“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’”

(Matthew 25:35-40, NIV)

           Religion is itself an otherland. It is entirely reliant on the imagination to indulge its substance and to flourish. As far back as human history goes, men created their Gods out of thin air. They used storytelling and oral tradition to engage others, all the while transferring this manifestation as if it was all true. It’s not hard to imagine what centuries of embedding these “truths” can do to those who believe their path is a valid expression of the one true God. In this modern age, the expression of more fundamentalist thinking carries on this tradition. The literalizing of scripture is reliant on the belief that the Bible (or any other form of religious text) is completely true and is also a direct communication between humans and the God they worship. It is here that the real damage starts to be done. Believers believe that because they believe then it must be the only truth to believe. They fragment themselves from any evolved state mankind might experience. They strive, with great energy, to maintain their status quo. Change is only good when it vindicates the way that these minions think or act. Every time a group of them gather to pay homage to their chosen Saviour, another mass hallucination takes place. Each one of them that buys into ‘the sale’ is transported to another place, where the truth is only relative to how many Sacrament wafers you eat or how long you can speak in tongues. They sing out praises but only from their other side.

            Religious people have the right to their opinions just as much as I do or you do.

Just because we don’t like what they may have to say doesn’t mean that they don’t have the right to say it. In certain cases throughout history, this rule does not apply. Hate crimes, religiously motivated terrorism and child abuse are where most people tend to draw the line these days. I do not understand why more liberal minded people just don’t get it. When you walk into a McDonald’s restaurant, you shouldn’t expect them to serve 7 layer burritos. When you walk into someone’s Church, their “place of God”, you should leave your biases at the door, just as they should when they enter your sanctuary. I don’t know why people expect that others should change just to suit the possibility that someone might be offended or alienated by any belief they might express. You may not like what is presented to you but if you have a problem, you should leave and not expect them to adjust their thinking (preaching) to your position. This in no way negates the responsibility of men of god to welcome strangers into their midst. It is still shocking to me that people who profess to follow this god or that god, lack the basic knowledge of their scriptures when it comes to Hospitality.

“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”

(Ezekiel 16:49-50, NIV)

            In antiquity, hospitality was foremost in people’s thinking. To not welcome and serve a stranger was almost unheard of, a “cultural norm” among most ancient peoples.  Most religious customs would uphold the obligation as essential. From the Quranto the New Testament, hospitality is a common theme also found in most other written traditions (scripture). Often, this factor is overlooked as a driving force. For example, most subscribers to the Judeo-Christian tradition assume that the sin of Sodom (Sodom and Gomorrah), was homosexuality. This could not be further from the truth. The “real sin of Sodomwas radical inhospitality.” It is a tale of “wantonness and dominance over others ...  about malignant power used to reject God’s shalom.” The “destruction” was a response to the inhospitable treatment of visitors (who happen to be angels) that were sent by God. In my experience, I have encountered the same callous mistreatment at the hands of so-called men of god. As if, my sin was greater than their sin and so on. I always have assumed that if you claim to be a child of God, you act the part. After all, we are supposed to “love your neighbour as yourself” (Matthew 22:39b, NIV). I believe that we are always responsible for how we treat other people, particularly strangers (see Matthew 25). We are instructed (1 Peter 4:8) that “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins” (NIV). It’s not about accepting someone because they agree with you, or believe as you do. Jesus is not the only voice on the matter. From the same Judeo-Christian tradition, Paul makes it very clear that we should “share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality” (Romans 12:13, NIV). Since we all are children of God, that rule should apply to every one, not just our family or brethren.

“Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.” (Hebrews 13:2, NIV)

            One would imagine that any building which claims to house the Holy Spirit on its marquee only serves to make me well guarded. Fundamentalist Christians can be so unpredictable. This appeared to not be the case at this temple. Everyone was welcomed in and politely ushered to their place. The music was primarily secular in flavour, like a good wedding would do. After a while, I forgot I was even in what may or may not have been a den of haters. I looked at my partner, and his mother, and his father, and sister, and cousins, so many and all of them huggers. I felt reassured. The bride and groom had always, always, been sincere and warm with both of us. I rested in them having everyone’s best interests at heart. Any concern that I may have had a Pavlovian reaction was lost to the Groomsmen, the Bridesmaids and one terrific wedding dress. She looked perfect. It was perfect. Leave it up to religious men to spoil everything.

“But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind.”

 (Luke 14:13, NIV)

            It was not your routine vows and ceremony. We had all been invited to a feast but the pastor invited us to Jesus. It was the same old blah blah blah to me. I had heard this spiel so many times before I could almost recite along with him. His going on about the state of marriage and how it is for man and woman only, by an act of God, did little to phase me. After all, he was correct in these statements, at least according to his Holy book. He went on with it just a little more than I believe he should have. This was not his regular congregation. People came to see their friends, their family joined under God, not to be condemned by God. If I wanted to be alienated, I would have gone to a real church. Most of it felt more like a sermon on heterosexual union than a wedding toast. At the end of it, I stood thinking about anything else. This lack of consideration was old school. I would not have given it another thought but I was not the only attendant who found reason for much pause, especially with the focus of the speech. Several members of my partner’s family were surprised that I was not more upset. They most certainly were and not one of them, that I know of, is a homosexual. They were offended regardless. 

            I am well trained in surviving such exposure. It never had power over me. I was not offended nor was I angered. It is not my church and I was in it. When I saw the marquee, I could have easily gone to the McDonald’s just down the street. People are not required to adjust their way of thinking to suit me. I am also not bound to the same standard. Had this been a case of trying out the Church one Wednesday evening, I would have got what I paid for. This was not a Sunday morning congregation, we were all guests at a wedding, not a Bible study class. When I tried to poo poo the matter to keep peace, the full truth finally hit me. I considered all the damage that this man could have done. The bulk of the guests were not there to be converted, let alone convinced. There were teenagers present that could have been influenced and not to go play with Jesus. It was not a controlled service and many could have easily taken the condemnation personally. It would not be the first time a teenager killed themselves over what a preacher has said. I can’t say enough about the bride and the groom. Both took time out of their day to welcome me. I got hugs. At the end of the night, the groom stopped me outside to thank me for coming. I got more hugs. I felt much welcome, much hospitality. You can just tell from who they are as people that they are sincere, completely sincere. I was welcome. This is not an issue for these wonderful people. This is about putting one law over another. Picking and choosing based on your target audience. It is about appropriateness and inclusion. It’s about hospitality and all of us being welcome versus just some of us.

“When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” (Leviticus 19:33-34, NIV)

            If you claim to be of God, then you should act like it. If you follow even one rule in your Holy book, then you are bound by all of them.  This pastor either had no idea who may have been in that congregation or he just didn’t care. I am not sure if he even stopped to think about it. It most certainly did not seem so to many of us. It is not his job to edit himself. The very idea of evangelization is to spread the word. This is not 55 CE. There is a fine line between your conviction and being rude. Not everyone wants to be saved and not all of us believe as religious people do. We were all invited to a wedding, not a lecture on breeding. It is not very hospitable to alienate even one person. As people of God, followers are instructed to care for the sinner, not castrate them or persuade them into membership. Where is the love of this God that I hear so much about? Why can I rarely find Him in their eyes? I must admit, I am never surprised by the actions of believers. They are a primary reason that I no longer believe in the Christian faith. While any agenda the preacher may have brandished is now left to himself, he also left a bad taste in the mouths of more than a few of us witnesses. I don’t see how what he did saved even one soul. I suppose it’s a good thing for him that the God from the days of Sodom and Gomorrah has fallen silent. There would be trouble, brimstone and such. It’s easy to let hubris lead you, especially when there is no real consequence for the actions you have taken. Here, what about hospitality? I thought, all were welcome in the kingdom of God. Apparently, I could not have been more wrong.

https://askgramps.org/page/29/

https://sojo.net/articles/true-biblical-hospitality-loving-immigrants-strangers-and-enemies

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kimberlyknight/2013/06/yo-pat-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah-was-not-about-homosexuality/

https://www.facebook.com/pg/VictoryInternationalChurch/photos/?ref=page_internal