Why wasn't Thomas locked up inside hiding with the other disciples when Jesus comes back to visit them for the first time after the resurrection? Perhaps he was off doing all the work Jesus had taught them to. Perhaps, he was getting groceries to feed the others. Or, perhaps he was in the angry stage of the cycles of mourning and he was pissed off that the teacher who he believed would save the world and bring justice has died and left them alone. Today's Gospel According to Pop explores what it would feel like for Thomas if this was the case. And if Thomas was the disciple that Jesus loved, as some scholars speculate, this could be exactly the song Thomas would have had in mind. Check it out and see what you think:
Showing posts with label queer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label queer. Show all posts
Monday, December 19, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Gospel According to Pop: Episode 5 (Rolling in the Deep: Adele)
I'm not Adele. I can't hit the notes she can. Well, even her throat can't handle hitting the notes that she does. Set that aside for a second.
This is the Gospel According to Pop where we look at the Gospel stories in a new way by thinking about the human sides of the stories and the stories behind the stories.
Today, I ask you to think about what it felt like for Judas as he left the Last Supper, where Jesus just told his 11 closest friends that Judas would betray him.
As I put these meditations together I'm a bit at the mercy of icons and famous paintings. Becuase I'm trying to mix the old and the new to take bits of what have been seen as sacred for decades and hope it rubs off on the ordinary things I pair them with. This sometimes means that Jesus often bears a much whiter tint than I would have chosen for my own meditations.
In this circumstance because Judas lets the soldiers know who Jesus is by kissing him, I found that mixing the images of Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss with Adele's song added a homoerotic undertone to the story. It wasn't something I expected, but it something kind of fun and new to think about.
This is the Gospel According to Pop where we look at the Gospel stories in a new way by thinking about the human sides of the stories and the stories behind the stories.
Today, I ask you to think about what it felt like for Judas as he left the Last Supper, where Jesus just told his 11 closest friends that Judas would betray him.
As I put these meditations together I'm a bit at the mercy of icons and famous paintings. Becuase I'm trying to mix the old and the new to take bits of what have been seen as sacred for decades and hope it rubs off on the ordinary things I pair them with. This sometimes means that Jesus often bears a much whiter tint than I would have chosen for my own meditations.
In this circumstance because Judas lets the soldiers know who Jesus is by kissing him, I found that mixing the images of Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss with Adele's song added a homoerotic undertone to the story. It wasn't something I expected, but it something kind of fun and new to think about.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Lutheran Group Eases Limits on Gay Clergy
By MICHAEL LUO and CHRISTINA CAPECCHI
Published: August 21, 2009
After an emotional debate over the authority of Scripture and the limits of biblical inclusiveness, leaders of the country’s largest Lutheran denomination voted Friday to allow gay men and lesbians in committed relationships to serve as members of the clergy.
The vote made the denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the latest mainline Protestant church to permit such ordinations, contributing to a halting sense of momentum on the issue within liberal Protestantism.
By a vote of 559 to 451, delegates to the denomination’s national assembly in Minneapolis approved a resolution declaring that the church would find a way for people in “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationships” to serve as official ministers. (The church already allows celibate gay men and lesbians to become members of the clergy.)
Just before the vote, the Rev. Mark Hanson, the church’s presiding bishop, led the packed convention center in prayer. When the two bar graphs signaling the vote’s outcome popped up on the hall’s big screens seconds later, there were only a few quiet gasps, as delegates had been asked to avoid making an audible scene. But around the convention hall, clusters of men and women hugged one other and wept.
“To be able to be a full member of the church is really a lifelong dream,” said the Rev. Megan Rohrer of San Francisco, who is in a committed same-sex relationship and serves in three Lutheran congregations but is not officially on the church’s roster of clergy members. “I don’t have to have an asterisk next to my name anymore.”
But the passage of the resolution now raises questions about the future of the denomination, which has 4.6 million members but has seen its ranks steadily dwindle, and whether it will see an exodus of its more conservative followers or experience some sort of schism.
“I think we have stepped beyond what the word of God allows,” said the Rev. Rebecca M. M. Heber of Heathrow, Fla., who said she was going to reconsider her membership.
Conservative dissenters said they saw various options, including leaving for another Lutheran denomination or creating their own unified body.
A contingent of 400 conservative congregations that make up a group that calls itself Lutheran Core is to meet in September. Leaders of the group said their plans were not to split from the Evangelical Lutheran Church but to try to protect its “true tenets” from within.
Among so-called “mainline” Protestant denominations, distinguishable theologically from their more conservative, evangelical Protestant counterparts, both the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ already allow gay clergy members.
The Episcopal Church has endured the most visible public flashpoints over homosexuality, grappling in particular in the last few years with the consecration of gay bishops. It affirmed last month, however, that “any ordained ministry” was open to gay men and lesbians.
Earlier this year the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) rejected a measure that would have opened the door for gay ordination, but the margin was narrower than in a similar vote in 2001. The United Methodist Church voted not to change its stance barring noncelibate homosexuals from ministry last year, after an emotional debate at its general conference.
But the Evangelical Lutheran Church’s heavily Midwestern membership and the fact that it is generally seen as falling squarely in the middle of the theological milieu of mainline Protestantism imbued Friday’s vote with added significance, religion scholars said.
Wendy Cadge, a sociology professor at Brandeis University who has studied Evangelical Lutheran churches grappling with the issue, said, “It does show, to the extent that any mainline denominations are moving, I think they’re moving slowly toward a more progressive direction.”
Describing the context of Friday’s vote, several religion experts likened it to the court decision last year in Iowa legalizing same-sex marriage.
“In the same sense that the Iowa court decision might have opened people’s eyes, causing them to say, ‘Iowa? What? Where?’” said Laura Olson, a professor of political science at Clemson University who has studied mainline Protestantism. “The E.L.C.A. isn’t necessarily quite as surprising in the religious sense, but the message it’s sending is, yes, not only are more Americans from a religious perspective getting behind gay rights, but these folks are not just quote unquote coastal liberals.”
The denomination has struggled with the issue almost since its founding in the late 1980s with the merger of three other Lutheran denominations.
In 2001, the church convened a committee to study the issue. It eventually recommended guidelines for a denominational vote. In 2005, however, delegates voted not to change its policies.
On Friday, delegates juggled raw emotion, fatigue and opposing interpretations of Scripture.
Before the vote but sensing its outcome, the Rev. Timothy Housholder of Cottage Grove, Minn., introduced himself as a rostered pastor in the church, “at least for a few more hours,” implying that he would leave the denomination and eliciting a gasp from some audience members.
“Here I stand, broken and mournful, because of this assembly and her actions,” Mr. Housholder said.
The Rev. Mark Lepper of Belle Plaine, Minn., called for the inclusion of gay clergy members, saying, “Let’s stop leaving people behind and let’s be the family God is calling us to be.”
Michael Luo reported from New York, and Christina Capecchi from Minneapolis.
Sign in to Recommend Next Article in US (3 of 28)
» A version of this article appeared in print on August 22, 2009, on page A9 of the New York edition.
Published: August 21, 2009
After an emotional debate over the authority of Scripture and the limits of biblical inclusiveness, leaders of the country’s largest Lutheran denomination voted Friday to allow gay men and lesbians in committed relationships to serve as members of the clergy.
The vote made the denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the latest mainline Protestant church to permit such ordinations, contributing to a halting sense of momentum on the issue within liberal Protestantism.
By a vote of 559 to 451, delegates to the denomination’s national assembly in Minneapolis approved a resolution declaring that the church would find a way for people in “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationships” to serve as official ministers. (The church already allows celibate gay men and lesbians to become members of the clergy.)
Just before the vote, the Rev. Mark Hanson, the church’s presiding bishop, led the packed convention center in prayer. When the two bar graphs signaling the vote’s outcome popped up on the hall’s big screens seconds later, there were only a few quiet gasps, as delegates had been asked to avoid making an audible scene. But around the convention hall, clusters of men and women hugged one other and wept.
“To be able to be a full member of the church is really a lifelong dream,” said the Rev. Megan Rohrer of San Francisco, who is in a committed same-sex relationship and serves in three Lutheran congregations but is not officially on the church’s roster of clergy members. “I don’t have to have an asterisk next to my name anymore.”
But the passage of the resolution now raises questions about the future of the denomination, which has 4.6 million members but has seen its ranks steadily dwindle, and whether it will see an exodus of its more conservative followers or experience some sort of schism.
“I think we have stepped beyond what the word of God allows,” said the Rev. Rebecca M. M. Heber of Heathrow, Fla., who said she was going to reconsider her membership.
Conservative dissenters said they saw various options, including leaving for another Lutheran denomination or creating their own unified body.
A contingent of 400 conservative congregations that make up a group that calls itself Lutheran Core is to meet in September. Leaders of the group said their plans were not to split from the Evangelical Lutheran Church but to try to protect its “true tenets” from within.
Among so-called “mainline” Protestant denominations, distinguishable theologically from their more conservative, evangelical Protestant counterparts, both the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ already allow gay clergy members.
The Episcopal Church has endured the most visible public flashpoints over homosexuality, grappling in particular in the last few years with the consecration of gay bishops. It affirmed last month, however, that “any ordained ministry” was open to gay men and lesbians.
Earlier this year the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) rejected a measure that would have opened the door for gay ordination, but the margin was narrower than in a similar vote in 2001. The United Methodist Church voted not to change its stance barring noncelibate homosexuals from ministry last year, after an emotional debate at its general conference.
But the Evangelical Lutheran Church’s heavily Midwestern membership and the fact that it is generally seen as falling squarely in the middle of the theological milieu of mainline Protestantism imbued Friday’s vote with added significance, religion scholars said.
Wendy Cadge, a sociology professor at Brandeis University who has studied Evangelical Lutheran churches grappling with the issue, said, “It does show, to the extent that any mainline denominations are moving, I think they’re moving slowly toward a more progressive direction.”
Describing the context of Friday’s vote, several religion experts likened it to the court decision last year in Iowa legalizing same-sex marriage.
“In the same sense that the Iowa court decision might have opened people’s eyes, causing them to say, ‘Iowa? What? Where?’” said Laura Olson, a professor of political science at Clemson University who has studied mainline Protestantism. “The E.L.C.A. isn’t necessarily quite as surprising in the religious sense, but the message it’s sending is, yes, not only are more Americans from a religious perspective getting behind gay rights, but these folks are not just quote unquote coastal liberals.”
The denomination has struggled with the issue almost since its founding in the late 1980s with the merger of three other Lutheran denominations.
In 2001, the church convened a committee to study the issue. It eventually recommended guidelines for a denominational vote. In 2005, however, delegates voted not to change its policies.
On Friday, delegates juggled raw emotion, fatigue and opposing interpretations of Scripture.
Before the vote but sensing its outcome, the Rev. Timothy Housholder of Cottage Grove, Minn., introduced himself as a rostered pastor in the church, “at least for a few more hours,” implying that he would leave the denomination and eliciting a gasp from some audience members.
“Here I stand, broken and mournful, because of this assembly and her actions,” Mr. Housholder said.
The Rev. Mark Lepper of Belle Plaine, Minn., called for the inclusion of gay clergy members, saying, “Let’s stop leaving people behind and let’s be the family God is calling us to be.”
Michael Luo reported from New York, and Christina Capecchi from Minneapolis.
Sign in to Recommend Next Article in US (3 of 28)
» A version of this article appeared in print on August 22, 2009, on page A9 of the New York edition.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
The Assumption of Assumption
Luke 1:39-56
I love the Gospel of Luke's telling of the birth of Jesus. This tale is so beautifully feminist and subversive - but this is only because of it's use of tradition and patriarchy. Luke's Gospel gives very high value to the roles of men and then silences them and gives the prophetic words to the females in the story. First Zechariah is silenced (1:22), and Elizabeth proclaims (1:25) God(dess)'s favor.
Then Mary is called the "favored one" (1:28). In this week's selection of the text, instead of telling her betrothed about all that is to take place, she goes to Elizabeth and sings a song of praise. While this is the context for the text, the story continues to highlight the women in the story. John is born and Elizabeth decides not to name the child after Zechariah as the couple had intended (1:59-60) and once Zechariah agrees he is able to speak again (1:62-24).
In a nod to patriarchy Luke seeks to establish that Jesus is a first born son in a long line of first born son's. This is an obvious attempt to establish a priestly lineage back to King David and ultimately to Adam. And yet, the lineage does not line up with other biblical texts. For example, Jacob is not a first born (though he does get the birthright), 1 Chron says David is a descendant of Ham (not Shem as listed in 3:36) and according to Ruth 2:1 is not a part of this line, but rather a member of the wealthy family Elimelech. If you're really want to be nitpicky you can note that Cainan should be Kenan, and Araphaxad sohuld be Araphashad.
The fact that the genealogy is a bit off, makes it even more clear that Luke is going out of his way to prove that Jesus is the first born son of a long line of first born sons. And yet, all of this work is still dependant on Joseph being Jesus (bloodline) father, which is not the premise of the first two chapters of this story.
So why if Luke is working so hard to prove the patriarchal lineage of the story do all the speaking parts of the texts go to the female leads? This of course is the inspiration of this blog. For me it is not so inspiring to argue that queer people exist and grace lets us do what we want. But, example
s of the queerness that exists in scripture (that we ignore or forget because we assume the text only affirms heterosexuality), stories of the queer saints and deeply held traditions that are much older than the contemporary assumption that only monogamous heterosexual relationships. And of course you can read more about this (shameless plug) in my book "Queerly Lutheran: Ministry Rooted in Tradition, Scripture and the Confessions."
But, it causes me to wonder about what the history of biblical scholarship will uncover as the next assumption that we are reading into scripture. What is the next scale we need to remove from our eyes so we can see the text more clearly?
I love the Gospel of Luke's telling of the birth of Jesus. This tale is so beautifully feminist and subversive - but this is only because of it's use of tradition and patriarchy. Luke's Gospel gives very high value to the roles of men and then silences them and gives the prophetic words to the females in the story. First Zechariah is silenced (1:22), and Elizabeth proclaims (1:25) God(dess)'s favor.
Then Mary is called the "favored one" (1:28). In this week's selection of the text, instead of telling her betrothed about all that is to take place, she goes to Elizabeth and sings a song of praise. While this is the context for the text, the story continues to highlight the women in the story. John is born and Elizabeth decides not to name the child after Zechariah as the couple had intended (1:59-60) and once Zechariah agrees he is able to speak again (1:62-24).
In a nod to patriarchy Luke seeks to establish that Jesus is a first born son in a long line of first born son's. This is an obvious attempt to establish a priestly lineage back to King David and ultimately to Adam. And yet, the lineage does not line up with other biblical texts. For example, Jacob is not a first born (though he does get the birthright), 1 Chron says David is a descendant of Ham (not Shem as listed in 3:36) and according to Ruth 2:1 is not a part of this line, but rather a member of the wealthy family Elimelech. If you're really want to be nitpicky you can note that Cainan should be Kenan, and Araphaxad sohuld be Araphashad.
The fact that the genealogy is a bit off, makes it even more clear that Luke is going out of his way to prove that Jesus is the first born son of a long line of first born sons. And yet, all of this work is still dependant on Joseph being Jesus (bloodline) father, which is not the premise of the first two chapters of this story.
So why if Luke is working so hard to prove the patriarchal lineage of the story do all the speaking parts of the texts go to the female leads? This of course is the inspiration of this blog. For me it is not so inspiring to argue that queer people exist and grace lets us do what we want. But, example
s of the queerness that exists in scripture (that we ignore or forget because we assume the text only affirms heterosexuality), stories of the queer saints and deeply held traditions that are much older than the contemporary assumption that only monogamous heterosexual relationships. And of course you can read more about this (shameless plug) in my book "Queerly Lutheran: Ministry Rooted in Tradition, Scripture and the Confessions."But, it causes me to wonder about what the history of biblical scholarship will uncover as the next assumption that we are reading into scripture. What is the next scale we need to remove from our eyes so we can see the text more clearly?
Monday, September 29, 2008
God(dess) Gathers the Outcasts
Matthew 21:33-46
This is a very bloody parable indeed - well that is if you take it only as it is written here in Matthew. Surely Jesus and those who talk about this story were well aware that it is actually an illusion to a very well known story in Isaiah 5.And surely if everyone in the conversation knew that Jesus was talking about the story in Isaiah, they would have also known that in the very next Chapter God(dess) sends a prophet to come and remind people that they are to maintain justice and care for the poor and widows. This is the same work Jesus was doing. While and strange and bloody way to say it, Jesus is using the Jewish stories that he loves to proclaim that he is a prophet who has come to bring justice for the poor.
The Good News is that we are not being called to plan, lobby or create new ways to make the world more just. Isaiah 56, calls us to: "Maintain justice, and do what is right, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed."
Did you notice the word "maintain"? God(dess) has already established justice, it is our job to maintain what God(dess) has done/declared. More bluntly, it's our job to try not to screw up G0d(dess)'s justice. This is much different than asking ourselves: What am I doing to create justice in the world? Instead we ought to ask ourselves: What we are doing to oppress others, to prevent our neighbor from having their daily bread or from being able to walk a step closer to God(dess)
I wonder how the world would change if we tried to work on our own inner oppressor. Namely, if we stopped judging others and telling them how they should be more just, and we work on being more just ourselves. This is afterall the true path to nonviolence.
Of course the story doesn't end there. Isaiah 56 says this is exactly what God(dess) is doing, by revaluating the ways God(dess) is oppressing others. In verse three it says: "Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say, 'The Lord will surely separate me from [God(dess)'s] people'; and do not let the eunuch say, 'I am just a dry tree.'"
This text is specifically talking about those the scriptures say are cut off from God(dess). Here God(dess) reverses course and declares they are in fact NOT separated from God(dess). This models the transformation in the book of Hosea when "Not my people" become "My people" and is also repeated in Ruth's love song to Naomi.
While used more broadly in other texts, here in Isaiah 56 it is explicetly tlaking about about the eunuchs, transgender individuals and those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and queer. It means that none of these groups should have to prove they are worthy of God(dess)'s love because of how they love or transform their body. Rather all other Christians ought to be reaching out to them and giving them pastoral care and sharing words of grace with them to remind them that they are not seperated from God(dess).
It seems we've gotten it all backwards these days! Isaiah is clear God(dess) is more concerned with our faithfulness and our desire to maintain jusitice.
And though it is through the lens of Isaiah that we can understand Christ, this week's Matthew text is just one more of the many times that Jesus is proudly proclaiming the "the Lord God[(dess)], who gathers the outcasts of Israel" and proclaims that G0d(dess) "will gather others to them besides those already gathered." (Isaiah 56:8)
Proper 22A/Ordinary 27A/Pentecost +21
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)