We made an odd couple, strolling down Toronto’s Yonge Street that hot summer evening. We chatted animatedly about Wittgenstein and Nietzsche, Hemingway and Atwood. We paused occasionally to observe the scantily clad bodies strolling along Yonge Street’s sidewalks. I admired the women; he, the men. He was gay. He posed no threat to me, nor I to him. Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old U.S.-born citizen of Afghan descent, didn’t share our tolerance. A week ago, he invaded a gay night club in Orlando, Florida, and started shooting. By the time his massacre ended, 50 people had died -- including Mateen himself. Another 53 were in hospital, wounded. Because Omar Mateen had a Muslim name, and apparently made a 911 call associating himself with ISIS, the so-called Islamic State, the media and some politicians tried to pin the biggest mass murder in the U.S. since the destruction of the World Trade Center in September 2001 onto yet another foreign conspiracy. That’s prejudice, pure and simple. Statistically, a far better case can be made against white American-born males than against Muslims. From Charles Manson to Timothy McVeigh, from Sandy Hook to Columbine, mass killers have been overwhelmingly white, male, American-born, American-raised.
Fundamentalism No one knows Mateen’s motivation. But his choice of a gay night club reflects, as I see it, the widespread phobia in America against gays and lesbians. “We don’t go there to be promiscuous,” said one survivor. “We go there to feel safe.” They don’t feel safe elsewhere. And for that, I blame fundamentalism -- specifically, American right-wing religion. Fundamentalism is not limited to religion, of course. Fundamentalism also applies to politics, the antiabortion movement, and the National Rifle Association. Even atheists can be fundamentalists. Fundamentalism believes that it has the answer; no other answer is possible. It follows, then, that to promote or support any other answer is necessarily wrong, hostile, and dangerous. Therefore anything done to defeat those wrongs must be good. Even murder. Fundamentalists don’t rely on reason to come up with that answer, though. Fundamentalism always has some supposedly unimpeachable authority to cover its backside. Christian and Islamic fundamentalists brandish their sacred scriptures -- the Bible or the Qur’an. Hard core communists (if there are such critters any more) quote Marx or Lenin. Libertarians lean on Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman. The NRA hugs one line in the country’s Constitution.
Organized homophobia Although the Christian church no longer supports slavery or stoning, it is considered perfectly acceptable for preachers to rail against homosexuality. Because the Bible denounces it. Of course, it also prohibits eating pork. Wearing clothing of mixed fabrics. Paying interest. Hoarding wealth. And murder is specifically forbidden, many times. But it would seem that loathing of homosexuality trumps all of those offences .Which makes vilifying gays and lesbians okay. Denying them the right to legal long-term relationships. Barring them from ministry. Even killing them. A few jurisdictions have recognized that the Bible is not about homosexuality. My church, the United Church of Canada, decided in 1988 that fitness for ministry mattered more than sexual orientation. The Canadian parliament decriminalized homosexuality in 1969; it legalized same-sex marriage in 2005. But here in progressive Canada, both the Presbyterian Anglican churches continue to dither. In my own community of Lake Country, the local ministerial association still bars a gay minister. In U.S., the country's four largest denominations show no signs of accepting either gay clergy or gay relationships. Between them, the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have nearly 100 million members, roughly ten times the membership of those denominations that permit gay clergy.
Preaching hate Hatred has been preached from thousands of pulpits, for years. And we, sitting passively in our pews, have allowed our preachers to get away with it. Yet not one word in the gospels shows Jesus rejecting homosexuals. Not one! Rather, they describe Jesus consorting freely with the marginalized of his society -- women, children, gentiles, beggars, lepers, prostitutes, cripples, people possessed by demons… Would he violate his own values to turn against someone with a different sexual orientation? Jesus knew his own religion’s injunctions against homosexuality. All three of the original injunctions against homosexuality come from the Torah. Jesus quoted the Torah frequently. But he didn’t let ancient texts rule him. Over and over he said, “You have been told… but I say unto you…” Clearly, he was prepared to reconsider holy writ in the light of his experience, his intelligence, and his conviction of the unconditional love of God. Fundamentalists of all colours should try following his example. ******************************************************** Copyright © 2016 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved. To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca ********************************************************
YOUR TURN
I was surprised at how many of you readers had ot previously heard about the role of the western Union churches. 
Muriel Lush wrote, “Thank you for the concise lesson on how the United Church came to be! I wasn't aware of the 3000 Local union churches. “Your explanation of the Articles of Faith was enlightening as well. It makes a lot more sense when you consider just how diverse we were and still are.”
“A succinct and truth telling synopsis of what happened back in the late 19th and early 20th century regarding church union,” Steve Lawson wrote. “There were facts I did not know and I've been United Church all my life of 69 years, ordained minister for 30 of those years. Especially the part about the contribution of the union churches who apparently really pushed the idea of union in the midst of all the delays and confusion about what to do. Where are those union minded people now when you need them in a church that is still dealing with the inevitability of its own future? Hopefully we can take the best of each contributing church (again) and carry ourselves forward in a meaningful way in our world today.”
Larry Joose offered a wish: “I hope that people of various faith backgrounds can continue to find ways to come together and share their spiritual journeys and work toward enhancing the lives of others.”
And Tom Watson: “The interesting part for me in your article about The United Church of Canada was about the Association of Local Union Churches. In all of my theological training, not to mention a life spent within the United Church, I had never once heard about this ‘fourth group.’ “If the genius that this branch brought into union was ‘a commitment to doing whatever works, whether or not it fits official policies and doctrines,’ it seems to me to have been practiced in a good number of small churches across the land. Of course, that only works until Presbytery people who like to wear a big hat get a whiff of what's going on, and they ride in and stamp it out right quickly -- generally to the detriment of the local congregation.”
David Gilchrist doesn’t share Tom’s (and my) slightly jaundiced view of presbyteries: “I was surprised see you refer to the Presbyterian structure as ‘unwieldy’. It was still in place in my early years of ministry, and I feel we lost a wonderful format when the Session-and-Stewards gave place to a hodgepodge of councils. “In 1983-4 I had the privilege of doing an exchange with a New Zealand Presbyterian, and was amazed at how beautifully the system worked. People in the congregation knew their Elder. If there was a death, it was the Elder who was called first, and he/she then notified the minister -- with a lot of helpful information about the family. The Elders were ‘Ordained’, and were very much a part of the ministry.” David also corrected my implication that all the Union Churches were in the west. “There was at least one Eastern union too. The Halifax Explosion in Dec. 1917 wiped out Kaye St. Methodist Church and the Grove Presbyterian Church. Shortly after, my Grandfather (Methodist Councilman) met his good friend Mr. Orr (Clerk of Session at Grove), and they realized that there were not enough parishioners left alive for two congregations. So they organized the building of a tar-paper structure to accommodate the remaining members of both, early in 1918. By 1920 both groups acknowledged that they would never separate; so they built the present brick building and called it Kaye-Grove Memorial Church. Five years later, like the Western Churches, it became a part of the United Church of Canada, under the new name ‘United Memorial Church’. “A young survivor who lost much of her family took part of her inheritance and contributed a 10-bell carillon in the tower. I played those bells almost every Sunday from 1940-1945. Most of the men who could play them were overseas; and the one older man who could was extremely busy so he taught two of us teenagers to do it. “Sadly United Memorial closed its doors last year, and the congregation amalgamated with another.”
Heather Richard, in Halifax, confirmed David’s tale of United Memorial: “I like to think that United Memorial, like the Local Union churches out west, helped to pave the way for the United Church of Canada.”
Three comments came from the union experience in other countries. 
Chris Duxbury wrote, “I am from the Uniting Church in Australia and give thanks for the richness of  diversity that came from the Methodist, Congregational and Presbyterian (those who decided to join us) Churches. Diversity in churches is healthy, and needed as long as we can stay united. 
It is interesting that your church is ‘united’ and ours is ‘uniting’. United suggests a completeness while uniting is a happening word, and that is why we try to work with other Christians as our church is still evolving. Well, that is how I see it.
George Brigham wrote from England: “Amen to the Local Union Churches doing whatever works. In my own (Methodist) denomination in UK, there is a growing commitment in that direction. In very many places Methodists are in union with the United Reformed Church (URC) formed in the early 1970s by Presbyterians & Congregationalists, with others joining since, including the Church of Christ. In many other areas -- and sometimes together with the URC -- there are unions with the Anglicans. There are also a few with other denominations. “I've been involved in establishing union churches with URC and with Anglicans. The denominations provide hoops for us to jump through, but my observation is that as they mature these unions sit loose to the parent denominations and do what works for them.”
And finally, Janie Wallbrown wrote about a not-so-happy union in India: “I really love history so it's no surprise that I would smile at your history of the United Church of Canada. Sad to say I experienced the Church of South India, the union here, when I was first here looking for a church home. I found the state of the mainline churches just miserable. The ‘independent’ churches are thriving....AC, comfortable auditoriums, and large worship team bands! “Now as I become more involved with my chosen church, the Naga Christian Fellowship, I am increasingly aware of what it feels like for Christians as very small minorities. There are many discussions about the practicalities of being a Christian in a predominantly Hindu oriented workplace. Worldview IS different. I'm still very much a novice sifting and sorting how much is culture and how much is influenced by one's faith.”
********************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
This column comes to you using the electronic facilities of Woodlakebooks.com.        If you want to comment on something, send a message directly to me, at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the “Reply” button.        To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedgesunsubscribe@quixotic.ca.        You can access several years of archived columns at http://edges.Canadahomepage.net.        I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly, at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedgessubscribe@quixotic.ca
PROMOTION STUFF…  Ralph Milton has a new project, called Sing Hallelujah – the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at www.singhallelujah.com Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up,  http://www.hymnsight.ca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)  Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://www.churchwebcanada.ca>  Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, www.traditionaliconoclast.com  Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town – not particularly religious, but fun; alvawood@gmail.com to get onto her mailing list.  Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” – ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatso@gmail.com or twatson@sentex.net
***************************************