There is No Compromise with Hatred

I've been hearing a lot lately about how Donald Trump, as a constitutionally elected President, deserves a chance to govern, that we should rally around him. Then the plan for his first 100 days came out. Then his cabinet picks. Then his deferring of Security briefs to Mike Pence. Then his staff.

I know, I know. I probably wasn't going to be jumping for joy for any Republican picks, and even some of Clinton's picks likely would have irked me, had she won. Trump doing everything in his power to affirm for me that he shouldn't have any power whatsoever doesn't make the "rally around the President" thing any easier, though.

I'll deal with it, as will other progressives and liberals, by going along with the things that we have to and compromising where we can. Hopefully we'll be better about that than Republicans ever were with President Obama. But there is one thing that the folks pushing for "patience" seem not to understand, and so I want to make it abundantly clear right now.

There will never be any compromise with hatred.

Ideological points, policy positions, differences in philosophy on governance, these are all ideas that can be altered, softened, or tweaked in order to make them more palatable to everyone. Compromise, "we'll give you this, and you'll give us that..." used to be the lifeblood of governing in the US.

But you can't compromise on hatred. You can't just "half" hate something, a lesson we have learned repeatedly over the course of our history.

One of the great talking points against Clinton during the primary was her previous support of DOMA and DADT. At the time, they were seen as compromises, and actually embraced by many as a way to advance the rights of the LGBTQ community. They didn't work for a very simple reason: they were based on accommodating hatred,  and so in the end what we found is that whatever gains the LGBTQ community received from them were negligible because what we were left with was empowered hatred.

When it comes to hatred, you cannot compromise. You either join in it or reject it.

So here is my final answer for myself, which I hope will be echoed by others. Compromise IS important, and I will try to allow myself to see the good the Trump administration will try to accomplish.

But if he pushes to register Muslims? I will reject that out of hand with extreme prejudice. Likewise if he attempts to take away hard earned rights from the LGBTQ community. Racially motivated laws will also be named for what they are. There will be no compromise with them, they will not be amended to a form suitable for everyone, they will be named, rejected, and opposed in any way we can, and the proponents of it marked, remembered, and held accountable.

Because when you compromise with Hatred, all you end up doing is enabling and empowering it.

If we claim to serve a God of love, that is simply something that we cannot do.

Reader Question- The Role of Atonement

David lived before ever seeing the most important in event in all of history. Does it make spiritual sense, let alone logical sense, to discount the atonement? He can uproot the sycamore tree and move any mountain. Are we to believe some things are impossible for God?

Why didnt Paul have at least an entire letter talking about being tormented night and day by remembering his sins "despite" the finished work of the atonement. The church was hesitant but God arranged his acceptance! -Richard
-----

Thanks for writing in, Richard.

I read your question a couple of times and was uncertain of what exactly you were pushing at... if you were implying that -I- was discounting atonement, or society in general, or what. I often feel like I am in an ongoing conversation with people who I read regularly, and so I suppose it is possible that this is a continuation of a conversation you've been having with me through reading my posts... in which case, thanks for reading, but I'm not dead sure where we are at.

As it happens, Atonement plays a key role in my theology, for the very reasons you posited in your question. David, who never knew Jesus, is believed to have received atonement, and Paul was able to do his work without being crushed by the guilt of his previous life, meaning that atonement played a real part in who he was... his sin wasn't just forgiven, it was removed from him entirely.

I believe both of those things intrinsically.

For my other readers who may not know, Atonement is the theological code word for the forgiveness of sin, the sealing of the rift that separates humanity from God. There are thousands of variations on how precisely this works, but I have rarely found much value in that particular conversation... the theological details are just that, details. Stuff worked out by God that can be fun to talk about, but since it is by God's action, we don't need to know HOW it works, only that it does.

As I reread your question now it occurs to me that your question might be in response to an earlier comment I made in condemnation of those who commit "sins against the Spirit," that is, use the Word of God to separate people from the Love of God, like those who use scriptural arguments to drive people away from the church or hate others. This is mentioned in three of the Gospels and what exactly they are talking about is open to interpretation.

At the end of the day, I do not believe that any Sin is unforgiveable, and I certainly do not believe anything is impossible for God, but I was working within a worldview where certain sins are treated as differently from others, less forgiveable, etc, and therefore pointing out that the only sin ever described as "unforgivable" is the sin people commit when they use God's message of Love as a vehicle of hate. 

My theology of atonement tells me that judgement belongs, always and only, to God. That people do not need to use or even know the correct names and forms to receive it, and that no sin is powerful enough to remove us from the influence of God's love. But in the end, that isn't my call. I'm not here to tell God how things should work, but to tell people how to behave towards others.

At the end of the day, the people who use the Scriptures as a tool of hatred and division are, in my theological understanding, committing the greatest sin possible to commit, in that they are presenting a version of the church that, rather than being a welcoming beacon to all who seek it, is instead seen as a force of judgement, illogic, and derision.

That sin will probably be atoned for, in the end, though it will be God's call, not mine. But that certainly doesn't mean that I am not called to draw attention to the sin, and where possible, preach against it.

#Clergylivesmatter

It's an old, sad, pattern. Allegations of abuse inside a church's walls begin. People are ostracized, members driven away by the old guard circling the wagons. Counter attacks fly. Character assassination of the accusers spreads through the rumor mill like wildfire, all working to discount the credibility of the victims. People insist that they will withhold justice until they have heard both sides, all the while ignoring the fact that only one side is speaking publicly.

We spent huge amounts of time in school examining these patterns, learning the ways to predict them and subvert them before the call for fair judgement became complicity in abuse. Barring our oldest clergy, I doubt a single pulpit thumper like myself got through school without studying it somewhat, and younger clergy spent significant time with it.

But we still see it. It's rare, but it's there, and every time it comes to the same thing. Abuse is about power, and power gropers in the church always tend to follow the same lines. And there is always someone there to defend them in the name of "fairness," or to protect the reputation of the institution.

Frankly, I think it's time we toss out the reputation of all our institutions. They do more harm then good.

So when I see similar patterns emerging elsewhere... I find them very hard to ignore.

In the same way that a great number of clergy do what we do because we want to do good, a great number of police are the same way. But the power seekers are there, and the thing about power seekers is that they seek power. They establish themselves deep into the bones of the organization, until it becomes a layer of protection around them that the folks just trying to do their job don't get.

In the church, when an abuser comes to light, a lot of people who don't condone the abuse still try to hide it, again for reputation's sake. But in the end, that doesn't work, because the abuser isn't just going to stop. Why would they, having been caught and then PROTECTED? Power is their drug and they WILL pursue it, until like any addict, they go too far, and then when it is impossible to hide, the reputation that would have been tarnished is instead destroyed. You still can't talk about priests in social circles without people bringing up rape and pedophilia. How many generations of good priests will it take to clear that shame? Five? Six? Will it ever be cleared?

We don't know, because it hasn't happened yet.

I've spoken to many people, some of them police officers, about the rise in police violence awareness. They protest groups like Black Lives Matter in the name of preserving the reputations, and raise hashtags like #bluelivesmatter in order to protest the backlash against peace officers. But here is the thing... you can't protect good cops if you are protecting bad cops.

Again, look to the church, at all those hard working priests have been tarnished, forever, by the actions of a tiny minority. What if the Church had responded, owning it's abusers and removing them so that the world could see that the safety of parishoners was more important than the church's reputation? We failed to get that right, and I don't know how long we'll pay the price.

The public opinion on police is turning, but it might not be too late for the Cops of the United States to do the right thing, removing their abusers from power and showing that the safety of citizens is more important than the reputation of the fraternity.

But so far, it hasn't happened. So far, all I see are wagons circling and the fraternity looking to its reputation, rather than the safety of the people.

And it feels depressingly familiar.

 

The Worst Thing About Trump

How could you pick just one, right? He lies so often and so blatantly you start to wonder if he even really has a concept of what truth IS. He regurgitates populist tripe against minorities, he treats women as objects and laughs about it, demands loyalty beyond what any President should receive and, to top it all off, doesn't seem to be a very good businessman, either.

But none of that is the worst thing about Trump. The worst thing about him, by far, is his effect on other people.

I'm not even talking about the people who grow more and more frightened the closer he gets to power, though that is bad enough. No, I am talking about the everyday Americans who go into public forums to stump for their candidate and promptly turn into horrible people.

Yesterday I stared in horror as a member of my congregation posted meme after meme excusing the behavior of Trump while attacking Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea! Not Hillary, not even Bill, but their daughter, apparently for being the child of rich parents, which I always thought would never be a crime according to Republicans.

I've seen Trump Supporters, people whom I love and can vouch for as loving people, attack transgendered people as potential rapists. I've then seen them claim that bragging about sexually assaulting women should be seen as unfortunate, but normal, behavior. (So why are worried about trans people?) I've seen them excuse the murder of young black men as an acceptable, if unfortunate (maybe) consequence of law and order. I've seen them advocate prison, exile, or even execution for political rivals. I've seen them applaud violence against protestors while passionately condemning email use, heard them cheer for "bombing the shit" out of terrorists while claiming to fear refugees from the countries they want to "bomb the shit" out of, and I have even seem them do these things scant minutes after praying to a loving, compassionate God that they claim to believe in!

It's a tough place for a Pastor to stand in. I've seen colleagues of mine forced to tone down their rhetoric in the name of some illusory political "fairness" as they get attacked by Trump supporters in their congregations, wondering if their ability to do ANY kind of ministry might get eclipsed by the demand that they not reveal how the things he does are so antithetical to the Gospel.

It's not easy for politicians, either. I've watched Trump supporters demand other conservative politicians walk in ideological lockstep with the Donald even if it means betraying their core ideals, as if this election was a football game and we could pressure the politicians to support the nominee like forcing players to support the quarterback.

I'll probably get a comment or two about how this post is biased, how it doesn't cover both sides, but this, very simply, does not happen with Hillary Clinton. You don't see anyone out there saying that every Secretary of State should use their own private Email Server, or that Benghazi was a perfect execution of foreign policy. No one holds up Clinton's flaws to claim that they are virtues, no one has ever described her as the perfect candidate, or denied the roll that politics has played in her career. She just isn't that kind of candidate. People support her, not because she is the perfect human being, but because she is the most qualified for the job, or barring that, because she, quite simply, isn't Donald Trump.

And here is my worry... this is just the effect of Donald Trump, the candidate. Imagine his behavior modeled, not by a presidential candidate, but the President of the United States. Imagine the normalizing effect that would have on these behaviors, as people saw their WORST impulses exemplified, EVERY DAY, by the most powerful person in the world?

Don't tell me it wouldn't happen. I already see it happening every day. But this is just the beginning. Donald Trump has to be defeated, because if he isn't, his effect on the American People will only get stronger.

Remembering the Irish

So lately I've seen a few people link articles discussing the way that Irish immigrants were treated in the early days of colonization and our history as a nation. My family exists in a way that oddly straddles that line... my Dad is descended both from wealthy protestant Irish who founded several quite profitable ventures (I hear the McCurdy Department Store is still going, they are distant family) and potato Irish who were Catholics. It's a tradition I'm very proud of.

So I want you to take my full meaning when I say I do not wish to belittle the harshness those immigrants faced, true blue institutional racism placed up against them, difficult barriers that had to be overcome, used and abused and discarded by countless regimes until they clawed their way into the power structure and were able to enact change. It's part of my story, I know it, and I know that while it resembled, in some ways, the plight of the African American slave, it was not the same experience. I've never seen the mileage in rating suffering, but bad as my ancestors suffered, the African slaves suffered worse on average.

But that doesn't matter.

Even if the Irish suffered the way the Africans did, even if they had it worse, it would not excuse the way that story is being used now, or the implications that because we "got over it," so should they.

One of the refrains of the Old Testament is the near constant reminder of the Jewish people that they had been slaves and immigrants, once. There had been a time when they were without a home, a time when they had been without safety, when their very existence depended on the whims of another.

"A wanderin Aramean was my father," they are called on to announce at Passover, a declaration that all they have is a gift, a vast improvement over what was and a call to remember to be kind to the wanderers and sufferers of today. Slavery, according to Biblical law, was meant to be a temporary state, to keep someone a slave for life was an insult to the traditions, slave owners always called upon to remember the time when THEY were slaves.

So if the Bible means anything to you, if you claim to follow its word, you'll know that the recollection of Irish oppression and subsequent oppression dick wagging contest to be an exercise in futility, a betrayal of the very concepts you claim to adhere to.

Because if your ancestors did suffer in the way you claim, that should not be a call for others to "get over it," but rather a call to sympathy. In time, the Irish fought their way into the power structure, became the power brokers, fought and earned the respect we now take for granted. Instead, when you look and see others fighting for their right to exist and be respected in this nation, we should remember the time when we were the outcasts... and ally ourselves with them.

Because we knew what it was like to be treated as less than human, we would never DARE to do the same to anyone else.

For Politics, I want a Politician.

I am so over this election season.

I am particularly over it as a person with a platform who occasionally gets a call or a visit from someone who wants me in their camp.

For starters, my ability to do the kind of things they usually want me to do is pretty darn limited. I do not speak FOR my church, rather I speak to them, so I don't have the authority to, say, have the church back a candidate, as that could get my church into some legal trouble, as would signs in my yard (which is the church's yard) etc.

But what I am really tired of is politicians telling me that they aren't politicians. "I'm not a politician, I'm a Marine!" You see, that's a false statement. I know that because there are certain things marines do, as part of being a marine, and things politicians do. Running for office is not a part of being a Marine. It is, however, a part of being a politician.


You can deny being a bus driver all day. If, however, your job is driving a bus, then you are a bus driver.

Some have transitioned to using the phrase "career Politician" but that really doesn't help, either. Especially at the State and Federal levels, our politicians face a great many challenges, many of which will only be dealt with through compromise, the ability to say and hear what you and others believe and arrive at workable solutions. Simply having good ideas isn't enough... you need the ability to make those ideas reality. (Something certain third party candidates conveniently forget.)

So when they say they aren't "career politicians" what they mean is that they are amateurs. If I am sending my daughter to her first day of school, I don't want to hear how the person driving her bus is an amateur. That wouldn't make me want to support their bid for bus driver. Why, then, would that be something I want for the one who will guide policy for her school system?

So yes, Candidate shaking hands with steel workers despite cutting their workers rights, you ARE a politician. And by your own admission, probably not a good one, or at least not an experienced one. At this point in History, we need our A team, not the JV. This isn't Amateur hour.

So point me to the politician. Here's hoping they have good ideas, too.

When I support the Flag

During the Olympics, I am always at my most patriotic. It really is pretty silly, but during the Games, even if it's a sport I know nothing about I will hoot and holler for the folks who fly the same flag as I do even if I have no real understanding of what is going on. Even my daughter, Katrina, got dolled up in red, white, and blue and joined me in cheers of "Hoooray, for the USA!" much to her two month old bewilderment.

So on this September 11th, I watch as American Flags big enough to cover football fields are trotted out... and I have a slightly different reaction. Because this isn't the Olympics anymore, and in this moment, the stars and stripes represent something a bit different than they did.

During the Olympics, the Flag represents passionate athletes coming together and competing to the best of their ability in a celebration of athletic achievement that, somehow, manages to transcend some (if not all) of the political difficulties that surround them. Those athletes are our champions, and the flag is lifted because in a way that I don't entirely understand, those athletes represent all of us. Their victory becomes our own, no matter who they are or where they come from.

The flag I saw today, as football kicked off, was different. It came at the start of the game, not in a time of victory, with participants and observers alike instructed to rise and honor it. This was done with additional edge to due the events being memorialized today, as well as a knowledge that several athletes had vowed not to do so. Suddenly this wasn't an act of celebration, but rather a litmus test on national TV. Do you respect the flag? Here you are, the cameras will be on you the second you don't. Do you?

That's not Patriotism. It's peer pressure.

I've attended many pro games live and I have always stood during the national anthem. Given certain prohibitions in my theology concerning idolatry, it has always been vaguely worrying, but I always figured that, like during the Olympics, the flag served as a symbol... by respecting it, I was showing respect to everyone it represented.

Today... I'm just not sure that is the case. Today we are informed by many that the flag, to them, represents something other than freedom. It has become a symbol of fear and oppression. And rather than deal with that head on, we have proceeded to shoot the messenger, to burn jerseys and lash out at people saying that they do not feel included under it's promise.

For a Flag that is supposed to represent Liberty and Justice for all, that is a pretty harsh condemnation in the form of what was supposed to be defense. Suddenly social media is full of those who leap to the defense of the piece of cloth, rather than seeking to understand why others might not feel that the piece of cloth is serving its purpose as being representative of them, as citizens of our nation.

Once that has happened, my idolatry detector is blaring full blast. Once the piece of cloth has been elevated above the people it is meant to represent, our values have gone fully out of whack, and the flag comes to represent injustice and conformity instead.

Now, context will always matter. When I am in a situation where the flag represents us as a nation, whole and without exception, celebrating our champions together in times of victory, I will respect it every time. But when it is used as a litmus test, demanding that we ignore the realities of our world in the name of jingo blinded patriotism, I won't.

Because the flag can be a symbol of both freedom and oppression. The former is a symbol worthy of respect. The latter is a symbol that MUST be rejected, if the true promise of the former is ever to be truly realized.