Just Before Communion

Satisfy my soul, o Blessed Communion,
for I am hungry with restless longing
and my thirst has led me to drink the sand.

I am constantly grazing and nibbling without tasting;
teach me to wait patiently
for the true feast that ignites my spirit.

I could drown myself in the world and still feel parched
without the Living Water, the Sweetest Fruit;
open my eyes to see it — You — right in front of me.

Satisfy my soul, o Blessed Communion,
so that I might savor goodness and joy
and live with engaged and satiated purpose.

Fencing the Family

In response to my recent blog/newspaper editorial, several questions have been raised about my inclusion of Dr. James Dobson in a list of self-professing Christians who simultaneously articulate hatred, including, most notoriously these days, the group that calls itself Westboro Baptist Church. I credit the questions about Dobson to be authentic more than incendiary, and I hope to flesh out my thoughts for those who have never heard a nay-saying word uttered against Dr. Dobson and his organization, Focus on the Family.

Let me begin with a (long) sidebar of sorts:

In the mainline Protestant tradition, when Communion is served during worship, the pastor begins the sacrament of Communion with a certain, often traditional, liturgy called the Invitation. For example, I usually begin the Order for Communion by saying, “This table is the table of life. This feast is the joyful feast of the people of God. Men and women, young and old, come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and gather around Christ’s table.”

Next, if you’re listening closely, the pastor indicates who may receive Communion, depending on the traditions of that particular congregation or denomination. You might hear the pastor say, for example: “This table is for all Christians who wish to know the presence of Christ and to share in the community of God’s people,” which would indicate that all Christians are welcome to take Communion — but not non-Christians or persons who are still discerning their religious home — and it implies that Christians do not have to belong to that pastor’s congregation in order to receive Communion. Another (partial) example of words that a pastor may use to identify those who are welcome at the Communion table: “We cordially invite to partake of this Sacrament all who are truly grieved and penitent for their sins, who look to the Lord Jesus Christ for righteousness and salvation…” which suggests to the unrepentant worshiper that (s)he should refrain from taking Communion that day and hints that the non-Trinitarian should go back to the drawing board to reexamine her/his theology.

In professional, liturgical, churchy language, this phrase within the Invitation that identifies who can receive Communion — and who cannot — is called “fencing the table.” (I kid you not.) The pastor defines the perimeter of those who may receive communion. Strict fencing is called “closed communion” (1 Corinthians 11:27-30); broadly inclusive fencing — or an entire lack of fencing — is known as “open communion.” An easy example: the fencing of the Communion table in Catholic churches to the exclusion of Protestants (and many others, including Catholics who are not in “good standing”) demonstrates closed communion.

(Bear with me, I’m getting to Dobson.)

Fencing the Communion table ruffles my feathers and disquiets my soul. You don’t have to be baptized to know hunger. You don’t have to confess your sins to feel thirst. You don’t need to be an adult or a faithful church member to appreciate the gift of wheat and grapes. Take and eat. Take and drink. Just imagine how ridiculous it would look if your pastor built an actual fence around the Communion table, and an attending Usher/Elder checked names at the fence gate! (Hold on, haven’t I seen that in an ad??!) What can the Body of Christ (the Church) possibly gain from turning some people away from the Body of Christ (Communion)?

Turns out, there’s a prevailing suspicion among Christians that throwing the gate wide open and welcoming all people to the table will “taint” the purity, the quality of community, and the sense of superiority (dare I call it self-righteousness?) of those who already believe that they are inside of the fenced area. This theological xenophobia usually reflects our social xenophobia, and vice versa.

Most recently — just this past Sunday morning, in fact — I “fenced the table” before Communion with these words: “This table is where Christ meets us as we are, nourishes us, and makes us new. There are no restrictions, no requirements. Only Jesus, saying, ‘Come.'” As best as I can, every time I serve Communion, I strive to fence the table by declaring that there are no fences (Ephesians 2:14)!

Just as it is deeply problematic and theologically contradictory, to me at least, that the Church regularly fences the Communion table, it is also troublesome that the Church (not quite all factions, but a whole lot!) actively participates in “fencing the family” — in other words, outlining the perimeters of who can be family, who can love another person, who can walk together through sickness and health, through good times and bad, through life and to death. It’s not just the Church’s “fencing of the family” that raises my ire, but the quality of the gate-keeping (so to speak) and the hatefulness at the gate.

Which brings me to Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family (from which he resigned as chairman in the spring of 2009).

I grew up with Focus on the Family (FOTF) materials — kid and teen magazines, radio programs with beloved characters, parenting books sitting on bookshelves around the house. I can appreciate why some people have responded with bewilderment and even indignation to my critique of the kindly doctor, who has a PhD in child development. Among the questions that I’ve received about my opinion of Dobson and FOTF, it’s not clear to me if Dobson fans are unaware of his demeaning speech and use of political clout to foster prejudice…or if they are aware and supportive of his positions and FOTF’s activities in this regard. For the sake of conversation, I’ll assume the former.

One person, responding to my newspaper editorial, asked if my critique of Dobson was simply a difference of opinion (reflecting my comment that “disagreements are to be expected within the Church”), which is a fair question. It seems, then, that I need to answer by outlining some specifics to distinguish Dr. Dobson (and, by extension, his organizations) as a man/entity who is actively directing hatred toward a group or groups of people…not just some church guy with whom I disagree on politics and religion.

As succinctly as possible, here is my rationale for naming Dobson in a list of hate-speaking Christians:

In addition to starting Focus on the Family in 1977, Dr. Dobson established the Family Research Council in 1981 (which became a branch of FOTF briefly in the late 1980s, before separating again several years later for tax reasons). ***5/5/10 addition: Dobson’s co-founder of the Family Research Council is Dr. George Rekers, who is newly making headlines for traveling abroad with a “Rentboy.com” companion.*** Although FOTF and FRC are officially independent organizations, the connections between the two remain — including the shared name of Dobson, and similar financial resources.

Both FOTF and the FRC have the political sway, monetary revenue, and the ear of conservative/moderate Christians around the country to wield devastating power against the basic rights of a minority group (including: not being discriminated against, not being legally prevented from starting a family, and other “liberal” ideas). The tremendous degree of financial/political/personnel power, in itself, sways me from merely disagreeing with Dobson to identifying him as one who has the clout to negatively impact others (i.e. to turn hateful words into hateful actions).

Both FOTF and the FRC make the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Top Twelve” list of anti-gay groups. The American Psychological Association called out Focus on the Family in 2005 for creating an anti-gay environment “in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.” FOTF supports reparative therapies, which completely undermine a person’s sense of self and self-worth. The Family Research Council has dubious associations with violent hate groups. It has repeated inaccurate and unscientific information about human sexuality from the Family Research Institute, and perpetuates the lie associating homosexuality and pedophilia. (And all of this is just the tip of the iceberg!)

The concluding argument of my blog/editorial stated that violent & hateful language directly fuels and inspires violent & hateful behavior. Dobson might not personally be carrying the protest sign or the gun, but his language and his use of power (through media, money and religion) — through both the FRC and FOTF — lead me to distrust his Christianity and to dispute his fencing of the family.