Last weekend, I attended New Organizing Institute’s RootsCampDC. One of the was titled, “Organizing Jesusland” and another dealt with Evangelical faith values and progressive politics. Of course, this got this mind of mine thinking.
A few weeks ago, my friend Steve Knight invited me to speak at Transform that’s taking place here in DC in April. He asked me to reach back into my Social Media know-how and possibly do some sort of bootcamp for Missional Christian types. Of course I was thrilled since I’ve taken a 3 year break from anything Emerging or Missional… or related to Jesusistan. I jokingly asked, “Do people still not know how to use Facebook and YouTube?” So here’s my spin taking my inspiration from RootsCamp. Hopefully, Steve will go for it…
Organizing for the United States of Evangelicals: Lessons from the Obama Campaign’s use of Web 2.0
Looking at the social media tools behind web 2.0, how Evangelicals are using them, and what we can learn from the Campaign for Change. Are Evangelicals tapping into ways to organize missionally or are they sticking to online marketing and evangelizing?
I recently downloaded the remixes of You Found Me by The Fray. I know this song is old (Fall 2008, beginning of 2009), but I never stopped to listen to the lyrics. The beat to the Lenny B mixes insanely drive the meaning of this song home, well at least for me. So I went to wikipedia to find some more information on this song. There I found:
“You Found Me” is a tough song for me. It started from just a song with a lot of hate towards God. More of questions, “why” It’s about the disappointment, the heartache, the let down that comes with life. Sometimes you’re let down, sometimes you’re the one who lets someone else down. It gets hard to know who you can trust, who you can count on. This song came out of a tough time, and I’m still right in the thick of it. There’s some difficult circumstances my family and friends have been going through over the past year or so and can be overwhelming. It wears on me. It demands so much of my faith to keep believing, keep hoping in the unseen. Sometimes the tunnel has a light at the end, but usually they just look black as night. This song is about that feeling, and the hope that I still have, buried deep in my chest. -Lead singer and pianist, Isaac Slade
Don’t need to say too much more, but I think most people who know me well understand that the past few years have been difficult. I’ve had my share of life’s difficulties, but the last few years have taken a special prize… and place, for that matter, in my life. The last 3 years have definitely shaped me profoundly. I’m just coming out of the thick of it and hope to share my story one day, but until then… I leave you only with the video.
Defenders of Traditional and Biblical Marriage are not the only ones who have it wrong, there is a lot of misunderstanding about Traditional and Biblical Marriage by Marriage Equality advocates as well. Traditional and Biblical Marriage are not synonymous of one another. Traditional Marriage is something upheld in Western culture and society that stems from the Medieval era, argued during the Protestant Reformation, solidified by the Puritans, celebrated in the Victorian period, and then epitomized by mid-20th century Western culture. Biblical Marriage refers to the examples of marriage that exist in the Bible, often spoken of in theological terms. The concepts should not be confused for one another since Traditional Marriage did not exist in the Bible and Biblical Marriage does not translate into modern culture fairly. By today’s moral and ethical standards, many of the examples of marriage in the Bible – Old and New Testament – are considered an injustice to women and children, and thus are very difficult to transplant into today’s cultural practice of marriage.
I often hear Marriage Equality advocates transplanting Biblical marriage into today’s cultural context which is ill fitting and doesn’t necessarily translate so easily cross-culturally. I assume the reasoning goes, “If gay marriage opponents are defending Traditional and Biblical Marriage synonymously, it’s imperative to point out the absurdity of marriage in the Bible with special attention to Old Testament examples.” Gay marriage opponents who often represent some expression of the Christian faith dig the hole deeper by behaving ignorantly about the historical accuracies of both Traditional and Biblical Marriage. Neither side does justice in helping culture and society in understanding either Traditional or Biblical Marriage, which in studying could provide articulate answers to today’s cultural wars concerning marriage.
A video by MrsBettyBowers.com, described as America’s Best Christian, satirically uses Old Testament marriage to defend marriage equality and justice. Though entertaining, I wasn’t amused by the inaccuracies of marriage. I understand that anti-gay marriage opponents often use the reverse extreme so this sort of satire seeks to balance the absurdity of the arguments in defense of Traditional or Biblical Marriage. However, if it was done a little more intelligently, we could possibly have some genuine discussion.
As a brief example from the video, in the Old Testament if a man raped a woman he was to marry her. In our modern mindset, we conclude that forced marriage, especially of a rape victim, is harshly unjust. It’s understandable why Marriage Equality advocates would use this example to make a case for how Biblical Marriage was more often that not one big act of injustice, thus Americans should not continue in the vein of inequality. However, we should not impose our modern Western thinking of justice and equality on ancient culture. Rightfully so, women having an economic value and treated as property is considered unfair in modern culture. However, in many ancient cultures this was the normal and acceptable way of life.
The reason for marriage under this circumstance was not to punish rape victims, but to provide justice and economic protection for women. Raped women could not marry another man, because their economic value was diminished. If rape victims did not wed, she could not survive economically. A rape victim with a diminished value had few opportunities to live a sustainable life, often remaining unwed and turning to prostitution just to live. It was the intention of the law for a man to wed a woman he took sexual advantage of to deliver justice to rape victims in an attempt to provide care by avoiding relegating victims to the worse place in that society.
The example is not accurately one of injustice since ancient society and culture deemed forced marriage of a rape victim as act of justice and equality for victims. A more accurate lesson from this example of Biblical marriage is that marriage can be an act of justice for individuals. Marriage, as seen in this Bible example, is concerned for the legal and economic rights of people. Marriage attempted to deliver justice and equality in hope of preventing injustice and abuse. Most of all, marriage was never intended to segregate and make victims out of others, but to save individuals from being exiled to the fringes and shadows of society.
In the past, Rick Warren has taken issue with the redefinition of marriage. He has said time and time again, “For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion — this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews — historically, marriage is a man and a woman… I just don’t believe in the redefinition of marriage.” [1] The issue is that our current definition of marriage (that is the Western, Christian notion of the marriage institution in the U.S.) has not existed for 5,000 years, let alone existed across cultural or religious boundaries. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to cover every single ancient culture and religion, but we can understand marriage and family as it pertains to Christianity. We will also notice that despite Warren’s attempt to entice Christians to believe marriage is unchanging, marriage has changed by definition and practice throughout history.
5,000 years ago would take us back to Sumerian culture in Ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia. The Old Testament book of Genesis refers to Sumeria as the land of Shinar (Gen. 10:10). There existed several forms of marriage and the family unit perhaps due to overpopulation, including celibate wives, marrying (much like our understanding of adopting) the bride’s brothers to form a family clan, bringing in slaves as part of the family unit, and even nuclear families. Families could be a fratriarchy where the eldest brother ruled the home. For the most part, marriage was a commercial arrangement though the groom also received payment or gifts for marrying. Unlike today, polygamy was possible up to two wives, wives were as young as 12 years of age, and grooms were well into their thirties since commonality and companionship was not as important. [2]
Though marriage was defined, as Warren suggests, “by a man and a woman” marriage and family in Sumeria was also defined by a man, a woman, her children, and her brothers; a man, a woman, and another woman; a man, a woman, their children, and their slaves, and so forth. There was absolutely no understanding of Western, Christian marriage between one man and one woman. Even if we took the time to investigate every culture and religion in history, our concept of marriage would come thousands of years later, after Christ’s death at the end of the Medieval era, argued during the Protestant Reformation, solidified by the Puritans, celebrated in the Victorian period, and then epitomized by 1950s television, film, and culture.
News can go viral instantly in today’s age. With much anticipation, many Twitterers were excited to learn today that the California Supreme Court overturned the marriage ban via other Twitterers, including myself. As soon as I heard the news, I sent word out to my followers and Facebook friends citing that I was happy to see the ban overturned; that there’s been no greater injustice during my lifetime then to deny civil rights to LGBT and I was going to celebrate with a beer. Instantly, my followers began re-tweeting until I looked at the date of the article cited from the Los Angeles Times – May 15, 2008, exactly one year ago from today. (Article)
The first mention of the CA gay marriage rumor was by @femmetron 5 hrs ago. But they didn’t say it was a current decision.
It appears that @QueerSpawn then claimed a strike of CA gay marriage ban an hour later.
He get’s it right. RTstuartgaffney One year ago today — May 15, 2008 –”California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban” – 1 YR AGO!
I believe @laerkin was 3rd in CA gay marriage rumor followed @jtwb568. 2 hours into it, the rumor was viral on Twitter.
This is a real bummer for Twitter, typically a great way to get information about – that is, unless it’s the wrong information out on one of the most important civil right decisions of our time.
Is the LA Times to blame as well. Supposedly, they tweeted a link to story earlier on their site which has since been deleted.
So who started the CA Gay Marriage Ban Twitter Rumor? We did. We all did.
UPDATE: The LATimes article now says that article is an ARCHIVE STORY. This wasn’t on the story earlier today.
“I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; – but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – AND I WILL BE HEARD.” – William Lloyd Garrison
I am no stranger to controversy. People suggest I stir up controversy by the “severity of my language” and voicing my many thoughts on various issues. A popular Abolitionist and Liberator, William Lloyd Garrison asked, “Is there not cause for severity?” If people who believed in social justice took a different approach and avoided speech that wasn’t shocking, offensive, bothersome, agitating or whatever the claim may be, would they still be heard? I don’t believe so.
Feb 24th, 2010 
