Monday, January 25, 2016

Reader Question- Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin

Dan, I find myself increasingly frustrated by people who use the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" as a smokescreen for judging others. Can you speak to your thoughts on this phrase? (or maybe you've already done and I'm looking for the wrong key words on your blog?)   -Kimberly
--------------------

Thanks for writing in, Kimberly! And yes, I have also been very frustrated by the concept of loving sinners and hating sin. It is especially problematic because it holds a nugget of truth in it... just enough to cause some real trouble for those who use it as a guiding star.

On the surface, it makes sense. In a faith that stresses the concept of forgiveness, being able to differentiate between the transgression and the one who committed it IS an important concept, remembering that no one is wholly defined by any one action of theirs. Sounds pretty good, right?

The problem comes with "sins" that ARE defining, that are not easily separated from the one who is living them. I can say that I hate the sin and love the sinner all day long, but if I believe that being gay is a sin, then I literally cannot make that distinction. "I love you, I just hate who you are," doesn't make any kind of sense. And since the sins that so often get focused on in Evangelical circles (the only circles that really seem to use the phrase,) it becomes more and more a smokescreen for judgement and hatred.


But wait, there's more!

The flip side of the phrase comes when it is used (in horrible, horrible ways) to coerce victims of abuse. How is someone who was abused supposed to "Love the Abuser, hate the Abuse?" As if what was done to them was just an abstract concept they should simply tolerate, as if "I love you, I just hate that you are always abusing me" is a healthy state of mind! But it is also supported by the mentality of "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin."

So... what do we do, then?

The REASON that "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" is so problematic is that it attempts to be a simple formula to solve the problem of forgiveness, a problem that is part of the struggle of being a decent human being. We want a simple way to determine how we are supposed to behave, and so if it is something easy to remember and quote, then we want to believe it's the magic solution. But it's not, it just becomes an easily gamed rule-set that has the unfortunate consequence of becoming itself more abusive than the confusion that it was supposed to solve.

We should love people, yes, but that is far from easy, or simple. Remembering that they are beloved eternal beings who are NOT entirely defined by their missteps is a worthwhile goal. But when you use that goal to justify hatred of people based on lifestyle or sexuality, or use it to force behavior from people who need help, rather than harsh commandments, then you've lost the plot.

Beware simple formulas in matters of the heart. The truth is always more complicated, and simplifications, almost inevitably, become abusive in and of themselves.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

A Look Back on the Harry Potter Movies

In 2005 I gave up on the Harry Potter Movies.

I've always adored the books. Well, that isn't precisely true. I'd hated them before I read them. Thought they looked like populist tripe aimed at children and those with the mental abilities of children (and I'm pretty sure I wrote that somewhere when I was in college... I was one of THOSE English Majors) until I was home watching my younger siblings and my baby sister bullied me into reading the first book, hitting me with the trump card that she had read every series I had given her (Wheel of Time, Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Redwall) and so I had darn well better read something of HERS. I started reading... and then finished. I loved it.

So of course I was almost beside myself when the first movie came out. Hell, when the first TRAILER came out. Any of you who remember that first trailer will know what I mean... wondering what was going on until an owl flew across the screen ("Holy Crap, is that HEDWIG?") to seeing the Hogwarts Express, ("OMG IT'S PERFECT!) To Hogwarts itself, (Insert uncontrollable fanboying here.)

I was pumped, and I was vindicated. The first movie was practically a love poem to it's book, imagery capturing the magic of Hogwarts near perfectly, with amazing casting choices such as Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, and of course Alan Rickman (more on him in a bit) making me feel like this was the movie adaptation I'd always wanted of any of the books I'd loved, one that caught tone, feel, and characters perfect. I could forgive plot deviation (I knew it would have to happen to fit a movie runtime) but CHARACTER above all was important to me.

Then came the Chamber of Secrets, and I was nervous. It was still beautiful Hogwarts, but some of the characters were fading into the background. Prisoner of Azkaban was even moreso, as it came and went with no serious (excuse the pun) look at the Marauders and with Snape and Draco reduced nearly to cameos.

And then there was Goblet of Fire. I had already had my doubts about Michael Gambeon as Dumbledore. In PoA that had been through no fault of his own... Harris had been a, well, magical casting decision and any replacement was going to have difficulty stepping into those pointed shoes. But in Goblet I watched as Dumbledore crossed the room and shook Harry, demanding to know if he had put his name in the Goblet... and I'd had it.

You can mess with plot all you want. But in Order of the Phoenix, Dumbledore would straight out ATTACK Umbridge for physically grabbing one of his students. This wasn't okay. Dumbledore wasn't Dumbledore, Sirius was barely even in the movie, Draco Malfoy was a non-entity... and I was done.

Until my Wife's Birthday a few days ago.

You see, Rose and I have a system when we want to watch a movie. One of us will pick three films, and then the other will pick one of those three. It's a system that has worked so we're both invested in the movie we watch for the whole time we've been married. But on her birthday, I told her we would watch what SHE wanted to watch.

And she grabbed the Box set of Order of the Phoenix, Half Blood Prince, and Deathly Hallows pts 1 and 2. I grumbled, but I watched.

With it being nearly 10 years since I'd walked away from Goblet, I found myself a lot more forgiving than I had been. The new Hogwarts design might not have captured the feel of the old one, but it certainly brought out the growing menace of the rise of Voldemort. And Gambeon's misstep with shaking Harry seemed to be a one time thing... with every movie, Gambeon felt more and more like Dumbledore, with him undeniably NAILING Half Blood Prince and his Train Station appearance in Deathly Hallows.

I still wish we could have seen more of Maggie Smith's McGonagall. I regret not seeing the duel with Kinglsey, McGonagall, and Slughorn surrounding Voldemort (It would have been EPIC, and of all the all star casts, I feel that Smith never really got the opportunity to show off just how powerful McGonagall really was...)

And then there was Snape.

With Alan Rickman's passing, I have to talk about his performance of Snape.

I've read that Alan Rickman was entrusted by JK Rowlings with the true motivations of Severus nearly from the very beginning. He often did not have much time to convey it, but blast it, HE DID. In every scene, in every moment, with every step you can see the story of Severus Snape. The Pensieve moment in Deathly Hallows brings it all together like a hammer, everything that Snape was, even cruelly cut short due to the lack of exploration of Snape's relationship with James, the love of Lily seen in Snape's eyes was...

It just was.

I still don't think I will often put in Harry Potter Movies outside of Sorcerer's Stone unless I've decided it's time for a marathon, or to get my kids into the series when they're old enough. (And when will they be old enough? That's gonna be a tough one.)

But as someone who walked away, offended, I have returned to see some of the beautiful imagery, action, and character the later movies had, even if they were no longer the note perfect depictions that were only possible before because of how much simpler the Sorcerer's Stone was. But they were amazing.

And Alan Rickman's Snape was truly a masterclass.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Reader Question- Why All the Love?

I've noticed that your messages about scripture usually end with you saying that we should love each other over and over again, but that is hardly the only message in Scripture. Why don't you talk about the others? -Anonymous
------------------------------------------------

This isn't the first Anonymous to make this kind of comment to me... and there have been those who ask me something to that effect face to face as well. And they have a point, I AM kind of a broken record when it comes to the message of the scriptures, often to the annoyance of other Biblical scholars (both religious and none, funnily enough) who insist that there are other messages in the Scriptures and want me to wrestle with them.

So WHY do I harp over and over about loving people instead of engaging the other stuff? Is it because I am too afraid of alienating my audience to be "hard on sin" (one accusation I've received) or is it because I am being an apologist for an "outdated and harmful document" (another one?)

Neither, in point of fact. I boil down the entirety of the scriptures to Love because that was what Jesus said was the appropriate way to do scriptural exegesis.

It happens in Matthew 22. A number of different teachers are asking Jesus questions to test him, and the Pharisees, being the great scripture geeks of the time, challenge him to name the "Greatest Commandment." This was a trap. There are hundreds of commandments in scripture, and by picking one, Jesus would mire himself in an endless debate.

Instead, Jesus responds by saying that the greatest Commandment is to love God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and also to love your neighbor as yourself. So, fair enough. But then he raises the stakes by saying that these commandments are the basis for all other scripture, the law, the prophets, you name it.

Fast forward to now, and this is the bit of scripture that pins so much of current church behavior to the wall. The claim is simple... love of God and love of neighbor are not just commandments... they are the basis on which all other scripture is built. So if the way you are reading scripture leads to behavior that is NOT loving God and Neighbor, then you are reading the scriptures incorrectly.

Got a great indictment of homosexual sex? Well, if the way you read that scripture means you're treating your neighbor (a fellow human being) as less than human, then yeah, you read that scripture wrong. Biblical basis for racism? The same. Biblical Basis to glorify wealth acquisition instead of caring for those in need?

YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.

What this means is that if you read a text and DON'T keep coming up with "Whelp, looks like it's my job to love people," then you are reading that text incorrectly. And it's not me saying it. It's Jesus.

Ultimately,  not everyone will agree with my interpretation of this. You just need to look up a few internet articles with the word "Christian" in the headline to see that. But for those for whom faithful scriptural exegesis is important, and perhaps worry that I am ignoring certain aspects of the scripture to present a sunshine and roses view of the Bible to the world, the important thing to remember, I think, is that the one we are worshiping in all of this made a similar claim.

It isn't an easy claim. Finding the love in some of the text is difficult. But in a book as wildly diverse in tone as the scriptures, it helps to have a guiding star when navigating. And given the life Jesus lived, I don't think "Assume we're talking about love" is a bad way to go.



Thursday, January 7, 2016

State of the Blog 2016

So we have just completed our first full calendar year of blogging which makes this easily the longest journal-like thing I have ever done. And it was quite a year to be captured by journaling, including major political events (the US Supreme Court legalizing Gay Marriage in the US or the embarrassing reaction our politicians have had to refugees)  major personal hurdles (the death of my dog Reyn and my brief cancer bout) and a bunch of questions about life, faith, and religion besides.

I hesitate to call it a GOOD year... I was actually fairly happy that 2015 ended. But in terms of Ask Pastor Dan... hey, we did a lot.

I started this year wondering what form the Blog would take as the questions started drying up, and then the questions came back for awhile, which was fun. Now they seem to have dried up again, but that's ok... maybe these things come in seasons. To everything, turn, turn, turn...

One of my personal goals this year (DON'T call it a resolution) is to get SOMETHING published by someone other than Google. (Unless, of course, Google opens up a publishing branch. In which case, hey, Google, call me.) I don't know what that will be. Maybe a version of the project that started so bravely for Nanowrimo only to get buried, maybe a different story entirely, maybe I'll find someone to pick up Ask Pastor Dan as a column somewhere. I dunno.

I've been asked a few times to do more vlogging, so we'll see about that, too, but vlogging takes a GREAT DEAL more time than Blogging and 2016 already promises to be one of my busiest years yet. Partially due to the new puppy in our house, and partially due to the fact that 2016 is the year I am going to become a father for the first time.

And to finish up the State of the Blog, I'd like to talk about that.

Rose is pregnant after years of trying finally aided by IVF. I know the pain of wanting children and having trouble having them. I don't know how much the incoming kid will appear in the Blog, but they're on my mind pretty much all the time, and so when I don't have questions and feel like writing, there is a more than fair chance they will be what I am talking about.

I'll try to mark in the blog titles when I am talking about the baby, so that those for whom such conversation is hurtful can avoid it.

And as always, this will not be a fundraiser or a conversion tool, but merely a place for me to answer the questions I am asked, and talk about the bits of life that strike me as interesting when I encounter them.

Here's to a good 2016!