Pastor Gist
Aug. 29th, 2012 02:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pen_gruntAfter yesterday's post, I started to get curious--what *was* my old childhood pastor up to? Could I find his pro-choice article? Was he still alive?
As it turns out: Writing, yes and yes. And I really wish I had known him outside of the church full of bullies (my sister and I both stopped going to church because the ADULTS were really rather vicious to both of us...for some seriously unknown reason) and as an adult instead of a child.
Here are some things that I remember about Pastor Gist (Gist with a g as in gift not a juh as in jive or gist):
And now he's writing articles. In 2004, he actually wrote an article about gay marriage. And I think it makes some good points:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4702312.html [That link is broken by virtue of being old; the article is no longer up.]
Richard Gist: Using the Bible to cover up bias
Richard Gist
April 3, 2004GIST0403
It's basic to the spiritual journey to recognize that we react to a world of our own invention, both within and without. As long as we do so, we are ensnared by our own imaginations and prejudices, and who among us escapes the trap? It is helpful, however, to recognize the problem.
As a retired pastor, I fear those who lift up Scriptures to masquerade as their own prejudices and fears. The Bible lacks the consistency to stand any test of ultimate truth, and that is hardly its purpose. To use Scriptures to repress people one does not agree with is of the same mentality as wanting a constitutional amendment to focus on a minority in order to suppress them. Both are reckless and unworthy of a compassionate and free people.
Many are now lifting up the Bible to prove that God does not want loving people of the same sex to enjoy the privileges of marriage, though an argument might be mounted on biblical grounds that marriage is a spiritual union of two people who are dedicated each to the other. Or not.
Actually, we are hard put to focus on marriage biblical style, because the Bible offers so many variations. Do we settle for the matriarchal model, which can also be matrilinear, meaning that descent is reckoned from the mother, and matrilocal, meaning the husband lives in the wife's home?
Both Jacob and Moses did the latter. And among the many biblical examples of a matrilocal society that could be cited are Naomi's words to her two daughters-in-law to "Go back, each of you, to your mother's house." Or should we favor the "mota" form of matriarchal marriage, where the husband periodically visits the wife, as was the case with Samson?
Perhaps we can mount a crusade in favor of marriage by capture, a form popular for centuries in the ancient biblical world, or the habit of powerful biblical characters to have a house full of both wives and concubines.
Or should we pursue marriage by purchase? Neither Rachel or Leah seemed to appreciate it, charging their father with selling them.
A form of marriage very popular among some groups then and now is the patriarchal, where the wife is subservient to the husband. In the most extreme forms, the wife becomes chattel property of the husband. Even in the Ten Commandments the wife is listed along with the house, slaves, donkeys, oxen, or anything else owned by the husband.
Does one marry within one's ethnic family? The Bible can't decide. Many of the Biblical giants and commoners married "foreign" women, but also following the Exile many families were brutally pulled apart to correct the choice of the man who had married the foreign woman of his choice.
We still live in a world where marriages are sometimes contracted by the parents. Such can be defended as biblical.
How many of those lifting up biblical injunctions on marriage support the very biblical idea of Levirate marriage (which has various forms), where, if the husband dies without progeny, his brother is obligated to marry the widow to raise up children in his brother's name?
You get the idea. When we decide to use Scripture to support our own ideas and eliminate those we do not agree with, we hardly can be taken seriously.
Should people of the same sex be allowed to marry? I lack the understanding to make a declaration either way, but I certainly support and cheer their attempts to establish a loving and caring relationship and even families, just as I do for heterosexual couples.
Why would anyone object to that, or want to interfere with it? Why would anyone attempt to deny loving relationships of any kind? Do they have a better alternative for smoothing out the pathways we all walk together? If we must argue in religious language, is separating people and dividing society anything less than a biblical sin? How do we compare homosexual relationships that are "working" with heterosexual ones that are filled with manipulation, domination and pain?
It's been a very long time since I was in seminary, but already then it was established that homosexuality was not a choice. It boggles my mind that so many years later such is still denied by many people, often on religious grounds.
(The problem with religion, of course, is that it so easily melds with prejudice, fear, cruelty, and even war. My own faith is Christian, but I argue that Christianity is not a religion. To make it one shrivels its boundaries and saps its strength).
Denial makes it more legitimate to vex, and even persecute, those who are "different." But it does not justify doing so.
Granted, the present movement is one of passionately defended positions, and many people experience fear and anxiety over the issue. I trust the cultural process to work out a solution over time. But the immediacy of the situation denies us the luxury of time: We must make decisions now.
I'd hope they would be made, not on religiously defended prejudices and fears, but on foundations of respect, understanding and compassion, the very things we all need to make our way in this world. We dare not deny to others what is essential to each of us.
Richard Gist, Princeton, Minn., is a retired United Methodist minister.
I'm not religious now--nor was I particularly back then--but this is the kind of faith that I appreciate and respect.
And if you want to read his "Soul and the Person: Defining Life" article, it's there. It's not exactly how I remembered it.
And maybe you want to read about the miracle of finding a spider in your soup packet? Here it is.
Maybe his thoughts on Michele Bachmann?
Or maybe on Rick Santorum questioning Obama's faith?
This is likely WAY more amusing to me than it is to anyone else. Consider that my childhood church lies perilously close to--if not within--the MN Suburban Conservative Belt of Elk River, etc. (Bachmann's district). We totally thought Pastor Gist was super-wacky growing up. He was a bit (Ants. C'mon.), but he was also really thoughtful and cool. I never realized.
As it turns out: Writing, yes and yes. And I really wish I had known him outside of the church full of bullies (my sister and I both stopped going to church because the ADULTS were really rather vicious to both of us...for some seriously unknown reason) and as an adult instead of a child.
Here are some things that I remember about Pastor Gist (Gist with a g as in gift not a juh as in jive or gist):
- He had to repave his driveway. There was an anthill in his driveway. He put down a sugar trail to lure the ants away so they wouldn't be hurt or killed.
- He held "pet service" in the summer; an outdoor church service (instead of the regular service) where you could bring your pets and there was a special sermon for them.
- He taught us how to meditate in confirmation--both how to meditate, going on a mental journey to solve a problem or answer a question, and how to meditate away pain.
- One Easter Sunday instead of the regular sermon, he pulled all his livingroom furniture up around the pulpit. He sat on his chair and said he didn't want to give the regular resurrection story. He wanted to talk about miracles. Specifically, he wanted to talk about how we were all miraculous. Because out of all the eggs and all the sperm and all the circumtances, etc.,etc., we came out to be *us*.
- He taught us about the downplaying of women's roles in the Bible and how that was Wrong--and how strong and matriarchal the tribes of Deborah, etc. were.
And now he's writing articles. In 2004, he actually wrote an article about gay marriage. And I think it makes some good points:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4702312.html [That link is broken by virtue of being old; the article is no longer up.]
Richard Gist: Using the Bible to cover up bias
Richard Gist
April 3, 2004GIST0403
It's basic to the spiritual journey to recognize that we react to a world of our own invention, both within and without. As long as we do so, we are ensnared by our own imaginations and prejudices, and who among us escapes the trap? It is helpful, however, to recognize the problem.
As a retired pastor, I fear those who lift up Scriptures to masquerade as their own prejudices and fears. The Bible lacks the consistency to stand any test of ultimate truth, and that is hardly its purpose. To use Scriptures to repress people one does not agree with is of the same mentality as wanting a constitutional amendment to focus on a minority in order to suppress them. Both are reckless and unworthy of a compassionate and free people.
Many are now lifting up the Bible to prove that God does not want loving people of the same sex to enjoy the privileges of marriage, though an argument might be mounted on biblical grounds that marriage is a spiritual union of two people who are dedicated each to the other. Or not.
Actually, we are hard put to focus on marriage biblical style, because the Bible offers so many variations. Do we settle for the matriarchal model, which can also be matrilinear, meaning that descent is reckoned from the mother, and matrilocal, meaning the husband lives in the wife's home?
Both Jacob and Moses did the latter. And among the many biblical examples of a matrilocal society that could be cited are Naomi's words to her two daughters-in-law to "Go back, each of you, to your mother's house." Or should we favor the "mota" form of matriarchal marriage, where the husband periodically visits the wife, as was the case with Samson?
Perhaps we can mount a crusade in favor of marriage by capture, a form popular for centuries in the ancient biblical world, or the habit of powerful biblical characters to have a house full of both wives and concubines.
Or should we pursue marriage by purchase? Neither Rachel or Leah seemed to appreciate it, charging their father with selling them.
A form of marriage very popular among some groups then and now is the patriarchal, where the wife is subservient to the husband. In the most extreme forms, the wife becomes chattel property of the husband. Even in the Ten Commandments the wife is listed along with the house, slaves, donkeys, oxen, or anything else owned by the husband.
Does one marry within one's ethnic family? The Bible can't decide. Many of the Biblical giants and commoners married "foreign" women, but also following the Exile many families were brutally pulled apart to correct the choice of the man who had married the foreign woman of his choice.
We still live in a world where marriages are sometimes contracted by the parents. Such can be defended as biblical.
How many of those lifting up biblical injunctions on marriage support the very biblical idea of Levirate marriage (which has various forms), where, if the husband dies without progeny, his brother is obligated to marry the widow to raise up children in his brother's name?
You get the idea. When we decide to use Scripture to support our own ideas and eliminate those we do not agree with, we hardly can be taken seriously.
Should people of the same sex be allowed to marry? I lack the understanding to make a declaration either way, but I certainly support and cheer their attempts to establish a loving and caring relationship and even families, just as I do for heterosexual couples.
Why would anyone object to that, or want to interfere with it? Why would anyone attempt to deny loving relationships of any kind? Do they have a better alternative for smoothing out the pathways we all walk together? If we must argue in religious language, is separating people and dividing society anything less than a biblical sin? How do we compare homosexual relationships that are "working" with heterosexual ones that are filled with manipulation, domination and pain?
It's been a very long time since I was in seminary, but already then it was established that homosexuality was not a choice. It boggles my mind that so many years later such is still denied by many people, often on religious grounds.
(The problem with religion, of course, is that it so easily melds with prejudice, fear, cruelty, and even war. My own faith is Christian, but I argue that Christianity is not a religion. To make it one shrivels its boundaries and saps its strength).
Denial makes it more legitimate to vex, and even persecute, those who are "different." But it does not justify doing so.
Granted, the present movement is one of passionately defended positions, and many people experience fear and anxiety over the issue. I trust the cultural process to work out a solution over time. But the immediacy of the situation denies us the luxury of time: We must make decisions now.
I'd hope they would be made, not on religiously defended prejudices and fears, but on foundations of respect, understanding and compassion, the very things we all need to make our way in this world. We dare not deny to others what is essential to each of us.
Richard Gist, Princeton, Minn., is a retired United Methodist minister.
I'm not religious now--nor was I particularly back then--but this is the kind of faith that I appreciate and respect.
And if you want to read his "Soul and the Person: Defining Life" article, it's there. It's not exactly how I remembered it.
And maybe you want to read about the miracle of finding a spider in your soup packet? Here it is.
Maybe his thoughts on Michele Bachmann?
Or maybe on Rick Santorum questioning Obama's faith?
This is likely WAY more amusing to me than it is to anyone else. Consider that my childhood church lies perilously close to--if not within--the MN Suburban Conservative Belt of Elk River, etc. (Bachmann's district). We totally thought Pastor Gist was super-wacky growing up. He was a bit (Ants. C'mon.), but he was also really thoughtful and cool. I never realized.
