Molasses

American Christians are slow to change their attitudes and churches are like molasses. Theology and church doctrine is either too cumbersome or too rigid, and because of that change is invisible.

So far the Presidential election of 2008 is not about abortion and homosexuality, key arguing points in 2000 and 2004, indicating two things: people are most interested in fear issues - the economy and the war, now; and that religion is contrarian, fighting against change because it is change, not because right and wrong are at stake - when things calm down, the church often disappears.

I had lunch with my good friend Jordan Disko last week. We talked about my blog entry on homosexuality, and he suggested that homosexuality was less of an issue today in the church because that institution had taken a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to gay involvement.

Church members, once so intent on fighting "the homosexual agenda," don't want to fight anymore. They are tired of bad press, nasty characterizations on TV shows, the embarrassment of "outed" clergy and a general mood shift in the Country towards the legalization of gay civil unions.

Some ministers actually see gays as an important mission field for their churches and are ramping up gay friendly programs while ramping down "God hates fags" signage.

God brings things into our consciousness that challenge our moral definitions. It takes a William Wilberforce to see through the economic benefits of the slave trade and fight for the Abolition of Slavery in England. It takes an Abraham Lincoln to see that Emancipation was the the correct policy for American slaves in the Civil War. It took a Susan B. Anthony to activate the process that led to a woman's right to vote. It took a Winston Churchill to personalize the nobility of all or nothing resistance and later Gandhi to epitomize the power of non violent resistance. It took a Martin Luther King to spur legislation that brought to Black Americans the voting rights they had been mostly denied since their Emancipation.

Many British shippers embraced abolition even though it ended much of their livelihood.
It meant ruin for White plantation owners to free their slaves, but some did. Women lost jobs and marriages because they were suffragettes, but they stayed the course. Pacifists in England and militant revolutionaries in India submitted their agendas for the unity of the moment, regardless of their positions after the conflicts ended. Southern whites marched with black Civil Rights leaders knowing they would be beaten outside Selma, Alabama.

The question is, what sort of prescience prepares the Church to be on the right side of these sorts of issues, in that it has a history (in a majority of the aforementioned cases) of coming down on the morally incorrect side of them? It has not usually been through malice, but by a tendency to want to rest in the status quo. The process of understanding would be acceptable except the church generally immediately turns opposition into a political position, making it one of the most conservative parts of society.

I will ring the bell proclaiming the Church is free from the role of political watchdog of the morals of our society. I can tell my neighbor there are options to abortion. I am compelled to, in fact. but throwing the contents a vial of blood on Juno as she tries to sneak into Planned Parenthood "ain't going to make it with anyone any how" (thank you Beatles). Mob mentality can never show the piercing power of the love of God, and when you exchange the vulnerability of one-on-one sharing for the gurgle of a group, the most important part of that encounter is lost, and advocates of life look like bullies.

Perhaps Christians should start preparing for the future moral issues we will be facing: bestiality; the age of consent - as defined by statutory rape and other "sex crimes;" sibling marriage; polygamy; physician assisted suicide; decriminalization and legalization of marijuana and other recreational drugs; tax exempt status for churches and charitable contributions; mandatory military service; defining and dealing with pornography and prostitution; divorce (an ongoing issue everywhere); models of child rearing; and many more I can't even think of yet.

The first thing I want to do when viewing an issue is set it next to the New Book. Pornography, for instance, is people having sex - nothing wrong with that; people are watching that act, nothing in the Book specifically against it, but weird; the participants are casually or anonymously coupled, which is against fidelity and monogamy(share our message); some women have been exploited by involvement in pornography (how does the church help?); some men are prone to addiction to pornography (how can church help?); certain areas should be pornography free for sake of children/addicts (partner in community to insure zones; reasonability reigns; work towards consensus among all parties involved); owners of pornography stores aren't the devil (businessmen; treat with respect and love; win to Jesus and let them decide future of establishment). That would be a beginning outline/strategy. I'd leave the picket signs at home and start working at the parts of the concern that would bring a true change in the industry, not just the shuffling of porno stores into another location in town. The Jesus Way is always harder, for it's built on changing the entire mess, not just lambasting or denying it.