An Amazing Argument: Why Gay Marriage Will Fail

Contratimes readers should take a moment to read Sam Schulman's brilliant and original essay, "The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage: It isn't going to work."

Let us know what you think (via email or in the comments below).

"GOD" is still speaking?

One of my first essays at Contratimes was titled, "The god of love." It is worth quoting the opening sentences of that essay here, as they still ring true, though perhaps for very different reasons than when I first penned them.

Permit me to announce my rejection of Christ. For if Christianity is as the United Church of Christ (UCC) suggests in its recent TV commercial, then I have no interest in being a Christian. Such religiosity is anathema to me; and I'm anathema to it.

I have indeed renounced the Christ that is not the Christ, if you will. For I do not recognize as divine the voice of the Christ presented in the various churches I used to frequent. So I not only renounce that voice, I denounce it in total. It is to me an ugly voice.

Why, on this April Fools' Day, should I return to the United Church of Christ and its rather ugly message? Well, perhaps I do so for two reasons. The first is because the "Christ" voice I hear in the UCC is remarkably similar to the voice I hear in the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire (I am an Episcopalian in exile), which is identical to the voice I hear in the Unitarian Universalist society which I often frequented, which is identical to the voice I hear daily in the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It is, in the end, a political voice, not a divine one, and not even a truly religious one.

But most important, I mention this UCC voice because my hypocrisy alarm has sounded. Again.

_____________________

Let it be known that the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ is Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Let it also be known that said church is the largest fiscal donor to the United Church of Christ's "Wider Mission." (see UCC press release here)

In other words, the church in which the revered though wildly controversial Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. presided is the capstone congregation of the United Church of Christ. It is in this church, one that sits atop a particularly liberal religious denomination, where Barack Obama worshiped for 20 years. It is also the church to which Mr. Obama gave over $20,000 -- no casual sum -- in 2006.

But where is the hypocrisy in all of this? Well, perhaps it all begins years ago (1993) in the UCC's denunciation of the Boy Scouts of America (many BSA troops once used UCC church facilities). One can read the UCC's resolution, found here in PDF form, which pronounces judgment on the independent and private Boy Scouts of America's position on homosexuality.

What perplexes me, as it probably perplexes you, is how a Christian denomination could ban from its function rooms and basement dining halls, a private club known for doing good works that also happens to take a traditional view about sexuality and marriage; and yet, that same denomination has no problem accepting funds from it largest single congregation wherein is propagated blatantly racist and anti-Semitic junk -- all in the name of "the Bible." The Boy Scouts of America hardly make a peep about sexual morality; they are curiously silent, by and large, about homosexuality in particular. It's not Boy Scouts marching against gay marriage; the Scout Oath says nothing about denying gays the right to protection under law.

And yet from its most esteemed and successful pulpit, the UCC has accepted, without blushing, the sort of pornography that has come to be known as the Gospel. Bill Clinton was "ridin' dirrrrrty" on black people; Hillary Clinton ain't never been called a "n------r!"; whites rule the United States of KKK America; it was whites who killed the black Jesus (actually, it was the "garlic-nosed" Italians who did it); AIDS was invented by the white man to kill blacks. THIS is the Gospel presented in the flagship pulpit of the United Church of Christ. You know, the very church that bans Boy Scouts for their quiet discrimination.

Of course, it only gets worse when we think of the tolerance of those great men of faith lauded by the UCC's gemstone pulpit, men like Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam (a quick web search shows that Mr. Farrakhan holds some very "intolerant" views on sexuality). The Trinity United Church of Christ even published in its church newsletter an op-ed (see page 8ff here) by a man demonstrably anti-Semitic; he accused Israel of having worked with the "white supremacists" of South Africa, detonating nuclear bombs on a whim off the South African coast, and developing a bomb that would kill Arabs and blacks.

All this makes sense in a perverted way when we admit into our discussion the UCC's motto, "God is still speaking." And our reply to this God, I am sorry to say, should really be "Please, shut up." For this sort of stuff pouring from the pulpits of the UCC is not God's voice at all.

Amazingly, the UCC itself is hardly mentioned in media accounts and analysis of Reverend Wright's work (and those who echo his angry and racist beliefs). But the UCC should be held to account.

Consider this my meager start.


Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

On Politics/Culture: You, That's Who: A Call For Gay Ghettos At The Huffington Post

In his blunt and bludgeoning way, Charles Karel Bouley, radio talkshow host and columnist at the Huffington Post, calls for the very thing he decries. He does not know it, of course, or else he would be saying something different. But his essay -- Who, Exactly, Are You Calling Immoral? -- published at the HufPo today, proves that Mr. Bouley is in high dudgeon as he responds to US General Peter Pace's remarks about homosexuality. (General Pace made the remarks yesterday at the Chicago Tribune; the following is pulled from the Tribune's web edition):

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

"As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," Pace said. [bold added for emphasis]

(Let it be noted the Tribune admits that the interview with the man who sits as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was "wide-ranging." That the Tribune chose to lead with a man's personal remarks about homosexuality in the military is curious. More later.)

But let us read how the essayist at the Huffington Post believes his like-minded peers should respond to all of this:

"I grow tired of my community trying to make organizations accept them, states, recognize them, governments respect them. We have power in numbers, and in our wallets, use it. If a state votes against same sex marriage or civil unions, move to a state that allows them. Reward the economies of fair states with your home purchases, car purchases, tax payments. Punish those that don't. Leave churches that don't accept you as a whole, real, non-broken person. Screw the Catholics and Evangelicals. Find a place where a real god, a god of love and acceptance is worshipped. Take your tithes, your physical presence, your donations elsewhere.

"It's time we stop begging everybody to accept us and just reward the people that do. And when those that don't feel that crush, lose that money, lose those bodies, lose the revenues, when the rolls dwindle or areas don't get rejuvenated and property values shoot up (every time gays take over an area, it shoots up†, ask South Beach in Miami, Hillcrest in San Diego, West Hollywood in California, Castro in San Francisco) when people start realizing that gays make this country work just like non-gays, and that without us some of the wheels just won't turn as well, then change will come."

How nice. A call to boycott, and a call to partitioning. Nay, it is a call to ghettoizing and to institutionalized hate. Mr. Bouley, after all, wants to oppress those who disagree with him. And he wants to isolate one group -- his "community" -- from anyone who does not think and act like him and his peers.

How very moral, and how convincing: Mr. Bouley's position is so easily defended he resorts to calls for balkanization and financial deprivation. Of course, I do not today see at any major conservative news or commentary outlet a single writer calling for us to ghettoize gays and lesbians; I hear no one calling for us to withdraw from Unitarian societies, Reformed synagogues, or to stop skiing in Vermont, shopping in Provincetown, drinking Tequila in Key West or gawking at the Wharf in San Francisco. But I do find a call from a gay advocate at the Huffington Post to do essentially that very thing.

One is tempted to urge Mr. Bouley to make good with his promises: Indeed, have everyone who is gay and like-minded move to Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and certain enclaves in California.

And, moreover, I would hope that if Mr. Bouley and his peers are not going to spend money on the homophobics around them, they will also not work for any homophobes who might own the company from which they draw paychecks or accept ANY MONEY FROM HOMOPHOBES FOR ANY REASON OR ON ANY CONDITION.

________
EDIT-ORS

Why would the Chicago Tribune choose to lead today's headlines with what a general in the US military said about homosexuality? Is it because the paper's editors' knew that there would be a tremendous wave of umbrage pouring over the country, and through the media and the Web? Did the Chicago Tribune see that it had a story that would dominate tonight's news cycle? Perhaps yes to both. But perhaps the Tribune also meant to do something else, namely, to bury something, to hide it, to drag a very piquant red herring in front of our noses. Though the paper said the reason Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"-policy question was asked had everything to do with curiosity about how the military is going to bolster sagging troop numbers, one wonders if there is something missing in that admission. What else did Gen. Pace say in his "wide-ranging" interview?

Hmm. He said this, for example:

"Addressing a range of other military topics, Pace said House Democrats' proposal to wind down the war could hamper President Bush's planned troop 'surge' in Iraq by creating gaps in troop levels."

Oops. Did General Pace say that the Democrats' proposal would adversely affect troop levels? Indeed, he did, if the Tribune is telling the truth. Of course, THAT sort of thing is not worth a headline at all. Instead, switch the problem: Troop levels are not in jeopardy because of Democratic action, but because of Gen. Pace's alleged homophobia.

(The whole Tribune story is worth reading. It is quite jumbled, bouncing back and forth on the gay/military issue. It does report that Pace is critical of Pakistan's recent political decisions that have hurt the overall war on terror. See copy of story here [you'll have to sign in, but it's easy and worth it].)

_________
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL

Let us remember that it was Bill Clinton who elevated to the status of policy the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" numbness embraced by the military. Of course, it demands the question, If homosexuality is moral, why would anyone not be allowed to ask about it, and why would anyone not want to tell about it? In praxis, then, President Clinton's policy treated homosexuality as immoral, though not necessarily egregiously so. He at least suggested that speaking about it was wrong. Nevertheless, demanding silence about sexual orientation and behavior is utterly homophobic; to me, it is the only truly homophobic stance one can take: No one can utter a word about it. To state outright that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, unnatural, illogical or just plain unhealthy is hardly to state something homophobic, it is assert something as allegedly true. But to demand silence about it; to have a "Shhhhh!" policy in the military, is homophobia par excellence. Egads, most psychologists and even novelists know that any family's dysfunction is directly rooted in what that family CANNOT and MUST NOT talk about. Curiously, the only conclusion one can reach is that Bill Clinton institutionalized dysfunction in the military. General Pace, echoing the policy's intent, at least has the courage to state that he personally finds homosexuality immoral. Good for him.

But in the end, this is the sad moral of this tale of free speech's demise, and it is a lot like what I wrote about yesterday: the policy is really about General Pace's failing to heed his own services' policy: No one should've asked, and he should not have told -- because he is a bigot. And we must stop our ears at his harsh, cold words. Or so it goes.

_________
BOULEY IS A WHOLE PERSON

If there is one thing that sets Christianity apart from the populist faiths currently en vogue, it is that Christianity has not once said that any person, except Christ, is whole; or as Mr. Bouley puts it, "non-broken." In fact it is the one thing that may very well prove Christianity is undeniably true. I have never met a whole person, nor do I know anyone else who has been so lucky; every person I've met has needed to be saved from some demon, sorrow, malaise or besetting sin. Mr. Bouley may indeed set himself above the common herd of humanity, touting himself as fully integrated. But the rest of us honest souls can't help but admit that he strikes us as remarkably disintegrated, a broken man in a great deal of denial. I am sure he can find -- in California no less -- a church and a god that will love him for his apparent integrity and wholeness, but I believe his call for such a deity can only yield but one foolish youth -- Narcissus.

_________
†GAY PROSPERITY

†This idea is rooted -- in part, I believe -- in the work of Richard Florida, whose book, The Rise of the Creative Class argues that in communities where there is a high-level of social tolerance, economies thrive. That Mr. Bouley believes this, is clearly evident; though his sentence makes one think that wherever gays increase in numbers, communities turn to injecting themselves with hard drugs:

"…every time gays take over an area, it shoots up, ask South Beach in Miami, Hillcrest in San Diego, West Hollywood in California, Castro in San Francisco."

That phrase -- "take over an area" -- is unintentionally chilling, for certain. But the effect of Mr. Bouley's "policy" is intentionally chilling: he wants to take over.

I wonder what Mr. Bouley would have to say to this observation about San Francisco, made by a fellow Californian from that beloved city and gay haven (quoted from the Salt Lake Tribune):

"San Francisco is one of the 'least family-friendly cities in the U.S.,' says Maurice Healy, longtime editor of Catholic San Francisco, the diocesan paper. 'Only about 14 percent of families have children under 18. There is an increasing gap between rich and poor. The lack of affordable housing is a crisis.' "

Oh, forget it. I know what Bouley would say, since Healy is a Catholic: "Screw the Catholics."

But what Healy says is really quite true. Have you ever looked at property in, for example, Provincetown, Massachusetts? It is surely NOT a place for the poor OR real economic diversity. But the overlooked fact in all of this is really rather plain: wherever the rich gather in great knots of prosperity, the first thing to go (often) is morality. Why? Because the rich can afford to be indulgent; the rich can afford to be immoral. Therefore, prosperity alone is feckless in helping us determine the health or wholeness of a group, a movement, a community.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

PS. Lest anyone be confused, let me at this moment announce that no where here, or anywhere else, am I calling for the ghettoizing of gays and lesbians, or for the balkanization of American culture. Any idea of such forced segregation is reprehensible to me.

The Blind, Pulling The Wool

There's a headline in today's New York Times, and I want to tell you why it is disturbing. The headline reads:

G.O.P. Moves Fast to Reignite Issue of Gay Marriage

The headline comes in the wake of the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision on Wednesday that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal rights under New Jersey law. In reporting on that decision, The New York Times headline read "New Jersey Court Backs Full Rights for Gay Couples."

Please, note the difference in headlines. Pay particular attention to the first headline. For it argues that Republicans have reignited something that had long since burned out. To the editors at the NYT, Republicans have reignited a flame long ago extinguished by cool-headed thinkers like those directing The Times (and they do try to direct the times, don't they?). The issue was, apparently, a done-deal, a non-issue. No one was thinking about it, burning about it; no one cared. And then, on cue, Republicans seized a simple court decision and instantly set it ablaze for political gain. Republicans are rallying the "conservative base" once again in a self-serving effort to maintain political control over basic human rights.

Of course, only a person trying to propagandize the masses would imply that the issue of gay marriage had somehow been snuffed out. The fact is, it's been burning for years, and rather quite brightly.

Note what the headline to either news item does not insinuate, namely, that a New Jersey court decision may have been handed down to mobilize Democratic operatives intent on redefining marriage. Note that neither story focuses on the fact that certain Democrats and their pet interest groups have been politically reinforced by the New Jersey court; nothing is said about how the New Jersey decision reignites anybody (though it clearly does). Also, please note, that neither headline suggests that gay-marriage-friendly Democrats will be motivated to go to the polls to support candidates and measures that will enshrine gay marriage in language that makes it equal to heterosexual marriage. The G.O.P. is trying to reignite a fire that should not be lit; it is trying to motivate its base. Of course, the Democrats are NOT trying to ignite the issue; nor are they trying to ignite a flame beneath their party's feet.

You might recall the sheer idiocy of comments surrounding gay marriage amendment initiatives in several states during the 2004 elections. You may have heard that Karl Rove, ranked as a demigod by Democrats, positioned these amendments on state ballots, using them as a clarion call to homophobes everywhere to vote Republican. But surely the idiocy, and fallaciousness, are instantly obvious: if gay marriage is a desirable thing, then amendments on ANY state ballot would motivate voters WHO ARE PRO-GAY TO TURN OUT IN DROVES. In other words, had Karl Rove in fact drummed up such a scheme, he would have known that such initiatives would have been inspiration for the apparently tens of millions of voters who love the idea of gay marriage and who would, invariably, vote as Democrats. But the fact is this, and even the headline above intimates it: voters repeatedly reject the argument that gay marriage is equal to traditional marriage. Including, believe it or not, Democrat voters.

And that is why the New Jersey court decision is so important. To hell with the will of the people. Only a few folks really have the direct line to God and legal clarity on this; they sit on courts, in academia, and the high places in American journalism. The rest of us are just plain bigots, for we do not believe that two gay men in bed are equal to a man and woman in bed or even sitting on a bus. Nor do we believe, as most African-Americans do not believe, that the issue of gay marriage is on the same plane, or even on the same bus, as civil rights issues for blacks were in the 1950s and 1960s: anti-black bigotry is not remotely the same as alleged anti-gay bigotry. Nor does anyone notice that it is a sort of reverse bigotry that assails traditional marriage proponents; that such proponents are "homophobic" and "zealous religious nuts", that they are "hyprocrites" for not berating other perversions of so-called "sacred marriage", like divorce, spousal abuse, and sundry other infidelities; that traditional marriage is "merely about love and commitment between two people". Such name-calling is indeed a type of bigotry, a type of rendering people as less than whole, or even less than human; and such reductionism gives the lie that pro-gay proponents adore the lofty ideal of marriage, for it is quite clear that the only way they can equate traditional marriage -- which has stood as a sacrament for centuries -- to gay marriage, is to reduce the beauty, import, and value of the sacrament: it is just about love, commitment, companionship. Traditional marriage proponents are not entitled, either in the opinion of the courts or The New York Times, to define themselves or marriage the way they see fit; they must define marriage (and, by extension, their own selves) some OTHER way (sort of the way blacks were not allowed to define themselves as fully human and fully American).

In the end, if any reader of The New York Times believes that the Republican Party is reigniting anything about gay marriage, such a reader deserves The New York Times. The rest of us, without reading that great grey sage, are more than duly informed.


Anyhow, just some thoughts on a slow Friday. (Friday, as some of you may know, appears to be a blogger's low day, as blog traffic seems to really take a dive. At least it does here, even rather precipitously. It is the slowest day of the week by far.)

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Where Hypocrisy Lies?

There has not been a word here about the Mark Foley scandal. It's not that I have no thoughts about the matter. It's that I have no idea exactly what the scandal is: is it that a congressman wrote dirty emails to congressional pages? is it that he's gay? is it that he is gay in the Socratic sense, you know, adoring the bodies of young men (who are, I believe, at or above the age of consent)? is it that other Republicans knew of Mr. Foley's fetishes and swept his dark secret under the House rugs? is it that Republicans are the party of "family values", or so we hear (though more often from Democrats who scoff at the GOP's moral stances), and yet the hypocrite Republicans have enabled a man who is clearly not a value to any family? Where, pray tell, is the scandal?

The other night, while punching out a few phrases as a warm up to writing, I (somewhat) randomly banged out these throwaways:

"When a gay man is caught by Republicans, they throw the Bible at him. When a gay man is caught by Democrats, they embrace him, giving him rights to happiness. Unless that gay man is a Republican. Then Democrats throw the book at him. And a shrink.

"Democrats gather at the lectern beneath falling balloons filled with so much heavy gas. They rally around a mission statement hammered out by knocking heads together: 'We are the party of the big tent, the inclusive camp; we exist solely as a bulwark against bigotry and injustice. That explains why we have broken camp in such haste; there is a gay man outside with confused sexual identities: He’s a Republican. We have hauled our asses across the river; it is unjust that anyone might think we are here to help. It is that sort of bigotry we abhor, the kind which expects us to be as big as the falling fabric over our heads.'"

Let us just for fun assume that Mr. Foley is a Democrat. Let us assume that he was caught by Republican snoops, their noses to the ground, sniffing out the pheromones of filth. What would Democrats say to defend Mr. Foley? Perhaps they would say something like this:

'Please. Let us not be too hasty to judge the privacy of a man whose public service has been so stellar. He has not, as far as anyone can tell, broken any law; and if a law has been broken, we must ask ourselves whether this is not the sort of law that should be broken. We like to be compassionate here; we accept that people are in various stages of moral clarity and sexual identity. Not everyone fully knows who he or she is; we are all products of psychological and emotional struggles that lead us through a lot of confused searching. Mr. Foley is no different than many men and women, and he has sought psycho-sexual affirmation with older teenage boys; perhaps his issues are a lot less about sex than they are about emotional support and, perhaps, even anxieties about dying. Moreover, it is clear we need to be careful in pronouncing judgment, for no one of us is fit to throw stones. We did not confront Mr. Foley largely because we expected this sort of judgmentalism to come from the Republicans: had we disciplined Mr. Foley, we would have been accused of gay-bashing. We would have been called "hypocrites" had we censured him. Yes, we admit that we have known about Mr. Foley for a long time now; but there are far more dangerous things in this world than a good congressman who lovingly adores younger men. If our culture were more tolerant of homosexuals in general, if gay men could be more open with their feelings and desires, perhaps Mr. Foley would not have felt that he needed to identify with the younger men in his milieu: his sexuality remains repressed by a pervasive heterosexism that expects a man to grow up, marry a good wife, raise a family, and sit as patriarch over his progeny. Sadly, not all men can meet such prefabricated, oppressive expectations.'

If there is a political point to all the current alarmist language about Republican hypocrisy, and the feigned Democratic shock associated with an avowedly gay Republican fascinated by dirty talk and teenage males, it is this: Democrats want you to know that if there are gays in the party of family values, they are messed up gays. No liberal Democrat can really countenance the fact that 23-25% of homosexuals who voted in 2000 and 2004 voted for George Bush; no Democrat can countenance that any "normal" gay man would vote against gay marriage. But such gays do indeed exist; and the Republican party, contrary to modern mythology, does indeed welcome them.

Regarding the Foley matter, perhaps Mr. Foley himself is a "hypocrite"; but perhaps his alleged hypocrisy resides here: he loathes his homosexuality and yet cannot help himself. Perhaps he believes his sexuality is indeed a choice, one that he can suppress; perhaps he believes he recognizes that his own behaviors do indeed jeopardize the security of the family. I have no problem with, for example, a Sen. Edward Kennedy voting for more restrictive drunk-driving laws, precisely because that esteemed senator, who has been shown great mercy, nonetheless knows that such mercy comes as a result of his killing a woman while he was drunk. His vote matters more, in some ways, than those who have never killed a woman: he knows the costs of drunk-driving. Of course, he has not really suffered much politically, at least in Massachusetts; though Mr. Foley has indeed suffered great loss, precisely, I am afraid to say, because he is not a gay Democrat. But hypocrisy is not a man saying one thing and then doing another. Hypocrisy is a man exempting himself from the rules he expects of others. Hypocrisy is not Smith railing against petty theft and then stealing his neighbor's bamboo rake. We all violate our principles at one time or another; we have all known contrition. But hypocrisy is Smith railing against theft and then denying that his action had anything to do with stealing; hypocrisy is Smith arguing that he is specially privileged to acquire his neighbor's desirable rake. I have no idea of whether Mr. Foley or Mr. Kennedy believe their moral precepts apply to everyone but themselves: for all I know, they are perfectly consistent, like many of us, in theory. They just fall short in practice.

If I was in the Washington press corps, there are two things I would be doggedly pursuing. If the Foley case, shaped as it is by countless appalled Democrats, is about pedophilia, I want to know who, in the Democratic leadership of the House, knew about Mr. Foley's page fetish and how long they knew. I want to know why they delayed one second to report this reprehensible behavior to the proper authorities.

And the second thing I want to know is when members of the press discovered Foley's sinful behavior. How long did the media know? Why were they so slow to act to protect children from a "predator."

Look, I have no problem accepting that Mr. Foley was a threat to young males. I have no problem accepting that his emails are vulgar. What I don't accept is the apparently glaring fact that those who are taking umbrage now with his peccadilloes have been silent for even the briefest amount of time. If there is hypocrisy in this, it is slithering somewhere around this fact.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

The god of love

Permit me to announce my rejection of Christ. For if Christianity is as the United Church of Christ (UCC) suggests in its recent TV commercial, then I have no interest in being a Christian. Such religiosity is anathema to me; and I'm anathema to it.

The commercial in question - Bouncer - depicts people queueing up outside a church. Each person is subjected to a security screening by two black-garbed musclemen determining each person's legitimacy. A homosexual couple is tossed aside, as is a young, jewelry-pierced man, apparently hispanic. Also rejected is an African-American child; and even a young man in a wheelchair. Finally the screen fades to black and the words 'Jesus didn't turn people away ... Neither do we,' appear in white. Then a male voice-over: 'The United Church of Christ. No matter who you are, or where you are in life's journey, you are welcome here.' (To see the ad for yourself, go here and follow the links.)

When I first saw the UCC ad (stumbled upon while sifting through sundry TV channels), I genuinely thought it was a parody, perhaps created by The Daily Show; for the piece is that laughable and absurd. But my first impression was quickly replaced by shock when I saw the official UCC logo emblazoned on the screen, topped with these words: God is still speaking.

Yeah, sure he is.

The important point presented in the commercial is of Christ's acceptance. It is the claim that Christ accepts all people 'no matter who they are.' But one wonders what this means. If we know anything about Christ, he rebuked the self-righteous, condemned not only adultery but even lust (a very biological drive), castigated 'money changers' in the holy temple, and exorcized demons from disturbed people.

(I wonder if the UCC's Jesus demonstrated expansive tolerance with his disciple Peter. One need only recall Christ's gentle, approving words issued to that first Bishop of Rome: 'Get thee behind me, Satan.')

Yeah, Jesus just accepted everybody.

What's disgusting is that if the UCC is about openness, its doors are rather closed; closed to people who are Christian fundamentalists, or alleged homophobes, or members of the Boy Scouts. Each of these is not permitted to cross the UCC's tolerant threshold. But maybe that's unfair. A homophobe, for example, is no doubt welcome on the condition that he or she doesn't seek a position of leadership in the UCC, unless such a person changes.

(Apparently some people can and must change.)

Remember, according to the UCC, where ever you are in life's journey, you are accepted by the UCC, unless, of course, you are an unacceptable person. With compassion like that, it seems the UCC might actually keep the real Jesus out of its churches, the man who was rejected and despised for the sins of the world.

Contrary to the UCC, there has never been a church that has tossed out people before they even enter. Until now. After all, the Christian Church has always been about saving people from their sins. It's only a gross misunderstanding that the Church is the household of the whole. Rather, it's the household of the broken. So to suggest that people were banned for being sinners is absurd.

But that's not the suggestion, is it? The suggestion is that homosexuality, for example, is normal, and that homophobia is sin. But with the UCC's ban on homophobic Boy Scouts now well known, it's clear that the only church to ban sinners, for the first time in history, is the United Church of Christ.

Let's assume the UCC is right: churches are un-Christlike. But if Christ taught anything, it is the love of one's enemies. How then does the UCC's commercial demonstrate its love for those people with whom it categorically disagrees? It invokes Christ in a slick TV ad, using him to mock and rebuke the UCC's neighbors. Shame!

Give me a Christ that wants to smash the world to bits. That's a Christ worth following. For love is ferocious, if it's anything. I've no interest in a deity that is neither loving nor divine. A Christ that accepts everyone as they are is worthless.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: United Church of Christ, Bouncer Advertisement