Wyoming's "Kim Davis" Case

Those Bible-toting Christians in Kentucky are a hardscrabble bunch. Some even risk death clinging to their interpretation of the Bible. For example, snake-handling preacher Jamie Coots of Middlesboro, Kentucky, never backed away from his beliefs despite state laws making snake handling a crime. Last year Jamie died after being bitten by a rattlesnake during a church service.

Jamie’s family refused to summon medical care because their Bible said God would take care of Jamie. Who needs doctors when Mark 16:18 is so clear. “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”

But Jamie didn’t recover. Jamie died.

Now another Bible-thumping Kentuckian is willing to take her chances. Kim Davis is the County Clerk who decided to convert her little piece of our democracy into a theocracy. The U.S. Supreme Court told her she must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Southern bigots have always viewed Supreme Court edicts as unlawful interference with their way of life. Kim says she doesn’t work for the Supreme Court. She’s in God’s army.

When all of this washes out, Kim Davis may feel about as snake-bit as Jamie Coots.

Wyoming has its own “Kim Davis.” Pinedale’s Municipal Judge Ruth Neely has not been asked to wed people of the same sex. But she gratuitously announced that doing so would violate her beliefs. “When law and religion conflict,” Neely announced, “choices have to be made.”

The two cases pose an interesting challenge for those who must decide whether public officials can refuse to do parts of their jobs when they make a subjective decision that those duties conflict with personally held religious beliefs. The Judge and the County Clerk do not ask that all the marriage rules of the Bible be recognized. After all, where the Bible is more than a little ambiguous about same-sex marriage, Jesus was clear about divorce. Neither the Clerk nor the Judge asks to be excused from being involved in the weddings of divorced people.

The Wyoming Judicial Conduct and Ethics Commission is doing its job. The Commission is investigating Judge Neely’s conduct. You see, there are rules that even judges must follow.

The first Canon of the Wyoming Code of Judicial Conduct says, “A Judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” The Commission Rules define “impartiality.” Judges must avoid even an appearance of bias or prejudice against parties or classes of parties.

It is arguable that Judge Neely sent a signal to gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender people that they are not considered equal under the law. Judge Neely feels she must choose between her interpretation of scripture and her public duties. While she didn’t elaborate, it’s certain that she, like Kim Davis in Kentucky, believes her narrow understanding of what God wants varies from what the law expects of her.

The ethical question is, “Does any gay or lesbian believe she or he can get a fair trial in Judge Neely’s courtroom?” Those whom the good Judge’s Good Book says are “an abomination” may be concerned that this Judge has not avoided “impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” Any party to a judicial proceeding who happen to be gay or lesbian have a right to be comfortable with the assumption they will be treated impartially.

As a theologian, I find it curious that the scripture is far more certain in its promise to care for the well being of snake handlers than in its rejection of marriages between people in love who happen to share the same sexual orientation. The latter requires a great deal of scriptural interpretive gymnastics.

Christians of good faith may disagree about whether the Bible proscribes same-sex marriage. But that is an entirely religious discourse. Scriptural interpretation is not a part of Clerk Davis or Judge Neely’s job description. Impartial administration of the law is.

Sen. Hunt suicide investigated?

In 2013, I wrote “Dying for Joe McCarthy’s Sins-The Suicide of Wyoming Senator Lester Hunt.” Following the book’s release, mock trials were held around Wyoming based on the book’s allegations that Senator Hunt took his own life because of what may have been the criminal conduct of three of Hunt’s colleagues, Senators Styles Bridges (R-New Hampshire), Herman Welker (R-Idaho), and Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin.

One of the mock trials was held in the nation’s capital, sponsored by the Mattachine Society of Washington, DC, the oldest U.S. organization advocating for LGBTQ rights. Mattachine President Charles Francis said the Hunt suicide and its causes are a part of American history that some hoped to hide forever. “The erasure was almost complete,” Francis posted on his organization’s Facebook page, “until Wyoming pastor and historian Rodger McDaniel wrote a breakthrough history in 2013.”

My book detailed the threats and coercion employed by Senators Bridges and Welker as they attempted to force the Wyoming Democrat to resign from the Senate, then controlled by a single Democratic vote. McCarthy joined the alleged conspiracy with trumped up claims that Hunt bribed a detective to dismiss the charges. McCarthy’s announcement that he would hold one of his infamous witch-hunt hearings into those phony charges followed a year of threats that included the ransacking of Hunt’s Washington home. Early the following morning Hunt killed himself.

It was good to know of the book’s impact on Baldwin, but it was not alone. A few months ago Hunt’s suicide was the subject of a documentary produced by renowned journalist and investigative reporter Michael Isikoff. His film is titled “Uniquely Nasty-The U.S. Government’s War on Gays.”

The Hunt tragedy is but one of many such stories Isikoff documents. In the 1950s it was U.S. government policy to ruin the lives of gays and lesbians and your government went about their work with vigor.

This dark episode in American history has caught the attention of a United States Senator who occupies the seat once held by Joe McCarthy. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin is the only openly gay member of the U.S. Senate. At the National Press Club this week it was announced that Senator Baldwin has sent a letter to United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking the Justice Department to open an investigation into Lester Hunt’s 1954 suicide.

Baldwin called it shocking that the death of a United States Senator was never investigated either by the Senate or the Justice Department. Indeed it was equally shocking that no Wyoming newspaper or politician ever demanded an investigation. Six decades ago, the popular Hunt, a former Governor and Secretary of State, was quietly laid to rest. His story was buried with him. Almost.

Perhaps Tammy Baldwin and the U.S. Attorney General can remedy that failure. The Senator’s October 1, 2015 letter said, “While decades have passed since this tragic incident, it remains a troubling example of the misdeeds of the McCarthy era and the role homophobia and bigotry has played in the history of our nation including at the highest levels of the federal government.

Baldwin explained to the Attorney general how important she believed an investigation is to maintaining the integrity of the United States Senate.

Baldwin’s letter was the second request Lynch received. In July, Lester Hunt Jr. wrote Ms. Lynch asking the same. The Senator’s son said he’d come to believe his father died “because he was being threatened and blackmailed by three of his Senate colleagues in order to change majority control of the U.S. Senate.”

Cold case civil rights cases are nothing new. The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007 directs the Department of Justice and the FBI to coordinate the investigation and prosecution of Civil Rights Era homicides that occurred on or before December 31, 1969. 

The act is based on the belief that the truth is good for the soul, even the soul of a nation. Wyoming’s congressional delegation might consider joining Baldwin’s cause. After all Hunt was our Senator.

Ann & Al Simpson-Play Cupid

This may be the “feel good” story of the year. Not a word is fiction. From where he sits even today, Shakespeare is writing the sonnet. It’s about the time Al and Ann Simpson played cupid.

Where’d they shoot their arrows? At the hearts of an unlikely couple. Their aim was dead-on. Arthur Middleton is a South Carolinian; Ann Sale a New Yorker by way of West Virginia.

Studying wolves, elk, and bears connected Middleton to Wyoming. Middleton connected Anna. Alone they are intriguing. Together they are captivating. Dr. Middleton is a research scientist at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Science. Dr. Middleton once left college momentarily to travel to England to become a falconer. Later he returned, eventually earning a doctorate in ecology from the University of Wyoming. Anna attended Stanford before finding herself a radio reporter in New York City.

Anna and Arthur met at a Fourth of July party hosted by Matt Lieber, owner of a company producing Brooklyn podcasts. Long story short, it was love at first sight. Though, the Simpsons couldn’t have played Cupid if it had lasted. It didn’t.

Over the next couple of years, Arthur squeezed in the completion of his dissertation and some fieldwork in South America. Anna roamed the country reporting on the 2012 Presidential contest. Often they went as much as six weeks without seeing one another. A weekend here, a day or so there.

Then came the break-up. As Anna described it for the New York Times, she asked him, “Are we buying a couch for our living room, something that we are investing in together, or am I buying a couch that is mine?” Arthur gave the wrong answer. He was outta there.

His heart was broken. He wanted another chance. He called and texted and flew to New York trying to make up. Didn’t happen. He brooded. Then he remembered the award ceremony.

Dr. Middleton was scheduled to receive an important award; something called the Camp Monaco Prize, for his study of elk in Wyoming. The ceremony was set for Cody. Cody, Wyoming? Isn’t that where former Senator Al Simpson lives? Dr. Middleton didn’t know Al; had never met him. But somehow he knew Al could save him from his broken heart.

Arthur wrote Al. Asked if he could help him get back the love of his life. He wanted Al to call Anna. He told the newspaper, “I decided if you want something so badly and you are not willing to humiliate yourself, get down on your knees in front of everybody, then what’s wrong with you?”

Al was inclined to ignore the letter. It was too weird. Ann Simpson told him he couldn’t blithely ignore a lovesick man who’s willing to risk embarrassment to seek Simpson’s help.

Al called Anna. Left a voice message. “Hello, this is former Senator Al Simpson. Could you please call me in Cody, Wyoming.” Anna listened. She’d never heard of Al. Was this a prank? What the heck? She returned the call.

Ann Simpson and her husband talked long distance to the woman they’d never met about a man they’d never met about how deeply in love he was with her. Al asked her, “What do you have to lose?” Come to Cody. Be there when Arthur receives his award. If you still don’t want to get back together, go home contentedly.

Anna Sale came to Wyoming. She went to the award dinner with Arthur Middleton. Later they talked as they hiked. Love rekindled. Cupid hit the target.

They were married in Cody on August 15. The ebullient Simpsons watched with their long, loving marriage a testament to how good it can be.

“I can’t believe how the hell I got into this,” Al told the New York Times in his inimitable way. “He (Dr. Middleton) realized he’d been out there messing around with the elk when he could have been messing around with Anna.”

Ann and Al Simpson. Cupid. You gotta love Wyoming.

What is "liberal Christianity" ?

I was “all in” when Rev. Bob Norris suggested we write point-counterpoint articles defining differences between liberal and conservative Christianity.  We’re both Christians though our views of what that means vary considerably.

We agreed to write a series of twelve columns over the next year. They’ll appear the first Saturday of each month, each tackling a different doctrinal issue. While neither of us speaks for all our brothers and sisters of the faith, we’ll attempt to provide the basis for defining conservative and liberal Christianity.

I ascribes to a liberal Christian theology. What does that mean? Those who share that theology are variously referred to as liberal, progressive, or mainline Christians. The so-called “mainline” churches include, among others, the United Methodists, Episcopal, American Baptists, United Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), where I am ordained, and the Presbyterians, where I serve as a pastor.

Liberal Christians tend to put less emphasis on a personal relationship with God and more on the belief that faith is about attentiveness to the broader human experience. My personal relationship with the Divine is not so much about my conversion experience, but about working and advocating for justice for the poor and the oppressed.

It is the nature of Christianity described in the Book of Acts when “all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.”

Being a part of social reform movements and mission is central to our relationship with God. Most are comfortable with the Constitution’s separation of church and state. Prayer should be taught in our homes and churches, not our schools. There is no single Christian view on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Christianity is itself as pluralistic as the broader society.

We don’t see Christianity as exclusive. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life for us, and how we come to understand God. We understand that those whose lives placed them on a different path can attain a meaningful relationship with God without either Jesus or Christianity.

Underlying those beliefs are differences in how liberal Christians understand the authority of scripture. We tend to put greater emphasis on the larger story as opposed to individual verses. We advocate what one theologian calls, the “cognitive demystification” of scripture. 

The Bible is one of many sources of God’s truths and revelation. We find comfort in Biblical scholarship. While we cannot peel back the layers far enough to arrive at its original intent, we get closer by studying the language in which the words were written and the historic and cultural times the words addressed.

The Bible is not a book but a library containing more myth and legend than what we think of as history. Myth is more powerful than history. It’s not a science book. Its teachings don’t conflict with the theory of evolution or other science. Science reveals God’s work as humans learn more about the natural environment God created.

The Bible is witness to God rather than the literal word of God, to be interpreted in its historical context through critical analysis with a focus on Jesus' teaching regarding peace, justice, compassion, and love.   

Liberals downplay “original” sin as we search for meaning in God’s decision to give us free will. We tend to see evil resulting from the exercise of free will rather than from external forces some call “Satan.” God is good and perfect. Human beings were created fundamentally good and struggle with remaining so.

Bayard Rustin, an adviser to Martin Luther King, spoke about liberal Christian theology when he said of King, “I was always amazed at how it was possible to combine this intense, analytical philosophical mind with this more or less fundamental — well, I don’t like to use the word ‘fundamentalist’ — but this abiding faith.”

It is where liberal Christians find their “abiding faith.”

Rev. Rodger McDaniel is the pastor at Highlands Presbyterian Church. He received a Juris Doctorate from the University of Wyoming and a Master of Divinity degree from the Iliff School of Theology in Denver.