings. If we had known in the early seventies what became public knowledge only years later, we would not have consulted her at all. But it must be stressed that she did not influence the NIV translators and editors in any of their final decisions.

Her lesbian views? Her list of sins, helpfully supplied by the stone-throwing Fundamentalist Baptists over at Way of Life Literature, apparently includes such heinous statements as these:

- the Bible does not mention sexual orientation (wait... that's true)

- Mollenkott attended the Metropolitan Community Church, which she shouldn't do because there are gays there (new rule! Christians should not associate with sinners!)

- homosexuals are equals

And so on and so forth. The amount of hatred and paranoia in the Way of Life document is actually quite unbelievable. It's almost as bad as the calm patronizing bullshit from the IBS itself.
Continue reading

The Influence of the Orange Sky Spreads

An American columnist has actually started to defend the Church of the Orange Sky's previously declared position on the elimination of state supervision and authorization of marriage (here and here). Fuck the gay marriage debate, says Froma Harrop: we need a proper "marriage-neutral" government. Harrop also points out that the "traditional marriage" is already a minority of households in America, which I didn't know.

Unfortunately, most writers still don't seem to have grasped the concept. This writer, for example, is apparently upset that the California Supreme Court blew up the "reasonable middle ground compromise" position of non-marriage "civil unions" for gay people. The Boston Globe similarly adds that we should let the debate over civil rights be fought out in the democratic sphere rather than the judicial one.

Of course, if and when these white married writers see their own constitutional rights violated, I suspect you'll see them racing to the courthouse as fast as they can bring their well-paid lawyers to bear, but never mind that! We can "compromise" when it comes to civil rights for gays and lesbians - instead of "real" marriage, they can have second-class civil unions. I think we should make similar compromises on other rights - for example, many people think men should have the right to vote, but I think men shouldn't. I'm sure we can agree on the reasonable middle ground compromise that men can vote during an election, provided it's on a separate "civil plebiscite" ballot, which gets tallied separately and doesn't count towards the real election.

Doubtless if I were able to persuade a state government to pass such a law, legions of good moral anti-gay-marriage men would say, "No, we won't pursue our civil rights through the courts - civil rights are something to be settled democratically." They'd say that... wouldn't they?

As usual, commentators continue to insist that allowing gay marriage is inevitably going to pave the way for allowing polygamy, despite the fact that there is no logical basis for this position whatsoever.

Still, I think the most lunatic argument so far was recently advanced in the Los Angeles Times by a moron named Glen Lavy, who self-righteously seizes the opportunity to gratuitously beat up on bisexuals - a group, I should point out, whose failure to fit properly into either the "mainstream" or "peripheral" boxes tends to make them doubly marginalized. Lavy, who has obviously never befriended a bisexual (or at least realized he was doing so), claims that bisexual people are going to argue that they require polygamy in order to "fully satisfy" themselves - i.e. one same-sex spouse, and one opposite-sex spouse. Right.

It's interesting to see how desperate and pathetic the anti-gay-marriage front has become in the last few years. Their best arguments now can apparently be summed up as "Look! Evil polygamists!" If the California Supreme Court had accepted that argument when it was raised in 1948, inter-racial marriage would also still be illegal.
Continue reading

I say it here, it comes out there

The Orange Sky led me to prophecy that there would be rapid and forceful reactions to California's decision to let people marry each other, and the Orange Sky was right!

Despite my recent cautionary comments (I use "despite" to maintain the pretence that my blog actually has some international sway on these issues), the religious right has not hesitated to demand that the California court ruling on marriage be nullified as quickly as possible. The Campaign for California Families (which ironically has very little to do with defending families), represented by Liberty Counsel (which equally ironically has very little to do with liberty), wants the court to stay its opinion and wait for the outcome of a referendum on the subject which could be held alongside the fall elections in November. (Under California law, such referenda are common.)

Well, that makes sense. Rather than (a) follow the current law, the Campaign and its lawyers want to (b) follow their speculation about what the law might be in several months' time. I think this is a fabulous idea. There's nothing like judging today's actions by tomorrow's laws. Incidentally, the chief counsel from Liberty is also a dean at Liberty University, which is the university run by the late Jerry Falwell. You know, the guy who blamed the September 11 attacks on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle." What the hell is with these people? I doubt most of them know any gay couples who want to marry anyways. Given that they gave up the battle for civil union rights and benefits long ago, this struggle has just become an increasingly petty effort to prevent people who love each other from referring to their relationship with the same word. I wonder if they realize how moronic they look.

Also as I predicted, the mortal terror of polygamy is rearing its head again, despite the fact that polygamy is a consistent Biblical position to take (as if that mattered to the religious right!) - see, for example, the National Review. I wish people would stop talking about this, because it's totally illogical. Even if the fact that recognizing the loving relationships among gay and lesbian people were to somehow strengthen the case for polygamy, which it doesn't on any logical grounds, it wouldn't matter. You can't deny human rights to Group A simply on the basis that it might harm our ability to deal with Group B. Group A's rights have to be recognized - or not recognized - on the basis of that group alone.

As I say every time gay marriage returns to the front page headlines, it's time to have the government stop "marrying" people. There is no compelling reason that the state should give anyone more than some of the benefits, obligations, etc. which would have been imposed by civil unions anyways, and also are granted through common-law marriage. Actually there is no compelling reason in my opinion that the state should be going around determining and legitimating any intimate relationships, but if it is, it certainly should go no farther than what I am suggesting here. I'm fine with the fact that people want to perform a social ritual declaring their desire to have a permanent relationship, but I don't think that we should be relying on the state to lend power to that ritual.

So, we should have only common-law marriages, at least from the perspective of the law. Other groups can perform marriage ceremonies, but without the present legal standing. If the lack of legal standing upsets people, this reveals their underlying dependence on the law to legitimate their activities - something which ought to be unnecessary, especially for Christians (after all, you don't really need the power of the state to prove the "absolute truth" of your morality, right?). People can read into marriage what they wish, and the conservative churches can continue to marry only those people they think "deserve" marriage (read: straight couples), while the rest of us live lives of our own choosing.

Speaking as a resident of territory controlled by the state of Canada, I can confirm to the residents of California what you'll probably also be told by residents of the territories controlled by the states of Massachusetts, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, and South Africa: the sky hasn't fallen as a result of our having gay marriage. In fact, there appears to be pretty much just as many - or as few - gay and lesbian people here as there were before, and they still live pretty much just like you, or at least just like they were before.

To their credit, there are three denominations who have come out in open support of the Court's decision to strike down the ban on gay marriage - the United Church, the Episcopalians, and, of course, the Quakers. No surprise with that last one - they haven't really gotten along with the use of state power since, well, ever.
Continue reading

Little by little by little...

Today the Supreme Court of California de facto legalized gay marriage by overturning the "pro family" ban on such marriages. The decision by the court is an interesting read, if you have the time. The court accepted a similar argument to one that the Church of the Orange Sky has been making for some time now - that sexual orientation, like race, is not a relevant factor in determining an individual's right to marry a person of their choice. In the court's eyes, this is derived indirectly from the fact that orientation, like race or gender, cannot be used as a basis to deny a legal right.

(And in California, thanks to pro-family people in the past, the right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right. I'll bet they wish they had a chance for a do-over on that...)

Naturally, supporters of civil rights greeted the news quite happily and apparently there was already long lines forming for marriage certificates, partially in excitement and partially in the fear that the legislature may find a way to overturn this decision over the next few weeks. Because the decision just came down today, many of the "pro-family" organizations haven't prepared detailed responses. I searched in vain for an angry denunciation on the website of Focus on the Family and didn't see one.

(Another tangent: drop the "pro-family" bullshit. Gay people have "families" too. Being "pro-family" in this case usually means being "anti-family," i.e. anti-recognizing-that-gay-people-have-families-too.)

The Associated Press does have an incomplete list of immediate responses which shows that people are pretty much falling along predictable party lines. The White House denounces it as judicial activism (that old chestnut again), James Dobson says it's an "outrage," Randy Thomasson says it's a "disaster," and plaintiff Robin Tyler says it's "about love," which I have to believe it is, in her case. The people in question, particularly those on the opposition side who think it's "judicial activism" but also those on the winning side, are obviously gifted by a divine power of discernment I don't have, despite my close connection to the Orange Sky - they've been able to form their own judgements on the issue so rapidly that it's obvious they haven't even had time to read the decision from the court. That's very impressive.

Firstly, well done to all the human rights organizations in California who were part of this fight. I hope you enjoy your victory.

Secondly, I sure as hell hope the religious conservative backlash to this isn't going to be too strong, though I fear it will be. Opponents really ought to consider that "social tradition," which was the chief argument addressed by government lawyers as well as by "pro-family" organizations, really shouldn't have much in the way of legal standing. And rightly so!

Look at the sad state of legal arguments that so often fall back on such an argument. Intriguingly, much the same position was advanced way back in 1948, when the same court ruled on an inter-racial marriage ban in Perez v. Sharp, and came to a decision on the same narrow division (4 to 3) as it did in today's verdict. With that judgement the California Supreme Court became the first 20th century court to overturn an anti-miscegenation law, as they were then known; it took until 1967 for the Supreme Court of the United States to agree, when it freed a Virginia couple convicted of living together as part of its judgement in Loving v. Virginia.

Tradition was also invoked, with much the same result, in R. v. Knowles ex parte Somerset in 1772, when the British courts effectively paved the way for the abolition of slavery; and in Wedderburn v. Knight in 1777, when the Scottish courts concurred. (Those with a literary bent may be interested to know that Knight's successful case was prepared by Samuel Johnson and James Boswell.) That's not to say it never works - for example, it was basically accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford for example, when that court agreed to uphold the institution of slavery in 1857. In part this galvanized the growth of the Republican Party, which, despite its present racist politics, was actually originally formed as a progressive anti-slavery party.

Over the next few days look for angry responses from conservative religious groups claiming we must return to the traditional family and, inevitably, intimating that this will one day pave the way for polygamy politics.

Let's try and disentangle that one for a moment too. Religious conservatives want us to ban gay marriage, which is clearly not Biblical (whatever you think about the issue, we have to agree that those who wrote the Hebrew Bible, in particular, would have been shocked by the prospect of two men marrying one another); in part because they also want to keep banning polygamous marriage or at least concubinage, which clearly is Biblical (again, whatever you think of the issue, the Hebrew laws in their original form obviously included provisions for multiple marriages).

The inconsistencies continue. They no longer favour the ban on inter-racial marriages, which was once Biblical (though arguably this ban was lifted by the prophets or at least by the New Testament), nor are they in favour of banning divorces, which would also be Biblical (the Old Testament didn't ban divorce, but Jesus did, or at least severely restricted it, depending on which gospel you assign the most primacy to). They also don't support inheriting wives of dead brothers (Biblical), stealing and then raping and marrying prisoners of war (also Biblical), required marriage to victims of rape (you guessed it... still Biblical!), or forced marriages of two employees imposed as part of the regular employer-employee relationship (also Biblical, though with a bit of modern re-interpretation). They oppose prostitution, which is Biblical (at least until 1 Corinthians 6). They are in favour of banning sex outside of marriage, which is not a Biblical position to take; and opposed to lesbianism, which isn't mentioned in the Bible at all, except in Paul's sarcastic rant in Romans 1-2, which, given the extent of the hyperbole, I seriously doubt he meant us to take literally.

So sometimes they side with the Old Testament, sometimes they side with the New Testament, and sometimes they don't side with any Testament at all. This leads me to believe that the Bible is actually completely irrelevant to the "pro-family" organizations, despite the fact that they invariably claim to be conservative and Christian.
Continue reading

Big Gay Ted: Another One-Year Retrospective (Plus Money Laundering for Dummies!)

This message was commissioned by the official Canadian representative of the Church of the Orange Sky. The Church urges all followers and readers to consider donating to its Big Gay Ted support campaign, since at the moment the Church is dirt-poor on account of a current deficit of rich donors.

A year ago this month, Ted Haggard -- aka "Big Gay Ted" -- was unexpectedly outed by his prostitute and dealer, Mike Jones. To many, the fact that one of the national leaders of the anti-gay marriage movement was himself gay was proof positive of the repressed sexuality and blatant hypocrisy inherent to the modern Christian political movement (or maybe to the Christian religion more generally). Like many people caught in a lie, Haggard first denied everything, then issued a few qualified confessions, then let someone else admit publicly on his behalf that actually pretty much everything Jones alleged was actually true.

What makes Big Gay Ted's unfortunate situation even more ironic is that he played significant roles in a pair of Christian documentaries over the past two years, Jesus Camp and Friends of God. Both were filmed before the Jones incident, though the latter actually came out afterwards, and cheekily reminds viewers of this fact both at the beginning and the ending of the film (just in case you missed it the first time around). Haggard comes across as a little eery in Friends of God, waxing poetic about how Christians have lots of sex and how Christian women have more orgasms. He's genuinely disturbing in Jesus Camp, mugging for the camera in the middle of a sermon, expounding on his "ten year rule about dating" (i.e. if you marry older people, do it for the money), jokingly suggesting that he'll help cover up extramarital relationships for cash, and giggling like the jackass he is. Later he even explains to the documentary crew that he lives a "fabulous life," which I guess was more true than he was willing to admit at the time.

After being outed, Big Gay Ted resigned in semi-disgrace and promised to get his life back on track. He acknowledged that he had been struggling with homosexuality for his entire life. I think this was intended to win the sympathy of his evangelical listeners, who usually have a soft spot for stories about people who fight valiantly against sin and occasionally falter. On the other hand, it does raise the question of why Ted was so cavalier about condemning homosexuality in others if he knew just how difficult the struggle was within his own life. Oh, well. Nobody ever said Christianity had to be compassionate.

The solution to homosexuality, it turns out, is a three-week intensive course in reaffirming heterosexuality. I'm not going to go into detail on this, since it's been covered ad nauseam and I want to move on to current events before I go back to writing my thesis. However, I will note that a gay-to-straight counseling course is an interesting idea. I wonder whether there's a course that can accomplish the reverse, as well. And I also wonder whether there's some sort of final exam you have to pass.

A couple of months ago, it turns out, Haggard re-emerged on the religious scene with a new fundraising request. In late August, he sent an emailed request for money, saying that he was planning to work for the Phoenix Dream Center (a halfway house for homeless people and recovering addicts), while working towards a master's degree at the eminent University of Phoenix.

According to a recent article at Christianity Today, Haggard sent the request to "friends." This may be a very loose interpretation of the word, since when the request first went out in August, CT's blog declared shenanigans on this, saying it was probably "sent to a lot of people." Lots indeed; at least one included an ABC reporter, which might have been a bit of a tactical blunder on Haggard's part.

At this blog, readers are always encouraged to make their own judgement, so here's a copy of the letter, posted by ABC's subsidiary KRDO. The letter does start off as though it's on a first-name basis, but it does have most of the hallmarks of a standard form letter: a generic appeal for "people" to send money, a request to forward this on to anyone else who "might have an interest," and so on. Somewhat disturbingly, Haggard actually proposes that his would-be supporters send the money via the Families with a Mission charity in order to claim a tax deduction. Families with a Mission will deduct a 10% fee for playing the intermediary. In secular society, we call this "money laundering" - or, at the very least, tax evasion. Suddenly that "tax war on evangelicals" thing I mentioned a couple of posts ago is starting to sound like a good idea after all. Perhaps Big Gay Ted is looking forward to a new career in organized crime (or should I say, resuming his career in organized crime?).

Why Big Gay Ted needs money is not immediately apparent. His last job, according to Christianity Today, paid him $200 000 the year he left, plus a $140 000 severance package. Then there's the royalties from his book sales, though these have no doubt declined since Ted's fabulous double life was revealed to the world. He also owns a $700 000 home in Colorado. Even if Ted's been spending money like a drunken lord, he should still be in a lot better shape financially than I've been since I started grad school myself, even considering the fact that he has a family to look after. (Though it does raise the question of why, in a world full of poverty and misery and supposed gay conspiracies, any church has enough extra money to pay its pastors with six-figure salaries.)

In addition, according to CT, it turns out that Big Gay Ted has gone off the reservation with this latest request. His committee of "overseers," who are responsible for making sure he stays straight this time around, has condemned the money request as an "unacceptable" act, and the Phoenix charity, the Dream Center, apparently has no intention to employ Haggard. Instead, "he will be seeking secular employment to support himself and his family." Oops. So much for the laundering scheme.

On behalf of the Church of the Orange Sky, I have decided that I will financially support Big Gay Ted myself, by kicking off the Big Gay Ted Support Campaign. After Ted dismisses his overseers, apologizes for the harm he has caused during his years of anti-gay campaigning, acknowledges that he is in fact homosexual and admits that sexual orientation is not in fact a matter for national debate, I will personally write a cheque for $500 for Ted and his family. Sorry I couldn't sweeten the pot further, Ted, but I'm a student myself, see. After paying for the prostitutes and the crystal meth, there's not much left for charity cases. However, I am happy to forward donations from other interested parties through the Support Campaign. I can't promise the same tax benefits that Haggard did in his original letter, but on the bright side, I can guarantee none of us will get hauled away for tax fraud.
Continue reading

Oh, no! Dumbledore was Gay!

This message is brought to you by the Praxis Institute, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Church of the Orange Sky.

First off, an update on my last post, in which the Roberts dynasty totally lost the plot and went off in search of extravagant vacations, teenage sex toys, and political influence: God has issued new orders to Oral Roberts University and president Richard Roberts has departed on a "leave of absence." The Church of the Orange Sky welcomes God's intervention in worldly affairs but calls upon all parties involved to stop invoking God's name in vain.

I was going to write about the demise of TV-links, which I used to use to watch all of my favourite TV shows, and how the entertainment industry has forged a disturbing new link with state power in the West. (It's a bizarre alliance of state and entertainment which is much more interesting than Marx's alliance of state and capital.) In the last few years we've seen servers and individuals arrested and charged in various countries, and their property seized by the government, even in the complete absence of actual criminal activity: DVD Jon, the Pirate Bay, now TV-Links, and so on. But this is a religious blog rather than a political one, so you'll have to ponder the declining relevance of civil rights and habeas corpus elsewhere.

In the meantime, one of my friends has brought to my attention an even more exciting development: Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore was gay. This constitutes new post-canonical doctrine from Her Obscenely Wealthy Excellency, J.K. Rowling. Answering questions in Carnegie Hall, Rowling apparently earned great applause for a short, bald answer to a question about whether Dumbledore had ever fallen in love: "I always thought of Dumbledore as gay". Allegedly this helps explain Dumbledore's early friendship with the fictitious wizard doppelganger of Adolf Hitler - i.e. he fell in love with the guy and was blinded to just what was really going on. I expect this new twist will generate great excitement over the next five or six days before fading away again, so I thought I'd jump on the bandwagon of public commentary, though with what I anticipate will be a bit of a different slant.

First off, it's worth noting that I personally think Rowling is a bit of an ass. A few weeks ago, she wandered off the reservation and attempted to sue an Indian group for the heinous sin of building a replica Hogwarts castle at a Hindu religious festival. (The attempt failed, which gave me a little respect for the Indian courts system, but didn't alleviate my disgust with Rowling, who apparently now feels that she owns the exclusive use of non-existent magic castles.) Now, she's attempting to add some ex post facto wisdom to the Harry Potter series in order to seem a little edgier. Falling into obscurity with her billion well-earned dollars obviously isn't enough.

My quick Google search for "slash Dumbledore" indicates that plenty of fan fiction writers have already come to the conclusion that Dumbledore was gay - or at least that he indulged in sex with other men, which in the tawdry realm of Internet fanfic is a very important distinction. Rowling claims that she's always had this idea in her head and even insisted on edits to the movie scripts in order to prevent Dumbledore from being accidentally pinned down as a straight guy. She even claims that "if I'd know it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago." Uh-huh. I suspect either her publisher told her she wasn't allowed to say that publicly until after the seventh book was published, or she's only recently decided to experiment with generating more controversy. Rowling is an intelligent woman, I think, and not naive about the effects of her public comments.

The new statements were greeted with a wave of self-righteous and self-congratulatory remarks from what I suppose could be termed the liberal wing of the Harry Potter fan world. This blogger, for example, who may or may not be influential and widely read (my Google search for "dumbledore gay" isn't necessarily a reliable method of determining popularity), writes that the event "proves... to be correct once again, as we've always maintained that Rowlingw ould be, for lack of a better word, a 'liberal' Christian." The lengthy list of comments, which makes the following of our blog seem small and humble indeed, contain various references to expected great reactions from American right-wing Christians. A few otherwise sympathetic writers suggest that Rowling has caused them to doubt their support of her books (here).

The real conservative response has so far been muted, possibly because they're sharpening their pitchforks but more likely for a host of other reasons, one of which is that they just haven't had time to prepare a lengthy response yet. One blogger suggests that people who were pleased to hear Dumbledore was gay should be subjected to "intense psychological investigation," since evidently homosexuality is beyond the pale in a "children's fantasy book." In addition, this writer believes that "every scene involving Dumbledore... will unavoidably be colored by this revelation."

Personally, I don't see why anyone should care whether Rowling sees Dumbledore as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or anything else. My partial readings of the series suggests that his sexuality plays absolutely no meaningful role in any aspect of the story. Why it should matter, therefore, is completely beyond me, and in my mind anyone who is either elated or disgusted by the announcement has missed the point. The real message ought to be that we should stop trying to place sexuality at the center of our identity as human beings. I merely disagree with this in relation to gay pride and other like-minded groups. But I am totally confused when certain religious groups attempt to do the same, essentializing gay and lesbian people as sinister, inherently promiscuous hedonists on the one hand and, on the other, trumpeting the wondrous glory of monogamous heterosexuality as God's not only intended but expected and possibly required way for humans to enjoy themselves.

If indeed Dumbledore should be understood as a gay man, then the lesson is that we can understand and relate to people without first having to ponder the implications of their sexuality. I personally find that much more refreshing than this notion that we now need to revise our reading of a children's book series in order to celebrate - or condemn - the fact that the author thinks a school principal happened to be gay.
Continue reading

The Second Zacchaeus Fellowship

Today's message was funded by a generous grant from the Church of the Orange Sky. Please consider a donation to the Church's authorized representative via his Paypal account or personal cheque.

I've spoken before about how North American Christianity seems subject to absurd fads, some of which stay for years, but most of which fade pretty quickly - small groups, Alpha, the Prayer of Jabez, the Purpose-Driven Life, Promise Keepers, Contagious Christians, The Passion of the Christ, and so on. In my dissent, it seems I have the agreement of the maniacs on the Christian far right, the ones who think the church hasn't kept up the tradition of strong, manly Christianity and that its feminine converts don't realize they're still going to hell. The last time I had this strange feeling in my stomach was when I realized the man next to me on a protest line, defying a police order to disperse, had come out to play largely because our right-wing provincial government wasn't jailing doctors who work at abortion clinics.

But complaining about evangelical foolishness only goes so far. I told a friend years ago that it was not worth complaining about a problem if you weren't willing to contribute to its solution. Today I've decided to make a half-step in that direction: I'm going to contribute to the problem and the solution, by coming up with a newer and better Christian fad. Usually, a new fad requires a megachurch for financial and PR support. I have the Church of the Orange Sky, which falls slightly short of the megachurch barrier, plus (hopefully) the support of MadReverends, which according to one recent and very scientific poll is the third most popular religious blog in Canada.

This post is motivated by two recent experiences: a conversation with a friend who's just moved to a new job and a new church, and an article on businessmen "experiencing" poverty in Lansing, Michigan. The name comes from the first, and the idea (mostly) from the second.

My friend, a grad student and now an itinerant sessional lecturer (which is the fate of most of us graduate humanities students these days), recently took up a new job in northern B.C. His new Anglican church there is, thanks to one of the most stridently anti-gay marriage ministers in the province, home to a branch of the "Zacchaeus Fellowship" (here).

This fellowship appears to be a sort of reincarnation of one of Christianity's past fads - conversation of gay sinners into proper heterosexuals. The website explains that members are in the process of transitioning from their "same-sex attractions" to "heterosexual wholeness." A key step appears to be overcoming "the brokenness that led to" homosexuality. If you fail in this purpose, there's a second-best alternative: you can "obey God's teachings by living in celibacy." I wonder if this means Jesus was the first member of the fellowship.

I hadn't realized Canada had an indigenous ex-gay movement; it's gratifying to know we haven't been spared the attention of good Christian sex police. I was a little confused about the name, though. Zacchaeus, as some might recall, was a man Jesus met in the Gospel of Luke. Zacchaeus was a tax collector - by implication of the story, a corrupt one - who met Jesus and immediately pronounced he would give away half his money to the poor. Jesus then blessed him for his faith. What this story has to do with overcoming homosexuality is beyond me; the Fellowship website claims that, like Zacchaeus, they have come to see Jesus's love for them and the need to confess their sins in exchange for his forgiveness. It's a pretty weak-like-tea argument. I think they're just looking for an excuse to adopt a cool first-century Greek name for their movement. It sounds better than "Canadian Ex-Gays for Christ." After my first reading of the website, I resolved to reclaim Zacchaeus, and now I've found a way to do so.

This article from a Michigan newspaper describes a "simulation" of urban poverty conducted for professionals from local businesses, government agencies, and some non-profits. "Could you take poverty for even one hour? asks the paper. The answer, apparently, was no. The lesson, so far as I can see, is that the poor are better at money management than the rich: only two of the thirteen families in the simulation were able to keep their children from starving to death. Over the course of an hour, the participants sat around counting their welfare money out of envelopes and pretending to go through all the work and financial decisions a single mother with kids would make over the course of a month. There are some inspiring quotes from various people who were "mind-boggled" and "will not be the same." Neither will the fake kids who starved to death in less than an hour.

Apparently the simulation accomplished its goals, but it's disturbing that the middle class in our society has become so divorced from the lower working class and the unemployed that they could gain anything from an hour in a conference room. Other than the fact it wasn't being done alone, this could have been a math problem in my grade 10 textbook. You and your two children get $670 a month in welfare money. Each of you eat three meals a day. If you spend $400 on rent, how much will you spend per person on each meal? Or, to take a British Columbian example: Quesnel and Prince George are 100 miles apart. A hobo leaves Prince George on a CN Rail train travelling at 25 miles per hour. A second hobo leaves Quesnel on another CN Rail train travelling at 15 miles per hour. How long will it be before the CN trains collide and both hoboes die in the inferno?

Reading about the simulation prompted one Lansing resident to see if he could live for a month on a dollar a day (here). He could - in fact, the total was more like $28. This was accomplished via copious amounts of rice, noodles, and frozen vegetables. At the end, he donated the money he would normally have spent on food - somewhere around $200 - to a local food bank. I'll bet I could do the same thing, once my pots arrive at my new apartment so that I can actually make more than sandwiches and salads.

This inspirational story has prompted me to propose a new Zacchaeus Fellowship. This one will actually bear some relation to the Zacchaeus story: people who join will either eat on a dollar a day and give away the rest of the money they would have spent on food (the Zacchaeus Lite® plan), or spend money as they normally would, but set aside one dollar for charity for ever dollar they spend on food (the Zacchaeus Faithful® plan). I suppose you could do both at the same time, which would be the best way to save money (call it the Zacchaeus Combo®). You could be like the other guy and give the money to the food bank. Or, if you're feeling adventurous, you could give it to something a little edgier and more anarchist, like Food Not Bombs or a local Catholic Worker house. That's what I think I'll do, personally. (Since returning to Ottawa, I've discovered that, as a real city, it also has real hippies - FNB gives away free food every Sunday afternoon, most of which it's "salvaged" from local businesses.)

This new fad will be even better than past ones because it won't require wealthy, idolized leadership (though I will cheerfully accept money from anyone who wants to enrich me), can be summarized in less than fifty words (which means it won't require believers to buy new books and go to expensive seminars to hear me speak via satellite), plus, most important, it gives true Christians a chance to proclaim the fact they're better and holier than the average, run-of-the-mill churchgoer. (These proclamations can be best made by my new Zacchaeus Fellowship T-shirts, which will soon be available for a nominal fee.)

Another bonus is that as a student I'm already pretty sure I know how to live on less than a dollar a day's worth of food. It does bear asking, though: does beer count as food?

Up next: I'm going to Christianize the GPL. With Biblical Quotations® for added persuasiveness.

Note: MadReverends does not endorse the views of the Church of the Orange Sky as represented in this article. We encourage you to consider investing the money in a savings account instead. WWJD? He would eat ramen, so that he could afford his SUV.
Continue reading