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?

No related posts.

“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.

No related posts.

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.

No related posts.

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.

[1] Beliefnet Video, Accessed 5/19/2009
[2] Life in the ancient Near East, 3100-332 B.C.E., Daniel C. Snell, p. 51-54

No related posts.

How did this happen? From my Twitter @aoflores:

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.

No related posts.

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.

No related posts.

Twitter was created to answer the simple question, “What are you doing?” The same reason why statuses were originally created in Facebook. Do you remember the Facebook name followed by the word “is?” Originally, users were suppose to tell Facebook what they were doing, like:

AO is writting a note.

Somewhere along the line “is” was dropped and became “What’s on your mind?” – a open invitation for Facebook users to tell their Friends what they were thinking about. From reading Facebook statuses, I don’t get the feel that most Facebook users have noticed the change. Facebook users still post mainly random updates about their routine lives giving Facebook a privatized but glorified address book feel, which in addition allows users to know there long lost friend in High School just ate Mac-n-Cheese after using the bathroom. In return, friends post what they are doing. Since no one really cares, nobody really pays attention except that small percentage of friends that regularly interact anyhow.

That’s so 2008 for Facebook! The social media medium is growing up and harbors so much more power for dialogue, networking, learning and community that most Facebook users are not-in-the-know (even though users can add media from a variety of sources today).

Twitter hasn’t changed it’s original question by sticking with “What are you doing?” even though many users send Tweets containing information, links, resources, and opinions about various subjects. In fact, you can’t sustain followers on Twitter if you are not providing significant content or engaging conversations. Only certain followers can tolerate updates about your daily life or what the cutest thing your child has done. The majority of users just don’t care about each others daily routines unless the user first and foremost provides interesting content. No longer is Twitter really asking “What are you doing?” but instead asks Facebook’s question much better than it can.

Many Twitter users, like myself, syndicate their stream into Facebook to carry on conversations outside of the Twitterverse. A problem emerges when two different questions are being asked and most Facebook users are not catching on to the fact that Facebook no longer is asking, “What they’re doing?” Some Facebook users are left wondering why some Friends are telling them a lot more than they want to hear or know. (My sweet Mother-in-Law just cares to know is how my day is going and what my kids are up to. Instead, I’m engaging in Twitter heated conversations about sex, gay marriage, politics, and religion.) Content obviously can become intrusive, invasive, and impermissible highlighting that there are those of us who use Facebook as an address book and others who are pushing the medium towards it’s fullest potential powering it by Twitter. Facebook doesn’t exist in a vacuum either, but often conversations make there way to our Facebook pages from our various online presences, including blogs, other social networks, and Twitter using Facebook like a receptacle for online conversing. This is a very different user mentality than maintaining an address book and users are always privy to the entire discussion at length.

Possible solutions. Facebook has recently added a hide Friend feature as well as separate lists. There are Friends who I honestly would love to stay in contact with, but don’t care what they are doing every moment of the day. These friends are hidden allowing me to visit their pages when I wish. I also have lists for High School Friends, Family, Thought Leaders, Close Friends, etc. so I can click on the content I wish to view more selectively. Unfortunately, users have no option to select which content is for which list, but perhaps before we go deleting Friends we should wait until Facebook evolves. Meanwhile, hide and organize your Friends so you don’t have to worry about content awkwardness and the stress of ending online friendships.

No related posts.

The Church historically has struggled with sex and sexuality presenting at best an anti-sexual vision throughout history. For example, the early church went to such extremes to be sexually chaste that some severed their own genitals for the sake of Christ (e.g. Origen, Melito of Sardis) [1] [2]. Asceticism was so ingrained in the faith, that rogue penises and testes didn’t stand a chance against Christian belief and practice [3]. Men would go to extremes to prevent sexual sin until the First Council of Nicaea prohibited castration in the 4th Century [4], even more reason to cite the Nicene Creed.

Sexuality throughout the time of Jesus through the Medieval period was solely for the purpose of procreation for the sake of nationalism – citizens creating more citizens by sexual reproduction. Sex for any other reason both in or outside of marriage was considered sinful, specifically adulterous. In Rome, being married and having no children could also be considered adulterous. Homosexual, oral, anal, and masturbatory sex were all considered sodomy because they were unnatural, or unable to produce children to create a bigger society. Sexual sin always came down to reproduction to support economic and political nationalism even to the point of restricting all sexual positions except the most natural, what we now call the missionary position. Of course, all sex was to be performed within the confines of marriage be it by purchasing the bride, kidnapping the bride, or finding one who would consent or at least have her guardian’s consent. The early and medieval church also made no distinction between a male and female who lived together and who were consummating their relationship. These couples were considered married. What seemed to matter most was the national population. The marriage unit was looked to as the corner stone for building stronger nations, which places both Jesus and Paul’s statements on marriage and divorce in a different context than the traditional myth that marriage was all about love and devotion [5] [6]. This was not Jesus nor Paul’s cultural context. Here are some possible alternative meanings:

Matthew 19: When Jesus is questioned by the religious about divorce, many men divorced habitually to gain economic and political gain in society. With marriage and children came economic inheritances which was very advantageous for men. Adding to the growing definition of adultery, Jesus warns that divorcing for such gain and remarrying is adulterous or not holding to the original purpose of marriage [7]. Furthermore, I’m suggesting that Jesus’ view on marriage was concerned with a social injustice against women who weren’t able to survive unless married. It is unclear though if Jesus is referring to the original purpose for marriage (exemplified in Adam and Eve) as a relational commitment, procreation, or both. I’d suspect the former is where Christ places the emphasis accenting love, since the culture overemphasized marriage and children as a commodity in hope of climbing the political, social, and economic ladders which fueled divorce.

1 Corinthians 7: Paul in no way was trying to outline a theology for marriage, but simply answering a complex question by the Corinthian church and doing ethics. If we digest the counsel actually given by Paul, his primary objective seems to be in reminding the church what is most important given the immediate situation (i.e. the Lord’s quick return in their lifetimes), not a hard moral statement favoring certain expressions of marriage between male and female. Paul tries to balance the tension between several cultural realities, marriage for societal advantage, mixed faith marriages, and asceticism for spiritual gain. Pauline theology is filled with the theme of grace and his answers are no different here, “I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are.” Only to marriage does he speak a command, reiterating what Christ said in Matthew except he focuses more so on women than on men. As we already addressed, for men divorce and remarriage came with advantages, but for women divorce created disadvantages and injustices. Paul follows Christ in encouraging and emphasizing commitment above any other type of personal gain [8].

The strict religious views on sexuality and marriage found the ending Medieval period and Catholic church in a heap of hypocrisy. Prostitution, concubines, divorce, and various sexual sin was rampant inside and outside of the church with clergy even visiting brothels and obtaining concubines [9]. The anti-sexual religious views on sexuality and marriage did little for sustaining a moral society, but in some ways fostered further societal immorality which threatened the very nationalism it was suppose to protect and nurture. In response, the Catholic church in the Middle Ages solidified marriage as something sacred, making matrimony a holy sacrament of the church for two consenting individuals at least 7 yrs in age [9] [10]. Sacred matrimony was intended to deter immorality along with harsh punishments, including death, for acting against what was sacred [11]. The Reformers thought much more needed to be done against sex and in support of marriage, providing a revised theology of sexuality and marriage, but not any less strict than their predecessors.

References
[1] NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine
[2] Virgins of God: the making of asceticism in late antiquity, Susanna Elm, p. 122-123
[3] Ibid.
[4] NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils
[5] Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, Stephanie Coontz
[6] Sex, Dissidence and Damnation: Minority Groups in the Middle Ages, Richards, Jeffrey, p. 34
[7] Thou Shalt Not Love: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays, Patrick M. Chapman, Ph.D., p. 109
[8] NICNT: The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee, p. 266-290
[9] Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, Stephanie Coontz
[10] The History of the European Family: Family life in early modern times, David I. Kertzer, Marzio Barbagli, p. 126
[11] Sex and Canon Law: Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, pp. 33-50

No related posts.

This is not only true today but also in Paul the Apostles time, as he often gave his best answer to many “moral” issues of his time (Corinthians). Paul did not try to give concrete black and white answers, but understood the mystery apparent in faith and the cultural issues at hand allowing grace to be applied to the practice of Christianity. I will call that practice of grace “ethics,” but will get to that a little later. Additionally, the early church mindset was for Christ to make a speedy, at any given moment, return within their lifetime and not 2000+ years from then. Perhaps, if they would had had a different expectation their moral advice wouldn’t seem as temporal or fitting solely for that time. But was it intended to be in the first place or merely the moral outcome to be achieved in their specific situation – an applied ethic?

Even today, the Bible still does not answer all of our questions to moral issues. What the Christian should consider to be sin stems from understanding which Biblical mandates and directives are cultural, and knowing which one’s are timeless. The most religious of Christians will hold to the “letter of law” suggesting that every “do not” is a timeless description of sin for every culture and every generation to come. A fast, hard approach to sin which often gets praise from conservative Christians. The problem with this approach is creating an unpractical form of Christian religion bound by irrelevant laws (i.e. women with head coverings, etc.). It seems that every generation and culture has had the grace to determine what is morally right or wrong on these not-so-obvious moral issues within it’s society. I call this Social Ethics, specifically normative, applied and descriptive ethics on social issues.

Today in Christianity, applying Social Ethics is called soft, relativistic, and perceived as a weak approach to Scripture. The fear is if we can make moral decisions on not-so-obvious issues, where do we stop. Soon people will also make moral decisions about what’s obviously immoral. The reality is, we make decisions based on morals everyday so we are constantly doing ethics, even on obvious sin issues like murder. Morals become about ethics and ethics is always harder to practice because there is so much grey. Being ethical is the practice of morality afterall and it has never been acceptable to just know the moral answers, but to also understand the ethical implications.

Anyone who does this will find it that much harder to call, sin “sin” since understanding leaves those people in sympathy and empathy with other human beings striving to be as “right” as possible in often wrong situations.

NOTE: Definition of term: Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well founded reasons.

No related posts.

No related posts.