1. While it's no surprise that a country like Uganda would hold an anti-gay symposium, or that some Americans who have made a career of bashing gay folks would take part in it, it's still a disappointment to see an individual with direct ties to Exodus giving tacit endorsement to Uganda's barbarous treatment of gays by participating.
As such, I find myself in general agreement with this open letter signed by David Roberts, Jim Burroway, Mike Airhart and Wayne Besen. Exodus had plenty of time to either stop its board member (Don Schmierer) from attending or to publicly disassociate itself from Schmierer and the conference, and it met all requests for such a stance with silence.
But at least it does lay to rest once and for all any question of whether Exodus really loves gay people (outside of the "repentant" ones inside its ministries) like it claims to. Full coverage of what went on in Uganda is available at Box Turtle Bulletin.
2. Peterson wrote a piece earlier this week on rising above victimhood as an ex-gay survivor. My take at Ex-Gay Watch can be found here.
3. On a slightly lighter note, Joe.My.God.'s Ironic Quote of the Day hits close to home. Back in my evangelical days the irony of Billy Graham's statement would have escaped me; now I struggle to imagine how anyone couldn't see it...
Showing posts with label Ex-Gay Watch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ex-Gay Watch. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thou Shalt Not Love
Cross-posted from Ex-Gay Watch.
As a young gay man steeped in the evangelical subculture, Patrick Chapman grew up feeling deeply conflicted about his sexual orientation. As so many individuals in his situation do, he poured much of his time and energy (and a decade of his life) into attempting to become heterosexual, first through pastoral counseling and later through an ex-gay ministry. And as with most who pursue that path, he was forced to rethink the assumptions he had been taught when it became apparent that the change he was promised was never going to happen.
Although Dr. Chapman’s life experiences are not the primary focus of Thou Shalt Not Love: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays, his firsthand understanding of ex-gay ministries - and the evangelical subculture that spawned them - helps to make his book a vital resource for anybody hoping to better understand why the gay and evangelical communities are so sharply at odds, and why the term “gay Christian” isn’t the oxymoron that so many evangelicals insist it must be.
Chapman briefly shares about his experiences growing up in the evangelical church before launching into an analysis of the evangelical worldview, and how biblical literalism has led many Christians to view science with skepticism and hostility. The spectrum of thought within evangelicalism is much broader than it sometimes appears from the outside, and Chapman does take time to highlight evangelical leaders like Tony Campolo and Philip Yancey who take a softer stance when it comes to dealing with gays and other sexual minorities.
Even so, some evangelicals may feel overlooked by Chapman’s focus on the more conservative strains of biblical literalism in this section of the book. Given that nearly all of the most vocal anti-gay activists come from the schools of thought that Chapman does address, however, it’s understandable that he does not sidetrack the book with a more comprehensive survey of evangelicalism. It’s also worth pointing out how even many moderate evangelicals become strict literalists when it comes to this one particular issue.
Chapman’s expertise as an anthropologist comes into play in the chapters that follow as he examines the cultural contexts of the various biblical passages used to condemn same-sex relationships, and again as he looks at how cultures around the world have addressed the issue of homosexuality throughout history. He also surveys the latest scientific studies into the biological causes of homosexuality before turning back to address some of the more common assertions put forward by anti-gay activists, including their own use (and misuse) of the available research.
In the end, no one book is ever going to represent the final word on an issue as heated and divisive as this one. But Chapman’s thorough research and dispassionate tone raise the bar for future authors (evangelical or otherwise) wishing to address this subject.
As a young gay man steeped in the evangelical subculture, Patrick Chapman grew up feeling deeply conflicted about his sexual orientation. As so many individuals in his situation do, he poured much of his time and energy (and a decade of his life) into attempting to become heterosexual, first through pastoral counseling and later through an ex-gay ministry. And as with most who pursue that path, he was forced to rethink the assumptions he had been taught when it became apparent that the change he was promised was never going to happen.
Although Dr. Chapman’s life experiences are not the primary focus of Thou Shalt Not Love: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays, his firsthand understanding of ex-gay ministries - and the evangelical subculture that spawned them - helps to make his book a vital resource for anybody hoping to better understand why the gay and evangelical communities are so sharply at odds, and why the term “gay Christian” isn’t the oxymoron that so many evangelicals insist it must be.
Chapman briefly shares about his experiences growing up in the evangelical church before launching into an analysis of the evangelical worldview, and how biblical literalism has led many Christians to view science with skepticism and hostility. The spectrum of thought within evangelicalism is much broader than it sometimes appears from the outside, and Chapman does take time to highlight evangelical leaders like Tony Campolo and Philip Yancey who take a softer stance when it comes to dealing with gays and other sexual minorities.
Even so, some evangelicals may feel overlooked by Chapman’s focus on the more conservative strains of biblical literalism in this section of the book. Given that nearly all of the most vocal anti-gay activists come from the schools of thought that Chapman does address, however, it’s understandable that he does not sidetrack the book with a more comprehensive survey of evangelicalism. It’s also worth pointing out how even many moderate evangelicals become strict literalists when it comes to this one particular issue.
Chapman’s expertise as an anthropologist comes into play in the chapters that follow as he examines the cultural contexts of the various biblical passages used to condemn same-sex relationships, and again as he looks at how cultures around the world have addressed the issue of homosexuality throughout history. He also surveys the latest scientific studies into the biological causes of homosexuality before turning back to address some of the more common assertions put forward by anti-gay activists, including their own use (and misuse) of the available research.
In the end, no one book is ever going to represent the final word on an issue as heated and divisive as this one. But Chapman’s thorough research and dispassionate tone raise the bar for future authors (evangelical or otherwise) wishing to address this subject.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Innate
Cross-posted from Ex-Gay Watch.
As a child I was atypical. I didn’t begin speaking until months after other kids my age had said their first words - but when I did finally talk, it was in complete sentences. What no doubt appeared at first to be a developmental problem turned out to simply be a different way of doing things. It’s a pattern that has followed me into adulthood; I tend to hold back, watching and learning, and then leap in at hit the ground running once I understand how to do something.
I try to temper this characteristic when the situation dictates, since there are times when something is better learned through the trial and error of doing, but it’s an instinct that has to be consciously overridden at the cost of significant discomfort; it’s simply what comes naturally for me, and no amount of behavioral conditioning can genuinely eliminate the underlying trait.
How did I turn out this way? Some thinkers (as far back as Aristotle) have argued that personality is entirely learned, and that we are all born as blank slates. Research in modern times has demonstrated that some personality traits are in fact innate (whether genetic or otherwise established before birth), and as such the blank slate is a notion that few take seriously anymore. Of course, even the most thoroughly discredited ideas have a way of persisting long after their credibility has been undermined.
Ex-gay theories of sexuality avoid invoking the blank slate (a concept heavily at odds with most strains of Christian thought), but they nonetheless view sexuality as being only slightly less malleable than a blank slate proponent might suggest. A homosexual orientation may not be consciously chosen, but it is nonetheless viewed to be the result of choices made by an individual during childhood.
It may seem odd that something as seemingly important to God as heterosexuality would be so fragile that it could be completely undone by a simple perception on the part of a child who’s too young to have more than the most rudimentary understanding of right and wrong (much less of sexuality). God, however, gets off the hook for this glaring design flaw since it can be summarily dismissed as a byproduct of Adam’s Fall - a catchall that gets invoked to close off further discussion on any subject that makes people too uncomfortable.
Of course, if everything that Christians have ever tried to trace back to the Fall were truly its byproduct, it would require that Adam’s singular act of disobedience triggered a fundamental restructuring of the entire physical universe down to the molecular level, which in and of itself would either call God’s judgment back into question or suggest that we have gravely underestimated the amount of power that Satan and his minions wield (or both). But I digress.
Prejudice against left-handedness has historically been so pervasive that it was embedded into most of the world's major languages. Negative terms like "sinister" and "gauche" derive from words for the left hand, while the right hand is associated with concepts like competence and justice. The authors of the Bible shared this mindset, as evidenced in Gen. 48:13-14, Ecc. 10:2, Matt. 25:31-46 and other passages.
Even in modern times, well-meaning parents and teachers sometimes try to force left-handed children to write with their right hands. The children in question may learn to do so competently, but there never comes a time when it doesn't feel unnatural to them. And the process of suppressing their natural left-handedness can in some cases lead to a lifetime of cognitive problems.
The consequences of trying to change one's sexual orientation may be harder to quantify, but a growing number of former ex-gays are coming forward to testify to the emotional and relational fallout from their attempts. Many ex-gay advocates prefer to dismiss such claims by declaring that those who experienced harm merely went about it wrong, or didn’t have enough faith, or didn’t try hard enough (or tried too hard) - but then, “you just did it wrong” was a popular refrain in fundamentalist circles long before the advent of the ex-gay movement.
The parallels to homosexuality seem evident, even without a chart*. The instinctive bias that many right-handed individuals have toward the left-handed may be more easily overcome than the bias heterosexuals often have toward homosexuals, but both stem from an assumption about the way things should be based on what feels natural to the individual. When sacred texts can be interpreted as reinforcing that assumption, bias becomes dogma.
Society does seem to be gradually becoming more accepting of those who are "different," introverts, the left-handed and gays alike. One can only pray that future generations will value the unique gifts that such individuals have to share rather than trying to treat them like blank slates.
*The research on this chart is several years out of date, but the basic parallels still appear to be valid.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Messy Spirituality
Cross-posted from Ex-Gay Watch
The late Mike Yaconelli spent much of his life worried that he wasn’t spiritual enough. Despite his many efforts to be a better Christian, the best he ever seemed to manage was “a stumbling, bumbling, clumsy kind of following.” Spirituality remained an eternally elusive state of being that was always just out of grasp.
Most churches reinforce this perfectionistic line of thinking, setting high standards for how their members should look and act and offering countless formulas for “godly” living that never quite work as well as advertised. The end result is pews full of people with smiles permanently in place who know all the right things to say to hide the disarray and dysfunction that lie just below the surface.
Yaconelli’s epiphany came when he realized that spirituality wasn’t a matter of having one’s life perfectly sorted out or of fitting into the mold of what a “good Christian” is supposed to look like.
Messy Spirituality (recently re-released by Zondervan Publishing) is Yaconelli’s challenge to a church that values conformity over authenticity, perfection over compassion and formula over relationship. Most evangelical churches would argue that they uphold a vision similar to Yaconelli’s, yet in practice few allow people the freedom to be where they’re at without pushing them to strive toward some fixed standard of perfection. Uniqueness is sometimes praised but more often condemned.
Similarly, many ex-gay ministries teach what appears to be a grace-filled message that encourages participants to share openly about their struggles while growing at their own pace according to God’s timing. In practice, however, only a handful of these ministries genuinely leave room for individuals to engage directly with God; the end result of that engagement has been predetermined according to a particular interpretation of a select set of biblical passages, and anyone who reaches different conclusions is automatically deemed unworthy of membership in the body of Christ.
Yaconelli (perhaps wisely) does not address the issue of homosexuality in his book, aside from including GLBT individuals in a list of various groups that churches commonly ostracize (to his credit he uses the term “gay or lesbian” rather than the various euphemisms that evangelicals typically substitute). As a result, readers will bring their own conclusions with them as to how homosexuality should be addressed by the church.
Yaconelli’s vision of “messy spirituality” does, nonetheless, suggest a framework that we can use to live with fellow Christians who disagree with us on this (or any other) issue. Having been granted the freedom to be where we’re at as individuals, we can in turn extend that same grace to others, encouraging them to pursue God (and to be pursued by him) without the need to dictate to them what that must look like, or what conclusions they have to reach.
It’s an imperfect solution, but then again, it’s an imperfect world.
The late Mike Yaconelli spent much of his life worried that he wasn’t spiritual enough. Despite his many efforts to be a better Christian, the best he ever seemed to manage was “a stumbling, bumbling, clumsy kind of following.” Spirituality remained an eternally elusive state of being that was always just out of grasp.
Most churches reinforce this perfectionistic line of thinking, setting high standards for how their members should look and act and offering countless formulas for “godly” living that never quite work as well as advertised. The end result is pews full of people with smiles permanently in place who know all the right things to say to hide the disarray and dysfunction that lie just below the surface.
Yaconelli’s epiphany came when he realized that spirituality wasn’t a matter of having one’s life perfectly sorted out or of fitting into the mold of what a “good Christian” is supposed to look like.
Spirituality is not a formula; it is not a test. It is a relationship. Spirituality is not about competency; it is about intimacy. Spirituality is not about perfection; it is about connection. The way of the spiritual life begins where we are now in the mess of our lives. Accepting the reality of our broken, flawed lives is the beginning of spirituality not because the spiritual life will remove our flaws but because we let go of seeking perfection and, instead, seek God, the one who is present in the tangledness of our lives. Spirituality is not about being fixed; it is about God’s being present in the mess of our unfixedness.
Messy Spirituality (recently re-released by Zondervan Publishing) is Yaconelli’s challenge to a church that values conformity over authenticity, perfection over compassion and formula over relationship. Most evangelical churches would argue that they uphold a vision similar to Yaconelli’s, yet in practice few allow people the freedom to be where they’re at without pushing them to strive toward some fixed standard of perfection. Uniqueness is sometimes praised but more often condemned.
Similarly, many ex-gay ministries teach what appears to be a grace-filled message that encourages participants to share openly about their struggles while growing at their own pace according to God’s timing. In practice, however, only a handful of these ministries genuinely leave room for individuals to engage directly with God; the end result of that engagement has been predetermined according to a particular interpretation of a select set of biblical passages, and anyone who reaches different conclusions is automatically deemed unworthy of membership in the body of Christ.
Yaconelli (perhaps wisely) does not address the issue of homosexuality in his book, aside from including GLBT individuals in a list of various groups that churches commonly ostracize (to his credit he uses the term “gay or lesbian” rather than the various euphemisms that evangelicals typically substitute). As a result, readers will bring their own conclusions with them as to how homosexuality should be addressed by the church.
Yaconelli’s vision of “messy spirituality” does, nonetheless, suggest a framework that we can use to live with fellow Christians who disagree with us on this (or any other) issue. Having been granted the freedom to be where we’re at as individuals, we can in turn extend that same grace to others, encouraging them to pursue God (and to be pursued by him) without the need to dictate to them what that must look like, or what conclusions they have to reach.
It’s an imperfect solution, but then again, it’s an imperfect world.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Linkage
Because there's always plenty going on in the blogosphere...
1. Noe Gutierrez shares his story and his insights into the ex-gay world with Ex-Gay Watch.
2. Tobias Haller has written a well thought out series on the Bible and homosexuality. Part 1 is here.
3. My friend Eric has taken another step out of the closet. Someday maybe I'll be in a position to do likewise.
4. Since you can already read about the California marriage decision on about a billion other sites, I'm not feeling too inclined to discuss it in-depth. Misty Irons' take on it is worth reading, if you haven't already seen it. For my part, I'm cautiously optimistic. This is only going to make the religious right fight twice as hard, and even if their day in the sun truly is coming to a close there's still a lot of damage they can do on their way down.
1. Noe Gutierrez shares his story and his insights into the ex-gay world with Ex-Gay Watch.
2. Tobias Haller has written a well thought out series on the Bible and homosexuality. Part 1 is here.
3. My friend Eric has taken another step out of the closet. Someday maybe I'll be in a position to do likewise.
4. Since you can already read about the California marriage decision on about a billion other sites, I'm not feeling too inclined to discuss it in-depth. Misty Irons' take on it is worth reading, if you haven't already seen it. For my part, I'm cautiously optimistic. This is only going to make the religious right fight twice as hard, and even if their day in the sun truly is coming to a close there's still a lot of damage they can do on their way down.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Analyses
Dr. Patrick Chapman, a university professor whose name you're likely to see again, recently wrote a three-part series for Ex-Gay Watch critiquing Jones & Yarhouse's recent study on participants in Exodus programs. A must-read for anyone with an interest in ex-gay issues.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
And, for the sake of balance, here's a link to Part 1 of the authors' response to Dr. Chapman's articles. Parts two and three are still pending.
Also, another must-read: Disputed Mutability blogs about her experience at a Love Won Out conference here.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
And, for the sake of balance, here's a link to Part 1 of the authors' response to Dr. Chapman's articles. Parts two and three are still pending.
Also, another must-read: Disputed Mutability blogs about her experience at a Love Won Out conference here.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Various
For those who aren't regular readers of Ex-Gay Watch, here are links to two articles I've written there recently:
James Dobson: The End of the World Is Near
Allies, Too: A Step Forward or More of the Same?
Writing for XGW leaves me with less time to collect my thoughts here, but some things just need to be done.
Also, since YouTube has apparently decided to thwart my every effort to post more videos on my blog, here's a link to Box Turtle Bulletin, which isn't having such problems...
Shirtless in Abercrombie
It's an excuse for a bunch of guys to take off their shirts in public and a social statement!
James Dobson: The End of the World Is Near
Allies, Too: A Step Forward or More of the Same?
Writing for XGW leaves me with less time to collect my thoughts here, but some things just need to be done.
Also, since YouTube has apparently decided to thwart my every effort to post more videos on my blog, here's a link to Box Turtle Bulletin, which isn't having such problems...
Shirtless in Abercrombie
It's an excuse for a bunch of guys to take off their shirts in public and a social statement!
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
The Ninety-Nine and the One
Cross-posted from Ex-Gay Watch
“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.” (Matt. 18:12-14, NIV)
Thus did Jesus summarize what Christian ministry should look like as he set the example by going out of his way to reach out to the outcast, the wounded, the “sinner” and all those looked down upon by society.
From the perspective of Exodus, Focus on the Family and their allies, members of the GLBT community would certainly be considered “lost sheep.” Surely, then, Christians in the above groups would consider it all the more urgent to give freely and sacrificially of their time, energy and resources to identify and meet the needs of those “lost sheep,” following Jesus’ example of unconditional and self-sacrificial love that hopes for the best without demanding anything in return.
And we do see a considerable outpouring of time, energy and resources from these groups. Unfortunately all of that effort has been redirected to support a declaration of war against the aforementioned “lost sheep,” who have been labeled a deadly threat to the rest of the flock by virtue of their current location.
Compassion gets redefined out of existence as love becomes something to withhold pending a sinner’s repentance. Ministries that once sought to help those in need divert more and more of their resources to political crusades as the church sets aside its spiritual mission to wage a holy war against the rest of the world.
On the rare occasion that a lost sheep does return (usually on hands and knees, and only let back in after acceding to a list of ultimatums), it’s immediately paraded around as a trophy and its testimony wielded as a weapon against those that remain “unrepentant.”
But maybe God won’t mind if a few million of “these little ones” fall through the cracks as a result of the church’s crusade to establish a “Christian” nation. It’s all being done in His name, after all.
Sounds like a good time to ask: What would Jesus do?
“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.” (Matt. 18:12-14, NIV)
Thus did Jesus summarize what Christian ministry should look like as he set the example by going out of his way to reach out to the outcast, the wounded, the “sinner” and all those looked down upon by society.
From the perspective of Exodus, Focus on the Family and their allies, members of the GLBT community would certainly be considered “lost sheep.” Surely, then, Christians in the above groups would consider it all the more urgent to give freely and sacrificially of their time, energy and resources to identify and meet the needs of those “lost sheep,” following Jesus’ example of unconditional and self-sacrificial love that hopes for the best without demanding anything in return.
And we do see a considerable outpouring of time, energy and resources from these groups. Unfortunately all of that effort has been redirected to support a declaration of war against the aforementioned “lost sheep,” who have been labeled a deadly threat to the rest of the flock by virtue of their current location.
Compassion gets redefined out of existence as love becomes something to withhold pending a sinner’s repentance. Ministries that once sought to help those in need divert more and more of their resources to political crusades as the church sets aside its spiritual mission to wage a holy war against the rest of the world.
On the rare occasion that a lost sheep does return (usually on hands and knees, and only let back in after acceding to a list of ultimatums), it’s immediately paraded around as a trophy and its testimony wielded as a weapon against those that remain “unrepentant.”
But maybe God won’t mind if a few million of “these little ones” fall through the cracks as a result of the church’s crusade to establish a “Christian” nation. It’s all being done in His name, after all.
Sounds like a good time to ask: What would Jesus do?
Friday, September 21, 2007
More Links
My latest post at Ex-Gay Watch is up here. Not that I expect conservative evangelicals to wake up to the arrogance inherent in the way they relate to the rest of the world as a result of one article, but as they like to say, change is possible.
Also, here's an interesting article on promiscuity rates in the gay community. A little myth busting can do a world of good.
Also, here's an interesting article on promiscuity rates in the gay community. A little myth busting can do a world of good.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Spirit of the Law
Cross-posted from Ex-Gay Watch
As I've discussed here before, adherence to the letter of the law can have odd results. By reducing the Bible to a rulebook, we run the risk of binding ourselves to all sorts of regulations that have no context in real life other than "God said so."
Fortunately we have precedents in church history for placing the spirit of the law ahead of the letter of the law, even when doing so appears (on the surface) to place us in violation of what had previously been accepted as a direct command from God. Remarriage following divorce is the most obvious example of this, but there is another that demonstrates this principle even more clearly. The sin of usury was once strongly and universally condemned by the Christian church (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant alike), yet today some Christians aren't even familiar with the term.
The biblical authors clearly and unambiguously condemn usury (the practice of charging interest on loans) on multiple occasions: Exod. 22:25-27, Lev. 25:35-37, Deut. 23:19-20, Neh. 5:10-11, Psalm 15:5, Prov. 28:8, Isa. 24:1-3, Jer. 15:10, Eze. 18:7-9, Eze. 18:13, Eze. 18:17 and Eze. 22:12 all speak against the practice. Although the New Testament has far less to say on the subject, many theologians have interpreted Luke 6:35 ("lend, expecting nothing in return" - NASB) as a command against usury. With so many references to the practice outside of the Pentateuch, usury cannot be automatically dismissed as a matter of concern only for ancient Israel.
Furthermore, the Bible contains no positive references to usury or those that practice it. Although the idea of collecting interest on a bank deposit is brought up in the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-29, Luke 19:11-26), it is at best a neutral statement. Jesus does not condemn the words of his fictional property owner (who is described as a "harsh man"), but neither does he endorse them.
Church leaders and theologians from Augustine and St. John Chrysostom to Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther unanimously and harshly condemned the practice of usury, which remained punishable by excommunication into the early years of the Reformation. The Medieval church did permit Jews to charge interest on loans, since Jews were already regarded by the church as accursed, but no other exceptions were entertained.
So what changed? A few advocates of permitting certain forms of usury rose up from time to time, but they were either ignored or shouted down. Meanwhile, the world was changing. What had worked within the context of a tribal society with an agrarian economy didn't translate well to the medieval world with its growing cities and rising merchant class. Without the ability to charge interest, there was no incentive to lend money since doing so would result in a net loss to the lender. And with such limited access to loans, only the wealthy could afford the startup costs of new business ventures.
John Calvin was the first theologian to formulate a comprehensive case for lifting the ban on some forms of usury. Among other things, he pointed out the context in which the biblical command was given, namely, helping the poor (Lev. 25:35). The spirit of the Law was not concerned with regulating all forms of commerce, but rather with encouraging compassionate treatment of the poor and prohibiting the wealthy from exploiting the less fortunate for personal gain. It was meant to protect the poor, not to hinder any efforts they might make to rise out of poverty.
In a similar fashion we can uncover the intent of the authors of Leviticus in regard to the command that appears to prohibit all male homosexual conduct. Lev. 18:3 and 20:23 instruct the Israelites not to emulate the behaviors of the surrounding nations, whose religious practices were known to include most of the acts listed in those two chapters.
Within this context we can see why lesbianism was overlooked entirely (it was not practiced in any known temple rituals at the time), and why the command against male-male sex is one of the few Levitical prohibitions not repeated in the book of Deuteronomy (or anywhere else in the Old Testament) unless one counts references to the qadesh, the male "holy ones" who had sex with male patrons as part of certain pagan fertility rituals.
In the New Testament Paul echoes that condemnation of pagan fertility rituals (which were still common in Roman times) when he speaks of the "unnatural" passions that arise out of idolatrous practices in Rom. 1:18-32. Although Paul's discourse includes an apparent mention of lesbian activity in verse 26, theologians have not always interpreted this verse as a reference to lesbianism. Verse 26 is not at all out of place within the context of the fertility rituals, given that some of those rites involved female priests who dressed up as men to simulate sex with male priests who were dressed as women.
A few scholars have also proposed that the word arsenokoitai, which appears in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 and which Paul apparently coined, was derived from the words used in the Greek translation of Lev. 18:22. If that is the case, then all of the Bible's references to homosexual behavior (not counting the attempted rape and murder in the Sodom narrative) point specifically to the idolatrous qadesh and those who patronized them.
Equipped with such an understanding, we are freed to examine the issue of committed same-sex relationships from broader biblical principles, as the church has done and continues to do for a variety of issues that were not directly addressed by the authors of the Old and New Testaments - modern commerce, representative government, abortion, biotechnology, and many others. Within such a framework there are numerous principles we can apply to this issue, including marital fidelity, mutual commitment, avoidance of immoral behavior and self-sacrificial love.
Some might object to the comparison of an economic issue (usury) with a matter of sexual morality. Given that the biblical authors spend far more time discussing economic justice than they do addressing sexual ethics, that's not an unfounded reservation; the modern church has simply reversed the order of importance.
Where the letter of the law demands that our highest devotion be reserved for rules and regulations, the spirit of the law frees us to truly love others by placing people ahead of ideas. As Jesus himself said when confronted by the religious leaders for not adhering to the letter of the law, "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
As I've discussed here before, adherence to the letter of the law can have odd results. By reducing the Bible to a rulebook, we run the risk of binding ourselves to all sorts of regulations that have no context in real life other than "God said so."
Fortunately we have precedents in church history for placing the spirit of the law ahead of the letter of the law, even when doing so appears (on the surface) to place us in violation of what had previously been accepted as a direct command from God. Remarriage following divorce is the most obvious example of this, but there is another that demonstrates this principle even more clearly. The sin of usury was once strongly and universally condemned by the Christian church (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant alike), yet today some Christians aren't even familiar with the term.
The biblical authors clearly and unambiguously condemn usury (the practice of charging interest on loans) on multiple occasions: Exod. 22:25-27, Lev. 25:35-37, Deut. 23:19-20, Neh. 5:10-11, Psalm 15:5, Prov. 28:8, Isa. 24:1-3, Jer. 15:10, Eze. 18:7-9, Eze. 18:13, Eze. 18:17 and Eze. 22:12 all speak against the practice. Although the New Testament has far less to say on the subject, many theologians have interpreted Luke 6:35 ("lend, expecting nothing in return" - NASB) as a command against usury. With so many references to the practice outside of the Pentateuch, usury cannot be automatically dismissed as a matter of concern only for ancient Israel.
Furthermore, the Bible contains no positive references to usury or those that practice it. Although the idea of collecting interest on a bank deposit is brought up in the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-29, Luke 19:11-26), it is at best a neutral statement. Jesus does not condemn the words of his fictional property owner (who is described as a "harsh man"), but neither does he endorse them.
Church leaders and theologians from Augustine and St. John Chrysostom to Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther unanimously and harshly condemned the practice of usury, which remained punishable by excommunication into the early years of the Reformation. The Medieval church did permit Jews to charge interest on loans, since Jews were already regarded by the church as accursed, but no other exceptions were entertained.
So what changed? A few advocates of permitting certain forms of usury rose up from time to time, but they were either ignored or shouted down. Meanwhile, the world was changing. What had worked within the context of a tribal society with an agrarian economy didn't translate well to the medieval world with its growing cities and rising merchant class. Without the ability to charge interest, there was no incentive to lend money since doing so would result in a net loss to the lender. And with such limited access to loans, only the wealthy could afford the startup costs of new business ventures.
John Calvin was the first theologian to formulate a comprehensive case for lifting the ban on some forms of usury. Among other things, he pointed out the context in which the biblical command was given, namely, helping the poor (Lev. 25:35). The spirit of the Law was not concerned with regulating all forms of commerce, but rather with encouraging compassionate treatment of the poor and prohibiting the wealthy from exploiting the less fortunate for personal gain. It was meant to protect the poor, not to hinder any efforts they might make to rise out of poverty.
In a similar fashion we can uncover the intent of the authors of Leviticus in regard to the command that appears to prohibit all male homosexual conduct. Lev. 18:3 and 20:23 instruct the Israelites not to emulate the behaviors of the surrounding nations, whose religious practices were known to include most of the acts listed in those two chapters.
Within this context we can see why lesbianism was overlooked entirely (it was not practiced in any known temple rituals at the time), and why the command against male-male sex is one of the few Levitical prohibitions not repeated in the book of Deuteronomy (or anywhere else in the Old Testament) unless one counts references to the qadesh, the male "holy ones" who had sex with male patrons as part of certain pagan fertility rituals.
In the New Testament Paul echoes that condemnation of pagan fertility rituals (which were still common in Roman times) when he speaks of the "unnatural" passions that arise out of idolatrous practices in Rom. 1:18-32. Although Paul's discourse includes an apparent mention of lesbian activity in verse 26, theologians have not always interpreted this verse as a reference to lesbianism. Verse 26 is not at all out of place within the context of the fertility rituals, given that some of those rites involved female priests who dressed up as men to simulate sex with male priests who were dressed as women.
A few scholars have also proposed that the word arsenokoitai, which appears in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 and which Paul apparently coined, was derived from the words used in the Greek translation of Lev. 18:22. If that is the case, then all of the Bible's references to homosexual behavior (not counting the attempted rape and murder in the Sodom narrative) point specifically to the idolatrous qadesh and those who patronized them.
Equipped with such an understanding, we are freed to examine the issue of committed same-sex relationships from broader biblical principles, as the church has done and continues to do for a variety of issues that were not directly addressed by the authors of the Old and New Testaments - modern commerce, representative government, abortion, biotechnology, and many others. Within such a framework there are numerous principles we can apply to this issue, including marital fidelity, mutual commitment, avoidance of immoral behavior and self-sacrificial love.
Some might object to the comparison of an economic issue (usury) with a matter of sexual morality. Given that the biblical authors spend far more time discussing economic justice than they do addressing sexual ethics, that's not an unfounded reservation; the modern church has simply reversed the order of importance.
Where the letter of the law demands that our highest devotion be reserved for rules and regulations, the spirit of the law frees us to truly love others by placing people ahead of ideas. As Jesus himself said when confronted by the religious leaders for not adhering to the letter of the law, "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Questions For Exodus
Cross-posted from Ex-Gay Watch. If any Exodus leaders opt to respond, they'll most likely do so over there.
Given the defensive, sarcastic, and even hostile reactions that Exodus and its political allies have offered in response to the Ex-Gay Survivors Conference and the growing profile of the ex-ex-gay movement, several questions come to mind.
1. How do Exodus and its affiliates treat those who “drop out” of their programs? Is any follow-up ever done to find out why those individuals left? If not, does Exodus just hope that those people will go away and quietly vanish? How are current participants encouraged to treat former participants?
2. Does Exodus believe that ex-ex-gays have a right to tell their stories in their own words, or does it regard only the testimonies of “faithful” ex-gays as valid? Is there room for dialogue with former ex-gays, or are they considered enemies of the church?
3. Does Exodus believe that ex-ex-gays are in danger of losing their salvation? Can God still work in the lives of those who disagree with Exodus’ theological and political opinions, or are such individuals heretics to be expelled from the church at any cost?
4. When a former ex-gay claims to have been harmed by their ex-gay experiences, does Exodus take those charges seriously or are they dismissed as political posturing? Does Exodus consider its programs so far above reproach that no complaint made against them could be valid?
5. Former ex-gays are familiar with being told (by presumably well-meaning individuals) that their disenchantment is due either to personal failure or to incorrect perceptions and false expectations on their part. What, then, is Exodus doing to correct misperceptions about the definition of “change,” which are still widespread throughout the evangelical church? What is Exodus doing to ensure that “strugglers” – and their families, peers, pastors and fellow churchgoers – adopt a proper set of expectations, including fully understanding that “change” will, for most participants, mean a lifetime of celibacy?
Ex-Gay Watch is interested in hearing how Alan Chambers would respond to these questions, but the floor is open to leaders of local Exodus affiliates as well, as we recognize that their answers may vary.
Given the defensive, sarcastic, and even hostile reactions that Exodus and its political allies have offered in response to the Ex-Gay Survivors Conference and the growing profile of the ex-ex-gay movement, several questions come to mind.
1. How do Exodus and its affiliates treat those who “drop out” of their programs? Is any follow-up ever done to find out why those individuals left? If not, does Exodus just hope that those people will go away and quietly vanish? How are current participants encouraged to treat former participants?
2. Does Exodus believe that ex-ex-gays have a right to tell their stories in their own words, or does it regard only the testimonies of “faithful” ex-gays as valid? Is there room for dialogue with former ex-gays, or are they considered enemies of the church?
3. Does Exodus believe that ex-ex-gays are in danger of losing their salvation? Can God still work in the lives of those who disagree with Exodus’ theological and political opinions, or are such individuals heretics to be expelled from the church at any cost?
4. When a former ex-gay claims to have been harmed by their ex-gay experiences, does Exodus take those charges seriously or are they dismissed as political posturing? Does Exodus consider its programs so far above reproach that no complaint made against them could be valid?
5. Former ex-gays are familiar with being told (by presumably well-meaning individuals) that their disenchantment is due either to personal failure or to incorrect perceptions and false expectations on their part. What, then, is Exodus doing to correct misperceptions about the definition of “change,” which are still widespread throughout the evangelical church? What is Exodus doing to ensure that “strugglers” – and their families, peers, pastors and fellow churchgoers – adopt a proper set of expectations, including fully understanding that “change” will, for most participants, mean a lifetime of celibacy?
Ex-Gay Watch is interested in hearing how Alan Chambers would respond to these questions, but the floor is open to leaders of local Exodus affiliates as well, as we recognize that their answers may vary.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Perfect Love
Cross-posted from Ex-Gay Watch
Every time I recount the story of how I transitioned from a place of unquestioning acceptance of ex-gay ideology into the journey that I find myself on today, it comes out a bit differently as I focus on different aspects of what was, at the time, a far more complex process than a few pages of text could ever fully capture. But if there's one pivotal event that I hope I adequately account for in every retelling, it's how I came to truly understand, for the first time, that God loves me exactly the way I am, and that I don't have to change who or what I am to earn his acceptance.
It’s equally important to understand that God brought me to this point before I began questioning everything I’d been taught by the church about my “condition,” and not the other way around. I certainly didn’t interpret God’s unconditional acceptance as a license to do whatever my whims might happen to dicate, and I still don’t.
Words cannot fully convey just how revolutionary it was to come to the realization that not only did I not have to become somebody else in order to appease God, but he didn’t want me to be somebody else. Yet somebody else was precisely what I was trying to become through my efforts to “reclaim my natural heterosexuality.”
For better or for worse, whether because of genetics, hormones, psychological influences or some combination of the three, my homosexuality is a permanent, integral part of who I am, and God made it clear to me that he wasn’t interested in fundamentally altering the personality of somebody he had already fallen in love with, as even a partial shift in orientation would have entailed for me. Maybe it’s different for someone whose attractions were more fluid to begin with, but I wouldn’t know.
Again, the enormity of that revelation can only be appreciated if it’s understood that I was still fully committed at the time to the idea that my only alternative to heterosexual marriage was lifelong celibacy. Sure, the breadth and depth of God’s love was taught in the churches and programs I’d attended over the years, but there were always qualifications and stipulations and all sorts of implied exceptions.
Although it was generally understood that my orientation was not sinful in and of itself, virtually every Christian book, radio program, lecture and sermon I was exposed to over the course of my life made it abundantly clear that homosexuality was a tremendous evil on par with the very worst atrocities recorded in our history books. The very clear implication of all of that was that any good Christian in my position should strive to eradicate even the temptation to commit such a horrendous sin lest God’s wrath immediately descend upon me.
It might seem odd to an outside observer, but it’s internally consistent given that most strains of conservative Christian theology emphasize, to one degree or another, that every last one of us is pond scum, completely incapable of doing anything good on our own and valuable only because God chose to value us despite our inherent worthlessness. In theory, Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf empowers us to love him in return and to do good deeds.
In practice, the lessons drummed into me in church every Sunday led me to a life of fear - fear of what God would do to my worthless self if I didn’t say and do all the right things, fear of what God will do to those I love if I can’t persuade them to adopt my beliefs and standards, and fear of the terrible judgment God will pour out on our nation if his followers can’t bring enough of our neighbors to repentance.
I know I’m not the only one who has lived in that fear. It may not be openly acknowledged, but it’s a silent presence in more than a few churches. It lurks just behind the semi-permanent smile of the person who inserts “Hallelujah” or “praise God” into every other sentence just as surely as it drives the crusader who’s constantly badgering nonbelievers and “heretics” about their eternal destiny. And then there are those who just keep their mouths shut and their heads down and follow along without making too many waves, as I did.
But if “perfect love drives out fear,” as we’re told in 1 John 4:18, then something must be amiss in our churches. If fear is ever our motivation for doing anything, then perhaps it’s time for us to stop and reexamine what we really believe, underneath what we claim to believe.
All of that isn’t to say that I was never motivated by love for God, but even that love was tainted by fear - not the reverential ‘fear’ that the righteous have for God, according to the Bible, but the kind of love mixed with fear that a child might have for an abusive parent.
In truth, God was never an abusive parent. But deep down inside, beneath all of the theology I’d been taught, I didn’t really believe that he loved me. He tolerated me, if only because he couldn’t get around his own promises, but only as long as I stayed off the furniture and didn’t cause any trouble. It took a lot for God to finally break through all of the noise from the condemning voices running through my head, and those old tapes still rear up to haunt me from time to time.
Nothing has ever been as liberating and empowering as understanding - truly understanding - that I am loved, without reservation or qualification of any kind. I’ve heard so many times how freedom is supposed to come from obeying God’s laws. Obedience to God’s voice is certainly an important part of the Christian life, but it’s not the true source of our power.
If rules and regulations could liberate us, then totalitarian governments would be the greatest source of freedom known to mankind. God frees us, not by placing us back under the Law, but by giving us the one thing we desire and need more than any other: unconditional acceptance. Such unqualified love enables us to do the right thing in a way no set of rules could ever accomplish. Not because we’re “supposed to,” or because we fear being slapped down for our missteps, but because we know that we are valuable, and that those around us are valuable, and that nothing in the entire universe can strip any of us of our incalculable value.
For those that choose the ex-gay path in response to a genuine understanding of God’s unconditional love, I wish them the best on their journey. For those that choose it as a result of fear, obligation, misinformation or some combination of the three, I pray that one day they too will come to experience the freedom that no legalistic system can ever deliver.
Every time I recount the story of how I transitioned from a place of unquestioning acceptance of ex-gay ideology into the journey that I find myself on today, it comes out a bit differently as I focus on different aspects of what was, at the time, a far more complex process than a few pages of text could ever fully capture. But if there's one pivotal event that I hope I adequately account for in every retelling, it's how I came to truly understand, for the first time, that God loves me exactly the way I am, and that I don't have to change who or what I am to earn his acceptance.
It’s equally important to understand that God brought me to this point before I began questioning everything I’d been taught by the church about my “condition,” and not the other way around. I certainly didn’t interpret God’s unconditional acceptance as a license to do whatever my whims might happen to dicate, and I still don’t.
Words cannot fully convey just how revolutionary it was to come to the realization that not only did I not have to become somebody else in order to appease God, but he didn’t want me to be somebody else. Yet somebody else was precisely what I was trying to become through my efforts to “reclaim my natural heterosexuality.”
For better or for worse, whether because of genetics, hormones, psychological influences or some combination of the three, my homosexuality is a permanent, integral part of who I am, and God made it clear to me that he wasn’t interested in fundamentally altering the personality of somebody he had already fallen in love with, as even a partial shift in orientation would have entailed for me. Maybe it’s different for someone whose attractions were more fluid to begin with, but I wouldn’t know.
Again, the enormity of that revelation can only be appreciated if it’s understood that I was still fully committed at the time to the idea that my only alternative to heterosexual marriage was lifelong celibacy. Sure, the breadth and depth of God’s love was taught in the churches and programs I’d attended over the years, but there were always qualifications and stipulations and all sorts of implied exceptions.
Although it was generally understood that my orientation was not sinful in and of itself, virtually every Christian book, radio program, lecture and sermon I was exposed to over the course of my life made it abundantly clear that homosexuality was a tremendous evil on par with the very worst atrocities recorded in our history books. The very clear implication of all of that was that any good Christian in my position should strive to eradicate even the temptation to commit such a horrendous sin lest God’s wrath immediately descend upon me.
It might seem odd to an outside observer, but it’s internally consistent given that most strains of conservative Christian theology emphasize, to one degree or another, that every last one of us is pond scum, completely incapable of doing anything good on our own and valuable only because God chose to value us despite our inherent worthlessness. In theory, Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf empowers us to love him in return and to do good deeds.
In practice, the lessons drummed into me in church every Sunday led me to a life of fear - fear of what God would do to my worthless self if I didn’t say and do all the right things, fear of what God will do to those I love if I can’t persuade them to adopt my beliefs and standards, and fear of the terrible judgment God will pour out on our nation if his followers can’t bring enough of our neighbors to repentance.
I know I’m not the only one who has lived in that fear. It may not be openly acknowledged, but it’s a silent presence in more than a few churches. It lurks just behind the semi-permanent smile of the person who inserts “Hallelujah” or “praise God” into every other sentence just as surely as it drives the crusader who’s constantly badgering nonbelievers and “heretics” about their eternal destiny. And then there are those who just keep their mouths shut and their heads down and follow along without making too many waves, as I did.
But if “perfect love drives out fear,” as we’re told in 1 John 4:18, then something must be amiss in our churches. If fear is ever our motivation for doing anything, then perhaps it’s time for us to stop and reexamine what we really believe, underneath what we claim to believe.
All of that isn’t to say that I was never motivated by love for God, but even that love was tainted by fear - not the reverential ‘fear’ that the righteous have for God, according to the Bible, but the kind of love mixed with fear that a child might have for an abusive parent.
In truth, God was never an abusive parent. But deep down inside, beneath all of the theology I’d been taught, I didn’t really believe that he loved me. He tolerated me, if only because he couldn’t get around his own promises, but only as long as I stayed off the furniture and didn’t cause any trouble. It took a lot for God to finally break through all of the noise from the condemning voices running through my head, and those old tapes still rear up to haunt me from time to time.
Nothing has ever been as liberating and empowering as understanding - truly understanding - that I am loved, without reservation or qualification of any kind. I’ve heard so many times how freedom is supposed to come from obeying God’s laws. Obedience to God’s voice is certainly an important part of the Christian life, but it’s not the true source of our power.
If rules and regulations could liberate us, then totalitarian governments would be the greatest source of freedom known to mankind. God frees us, not by placing us back under the Law, but by giving us the one thing we desire and need more than any other: unconditional acceptance. Such unqualified love enables us to do the right thing in a way no set of rules could ever accomplish. Not because we’re “supposed to,” or because we fear being slapped down for our missteps, but because we know that we are valuable, and that those around us are valuable, and that nothing in the entire universe can strip any of us of our incalculable value.
For those that choose the ex-gay path in response to a genuine understanding of God’s unconditional love, I wish them the best on their journey. For those that choose it as a result of fear, obligation, misinformation or some combination of the three, I pray that one day they too will come to experience the freedom that no legalistic system can ever deliver.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
The Letter of the Law
Originally posted at Ex-Gay Watch
Read through the materials of just about any Christian organization that speaks out against gay relationships, and you'll almost certainly find reference to Leviticus 18:22. The wordings of our English translations of the verse appear very clear, and at face value lend weight to those groups' political crusade against gay rights. One can, after all, hardly speak positively about anything that God called an 'abomination.'
Of course, there are many other 'abominations' listed in the Old Testament, shellfish being the most famous example, so conservative theologians have been forced to refine their arguments to explain why some of Moses' commands are still applicable today and some are not. To facilitate this, a third category was added to the Law; in addition to the ceremonial laws and the purity laws, they argued, there are also universal moral laws.
Whereas the ceremonial and purity laws are easily distinguishable based on context, the primary criterion for determining whether a command falls into the universal moral law is whether it appears to be something that most Christians would agree ought to be considered wrong under any circumstances. Since such acts as murder, theft, adultery and incest are clearly wrong regardless of whether one is an observant Jew, then commands found against those activities must be exceptions to the freedom that the New Testament grants Christians from the Law.
The problem with this approach is that it requires one to pick individual verses out of the Pentateuch while in many cases ignoring other verses immediately before and after. Not in every case - one can make a reasonable case for placing the Ten Commandments in the category of universal law, and few Christians would dispute such a claim - but even here we have a command (observing the Sabbath) that carries little or no weight in many churches.
Of course, the Ten Commandments say nothing about homosexuality, unless one makes the questionable stretch of expanding the definition of 'adultery' far enough to include it. Such a stretch is necessary, we are told, because one wouldn't want to be forced to defend acts of incest and bestiality just because they weren't specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
Conservatives do have one option for supplementing the seventh commandment ("you shall not commit adultery") without cherry-picking individual verses; Leviticus contains two chapters (18 and 20) filled with prohibitions that even many outside the faith would agree with: adultery, various forms of incest, bestiality, human sacrifice and, of course, (male) homosexual sex. Chapter 19 has to be excluded from this context, due to the hodgepodge of odd commands it contains, but one can always go back to cherry-picking to rescue its one relevant command ("Love your neighbor as yourself").
Unfortunately, we're still left with one odd prohibition in the mix: Lev. 18:19 and its echo in 20:18, which forbids a man from sleeping with a woman during her period. Some modern-day Christians probably aren't even aware of this command, and it's certainly not taken seriously by the majority of those that are. But contextually it cannot be separated from the rest of the commands in those chapters; in chapter 18 it falls between the commands against incest and adultery, and in chapter 20 in the middle of the incest prohibitions.
Granted, offenders don't receive the death penalty, but exile was only a marginally better fate in ancient times. Exile was also the punishment for several different forms of incest, so clearly this command isn't to be taken any less seriously just because the death penalty isn't called for. And granted, it isn't repeated in Deuteronomy (as most of the commands in Leviticus are), but neither is the prohibition against men lying with men unless one ties it to the command against male and female "holy ones" (Deut. 23:17). Since such a connection would place the Old Testament's only direct reference to homosexuality firmly within the context of pagan fertility rites, it's clear that we can't afford to put too much weight on what is and isn't repeated in Deuteronomy.
And the command against sex during menstruation is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible; Ezekiel does so twice (Ezek. 18:6 and 22:10), both times in conjunction with other moral issues (adultery, incest, idolatry and various economic injustices). No doubt the first instinct of most readers would be to dismiss this particular command as a relic from the purity laws, but the contexts it's mentioned in rule out that possibility.
Some might argue that having sex with a woman during her period must not be a big deal since it wasn't mentioned in the New Testament, but bestiality isn't mentioned there either, and it's hard to imagine bestiality advocates finding many supporters within the church. Furthermore, as we so frequently hear in the debate over homosexuality, just because an issue wasn't mentioned by Jesus (or, for that matter, Paul) doesn't mean it's unimportant. The authors of the New Testament may simply have considered it so obvious that didn't need to be repeated to their audience. In fact, they probably did; most premodern societies contained strong taboos against sleeping with a woman during her period.
Defenders of the sex-with-my-wife-whenever-we-want-it lifestyle would probably fall back on the biblical principle that "the marriage bed is undefiled" to defend their proclivities, but allowing generalized principles to override clearly stated biblical commands opens the door to a potentially endless flood of exceptions and qualifications. A law like this one may not make sense to us right now, but surely God would not issue a command without good reason. If we truly believe that the Bible contains explicit instructions for how we are to order our lives, then the believer's duty is to obey every one of God's commands even if we never understand why in this lifetime.
And some researchers have determined that sex during menstruation may have negative side effects. Some others may disagree, but again, God undoubtedly has a good reason for issuing a prohibition.
Furthermore, church tradition was unanimous on this issue all the way into the mid-19th century. Many of the church fathers and major theologians, including Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, St. John Chrysostom and Thomas Aquinas condemned the practice, and none tried to defend it. It's only in modern times that some Christians have begun to go astray and abandon this universally-held position.
Or could it be that combing through Leviticus for relevant commands causes us to miss the point entirely? Perhaps, by creating arbitrary categories within the Law to satisfy our desire for a rules-based approach to faith, we run afoul of Paul's admonition in Galatians 3:10-12:
As followers of Christ we are free from the Law - all of the Law - not because morality is unimportant but because morality is diminished when we reduce it to an arbitrary set of rules. True Christian morality flows outward from the heart; one can appear devout on the surface, consistently obeying every last command issued by their church, and secretly remain an enemy of God. One can even use the letter of the law to justify actions that blatantly violate its spirit.
And strict adherence to the "plain language" of the Bible has caused problems of its own. American and European defenders of the institution of slavery had the letter of the law on their side whenever the Bible was brought into the debate, while abolitionists were forced to argue from abstract principles, yet how many Christians today would defend the notion that slavery is ever acceptable?
That still leaves plenty of room for debating what does and doesn't fall within the bounds of Christian ethics, but if some of the commands in Leviticus are central to that discussion, then all of them are - shellfish, management of slaves, menstrual cycles and all. Jesus may not have abolished the Law, but he did fulfill its requirements and free us from them all the same.
Read through the materials of just about any Christian organization that speaks out against gay relationships, and you'll almost certainly find reference to Leviticus 18:22. The wordings of our English translations of the verse appear very clear, and at face value lend weight to those groups' political crusade against gay rights. One can, after all, hardly speak positively about anything that God called an 'abomination.'
Of course, there are many other 'abominations' listed in the Old Testament, shellfish being the most famous example, so conservative theologians have been forced to refine their arguments to explain why some of Moses' commands are still applicable today and some are not. To facilitate this, a third category was added to the Law; in addition to the ceremonial laws and the purity laws, they argued, there are also universal moral laws.
Whereas the ceremonial and purity laws are easily distinguishable based on context, the primary criterion for determining whether a command falls into the universal moral law is whether it appears to be something that most Christians would agree ought to be considered wrong under any circumstances. Since such acts as murder, theft, adultery and incest are clearly wrong regardless of whether one is an observant Jew, then commands found against those activities must be exceptions to the freedom that the New Testament grants Christians from the Law.
The problem with this approach is that it requires one to pick individual verses out of the Pentateuch while in many cases ignoring other verses immediately before and after. Not in every case - one can make a reasonable case for placing the Ten Commandments in the category of universal law, and few Christians would dispute such a claim - but even here we have a command (observing the Sabbath) that carries little or no weight in many churches.
Of course, the Ten Commandments say nothing about homosexuality, unless one makes the questionable stretch of expanding the definition of 'adultery' far enough to include it. Such a stretch is necessary, we are told, because one wouldn't want to be forced to defend acts of incest and bestiality just because they weren't specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
Conservatives do have one option for supplementing the seventh commandment ("you shall not commit adultery") without cherry-picking individual verses; Leviticus contains two chapters (18 and 20) filled with prohibitions that even many outside the faith would agree with: adultery, various forms of incest, bestiality, human sacrifice and, of course, (male) homosexual sex. Chapter 19 has to be excluded from this context, due to the hodgepodge of odd commands it contains, but one can always go back to cherry-picking to rescue its one relevant command ("Love your neighbor as yourself").
Unfortunately, we're still left with one odd prohibition in the mix: Lev. 18:19 and its echo in 20:18, which forbids a man from sleeping with a woman during her period. Some modern-day Christians probably aren't even aware of this command, and it's certainly not taken seriously by the majority of those that are. But contextually it cannot be separated from the rest of the commands in those chapters; in chapter 18 it falls between the commands against incest and adultery, and in chapter 20 in the middle of the incest prohibitions.
Granted, offenders don't receive the death penalty, but exile was only a marginally better fate in ancient times. Exile was also the punishment for several different forms of incest, so clearly this command isn't to be taken any less seriously just because the death penalty isn't called for. And granted, it isn't repeated in Deuteronomy (as most of the commands in Leviticus are), but neither is the prohibition against men lying with men unless one ties it to the command against male and female "holy ones" (Deut. 23:17). Since such a connection would place the Old Testament's only direct reference to homosexuality firmly within the context of pagan fertility rites, it's clear that we can't afford to put too much weight on what is and isn't repeated in Deuteronomy.
And the command against sex during menstruation is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible; Ezekiel does so twice (Ezek. 18:6 and 22:10), both times in conjunction with other moral issues (adultery, incest, idolatry and various economic injustices). No doubt the first instinct of most readers would be to dismiss this particular command as a relic from the purity laws, but the contexts it's mentioned in rule out that possibility.
Some might argue that having sex with a woman during her period must not be a big deal since it wasn't mentioned in the New Testament, but bestiality isn't mentioned there either, and it's hard to imagine bestiality advocates finding many supporters within the church. Furthermore, as we so frequently hear in the debate over homosexuality, just because an issue wasn't mentioned by Jesus (or, for that matter, Paul) doesn't mean it's unimportant. The authors of the New Testament may simply have considered it so obvious that didn't need to be repeated to their audience. In fact, they probably did; most premodern societies contained strong taboos against sleeping with a woman during her period.
Defenders of the sex-with-my-wife-whenever-we-want-it lifestyle would probably fall back on the biblical principle that "the marriage bed is undefiled" to defend their proclivities, but allowing generalized principles to override clearly stated biblical commands opens the door to a potentially endless flood of exceptions and qualifications. A law like this one may not make sense to us right now, but surely God would not issue a command without good reason. If we truly believe that the Bible contains explicit instructions for how we are to order our lives, then the believer's duty is to obey every one of God's commands even if we never understand why in this lifetime.
And some researchers have determined that sex during menstruation may have negative side effects. Some others may disagree, but again, God undoubtedly has a good reason for issuing a prohibition.
Furthermore, church tradition was unanimous on this issue all the way into the mid-19th century. Many of the church fathers and major theologians, including Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, St. John Chrysostom and Thomas Aquinas condemned the practice, and none tried to defend it. It's only in modern times that some Christians have begun to go astray and abandon this universally-held position.
Or could it be that combing through Leviticus for relevant commands causes us to miss the point entirely? Perhaps, by creating arbitrary categories within the Law to satisfy our desire for a rules-based approach to faith, we run afoul of Paul's admonition in Galatians 3:10-12:
All who rely on observing the Law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the Law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The Law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."
As followers of Christ we are free from the Law - all of the Law - not because morality is unimportant but because morality is diminished when we reduce it to an arbitrary set of rules. True Christian morality flows outward from the heart; one can appear devout on the surface, consistently obeying every last command issued by their church, and secretly remain an enemy of God. One can even use the letter of the law to justify actions that blatantly violate its spirit.
And strict adherence to the "plain language" of the Bible has caused problems of its own. American and European defenders of the institution of slavery had the letter of the law on their side whenever the Bible was brought into the debate, while abolitionists were forced to argue from abstract principles, yet how many Christians today would defend the notion that slavery is ever acceptable?
That still leaves plenty of room for debating what does and doesn't fall within the bounds of Christian ethics, but if some of the commands in Leviticus are central to that discussion, then all of them are - shellfish, management of slaves, menstrual cycles and all. Jesus may not have abolished the Law, but he did fulfill its requirements and free us from them all the same.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Recommended
Originally posted at Ex-Gay Watch under the title Book Review: ‘Sex and the Single Savior’
For those wrestling with the question of what a Christian position on the issue of homosexuality should look like, Dale Martin's new book Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation could be a valuable resource.
Unlike most who have written books on this subject, Martin (Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University) focuses much of his attention on how we interpret the Bible. As he likes to point out, the Bible, being an inanimate object, doesn't say anything; it's the reader that brings meaning to the text based on his or her experiences, preconceptions and cultural baggage. The historical-critical method of interpretation favored by most modern theologians, though useful when regarded as one tool among many, falls far short of being able to pinpoint the one "right" interpretation of any given text that so many turn to it for, and can in fact produce contradictory results even when used correctly.
Martin does spend two chapters addressing the New Testament "clobber passages," exposing the bias that colors the 'traditional' interpretations of those verses, and another chapter examining Paul's view of human sexuality and how vastly it (and the majority of historical Christian opinion) differs from the modern Christian perspective. He also provides compelling evidence that suggests that neither Jesus nor Paul would have been cheerleaders for the 'traditional' family so highly revered by the religious right, and demonstrates how Jesus' prohibition against divorce was far more radical than anything any modern Christian would be willing to accept. Martin closes by proposing a more holistic method for reading and interpreting the Bible.
Some of the essays included in Sex and the Single Savior have appeared elsewhere, but the whole book provides a lot to consider and reflect on for Christians of all stripes. He puts forward his most direct challenge at the end of his chapter on the meanings of malakoi and arsenokoitai:
For those wrestling with the question of what a Christian position on the issue of homosexuality should look like, Dale Martin's new book Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation could be a valuable resource.
Unlike most who have written books on this subject, Martin (Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University) focuses much of his attention on how we interpret the Bible. As he likes to point out, the Bible, being an inanimate object, doesn't say anything; it's the reader that brings meaning to the text based on his or her experiences, preconceptions and cultural baggage. The historical-critical method of interpretation favored by most modern theologians, though useful when regarded as one tool among many, falls far short of being able to pinpoint the one "right" interpretation of any given text that so many turn to it for, and can in fact produce contradictory results even when used correctly.
Martin does spend two chapters addressing the New Testament "clobber passages," exposing the bias that colors the 'traditional' interpretations of those verses, and another chapter examining Paul's view of human sexuality and how vastly it (and the majority of historical Christian opinion) differs from the modern Christian perspective. He also provides compelling evidence that suggests that neither Jesus nor Paul would have been cheerleaders for the 'traditional' family so highly revered by the religious right, and demonstrates how Jesus' prohibition against divorce was far more radical than anything any modern Christian would be willing to accept. Martin closes by proposing a more holistic method for reading and interpreting the Bible.
Some of the essays included in Sex and the Single Savior have appeared elsewhere, but the whole book provides a lot to consider and reflect on for Christians of all stripes. He puts forward his most direct challenge at the end of his chapter on the meanings of malakoi and arsenokoitai:
...I take my stand with a quotation from an impeccably traditional witness, Augustine, who wrote, “Whoever, therefore, thinks that he understands the divine Scriptures or any part of them so that it does not build the double love of God and of our neighbor does not understand it at all” (Christian Doctrine 1.35.40).
By this light, any interpretation of Scripture that hurts people, oppresses people, or destroys people cannot be the right interpretation, no matter how traditional, historical, or exegetically respectable. There can be no debate about the fact that the church’s stand on homosexuality has caused oppression, loneliness, self-hatred, violence, sickness, and suicide for millions of people. If the church wishes to continue with its traditional interpretation it must demonstrate, not just claim, that it is more loving to condemn homosexuality than to affirm homosexuals. Can the church show that same-sex loving relationships damage those involved in them? Can the church give compelling reasons to believe that it really would be better for all lesbian and gay Christians to live alone, without the joy of intimate touch, without hearing a lover’s voice when they go to sleep or awake? Is it really better for lesbian and gay teenagers to despise themselves and endlessly pray that their very personalities be reconstructed so that they may experience romance like their straight friends? Is it really more loving for the church to continue its worship of “heterosexual fulfillment” (a “nonbiblical” concept, by the way) while consigning thousands of its members to a life of either celibacy or endless psychological manipulations that masquerade as “healing”?
The burden of proof in the last twenty years has shifted. There are too many of us who are not sick, or inverted, or perverted, or even “effeminate,” but who just have a knack for falling in love with people of our own sex. When we have been damaged, it has not been due to our homosexuality but to others’ and our own denial of it. The burden of proof now is not on us, to show that we are not sick, but rather on those who insist that we would be better off going back into the closet. What will “build the double love of God and of our neighbor”? (pgs. 49-50)
Friday, April 13, 2007
What Is a Christian?
Originally posted at Ex-Gay Watch.
Can a person be both gay and Christian? It's an important question that has only begun receiving serious attention over the last couple of decades. Many evangelical Christians would respond with a flat "no" and refuse to engage the question further. Exodus International's answer is a bit more nuanced, but the strong implication one nonetheless gets from most ex-gay publications is that individuals who accept a "gay identity" (even the celibate, sometimes) are just kidding themselves if they think they'll one day join the chosen few in paradise.
So what, then, is a Christian? Many evangelicals would respond that it involves having a "personal relationship" with Christ, beginning with the act of asking him into one's heart. In theory it's as simple as that, though in practice one is then supposed to begin changing one's behavior to better conform to Christ's example. In theory (again), that transformation is supposed to be an outgrowth of one's relationship with Christ, but in practice outward appearances are usually all that matters; one merely needs to agree with a checklist of do's and don'ts, accompanied by a properly liberal use of Christianese terms and Bible verses in one's speech, to be regarded in your average church as a "good Christian."
Even setting aside the gap between theory and practice that exists in many churches, we quickly run into a dilemma when we realize that different Christian sects have different ideas about what makes a person a Christian. Is it enough to say the sinner's prayer and join a church? Which beliefs does a person have to agree with? How many (and which) good deeds, if any, does a person need to perform? What role does the sacrament of communion play? How important is baptism? Is confession before a priest/minister necessary, or can one confess directly to God? Does denomination matter? Can Christians lose their salvation, and if so, how? Disagreements over these and many other questions have fueled a thousand schisms.
On the positive side, many evangelical groups are beginning to move toward a more ecumenical definition of their faith, centered around the Nicene and Apostles' creeds and allowing for disagreement on matters of doctrine not found in those creeds. In theory, agreement is only necessary on the "essentials" spelled out in the creeds for a person to be considered a Christian.
In practice, most evangelical groups still have "hot button" issues that they treat as being comparable in importance to core tenets like the divinity of Christ, including (but not limited to) Biblical inerrancy, the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis, and, of course, homosexuality. "Liberal" Christians who challenge the party line on these issues aren't necessarily unsaved, but license is granted to question the authenticity of their faith.
But is it fair, or even biblical, to use such issues as litmus tests for determining who is and isn't a Christian? John 3:16, after all, merely states that "whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." It's supposedly as simple as that - no doctrinal litmus tests, no laundry lists of rules - yet the church is constantly trying to complicate it with an endless list of disclaimers, qualifications and additions.
In the case of homosexuality, 1 Cor. 6:9 is cited as proof that "practicing homosexuals" are all going to hell. The other "clobber passages" come into play as well, but this is the verse that can be interpreted to directly suggest that individuals in gay relationships may be in danger of losing their salvation.
Setting aside the very serious contextual and linguistic questions that surround the meanings of the two words (malakoi and arsenokoitai) that some modern translators have rendered as "homosexual offenders" (or the like), it's worth noting that homosexuality is often the only alleged sin given attention when this passage is cited. If Christians who commit any of these sins are truly in danger of losing their salvation, why wouldn't the church be more concerned about the entire list? Two groups in particular stand out:
The greedy. Sometimes translated as 'the covetous,' this sin appears far more often on Paul's "vice lists" than the arsenokoitai do, and yet the sin of greed gets a far softer touch in most evangelical churches. Granted, 'greed' is a somewhat abstract concept, but it was obviously an important subject for the biblical authors, given how frequently economic injustice is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.
And how many middle-class evangelicals are mortgaged to the hilt for the sake of having a fancy home, a pair of SUV's and the latest electronic toys, while giving little or nothing to charitable causes? It's not necessarily a sin to own nice things, but what does it say about a person when those purchases take priority over meeting the needs of the less fortunate?
Adulterers. According to Christ's own words, anyone who divorces and remarries is an adulterer (Matt. 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). This is not a single act of adultery, but an ongoing state, since God does not recognize the dissolution of the original marriage bond (1 Cor. 7:39). Matthew does allow for divorce in the case of unfaithfulness (the other gospel writers don't), but the only allowance made for remarriage in the New Testament is the death of the first spouse.
Many modern theologians have "discovered" that remarriage following divorce really is okay, at least under certain circumstances, but their reasoning is considerably weaker than that used by pro-gay theologians (whom they would accuse of twisting scripture to "justify an immoral lifestyle"), given that they have to overcome the explicitly worded statements of Christ himself.
Despite that, we have yet to see any promotion of "ex-adulterer" groups to support those who choose to submit to God's perfect plan by leaving their sinful second marriages and living celibately until such time as they can reconcile with their original spouse. But surely this should be a priority for evangelicals, given the gravity of such a sin and how commonly it's practiced within the church.
Or maybe we're missing the point entirely by assuming that Christ freed us from one legalistic system so that he could impose another on us. Evangelicals prefer to speak in terms such as "God's design" and "God's best," of course, but the demand for conformity is just as strong as it is within any explicitly legalistic group.
If we are going to decide who is and isn't a Christian based on performance, however, we could do no better than to use the words of Christ himself:
Can a person be both gay and Christian? It's an important question that has only begun receiving serious attention over the last couple of decades. Many evangelical Christians would respond with a flat "no" and refuse to engage the question further. Exodus International's answer is a bit more nuanced, but the strong implication one nonetheless gets from most ex-gay publications is that individuals who accept a "gay identity" (even the celibate, sometimes) are just kidding themselves if they think they'll one day join the chosen few in paradise.
So what, then, is a Christian? Many evangelicals would respond that it involves having a "personal relationship" with Christ, beginning with the act of asking him into one's heart. In theory it's as simple as that, though in practice one is then supposed to begin changing one's behavior to better conform to Christ's example. In theory (again), that transformation is supposed to be an outgrowth of one's relationship with Christ, but in practice outward appearances are usually all that matters; one merely needs to agree with a checklist of do's and don'ts, accompanied by a properly liberal use of Christianese terms and Bible verses in one's speech, to be regarded in your average church as a "good Christian."
Even setting aside the gap between theory and practice that exists in many churches, we quickly run into a dilemma when we realize that different Christian sects have different ideas about what makes a person a Christian. Is it enough to say the sinner's prayer and join a church? Which beliefs does a person have to agree with? How many (and which) good deeds, if any, does a person need to perform? What role does the sacrament of communion play? How important is baptism? Is confession before a priest/minister necessary, or can one confess directly to God? Does denomination matter? Can Christians lose their salvation, and if so, how? Disagreements over these and many other questions have fueled a thousand schisms.
On the positive side, many evangelical groups are beginning to move toward a more ecumenical definition of their faith, centered around the Nicene and Apostles' creeds and allowing for disagreement on matters of doctrine not found in those creeds. In theory, agreement is only necessary on the "essentials" spelled out in the creeds for a person to be considered a Christian.
In practice, most evangelical groups still have "hot button" issues that they treat as being comparable in importance to core tenets like the divinity of Christ, including (but not limited to) Biblical inerrancy, the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis, and, of course, homosexuality. "Liberal" Christians who challenge the party line on these issues aren't necessarily unsaved, but license is granted to question the authenticity of their faith.
But is it fair, or even biblical, to use such issues as litmus tests for determining who is and isn't a Christian? John 3:16, after all, merely states that "whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." It's supposedly as simple as that - no doctrinal litmus tests, no laundry lists of rules - yet the church is constantly trying to complicate it with an endless list of disclaimers, qualifications and additions.
In the case of homosexuality, 1 Cor. 6:9 is cited as proof that "practicing homosexuals" are all going to hell. The other "clobber passages" come into play as well, but this is the verse that can be interpreted to directly suggest that individuals in gay relationships may be in danger of losing their salvation.
Setting aside the very serious contextual and linguistic questions that surround the meanings of the two words (malakoi and arsenokoitai) that some modern translators have rendered as "homosexual offenders" (or the like), it's worth noting that homosexuality is often the only alleged sin given attention when this passage is cited. If Christians who commit any of these sins are truly in danger of losing their salvation, why wouldn't the church be more concerned about the entire list? Two groups in particular stand out:
The greedy. Sometimes translated as 'the covetous,' this sin appears far more often on Paul's "vice lists" than the arsenokoitai do, and yet the sin of greed gets a far softer touch in most evangelical churches. Granted, 'greed' is a somewhat abstract concept, but it was obviously an important subject for the biblical authors, given how frequently economic injustice is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.
And how many middle-class evangelicals are mortgaged to the hilt for the sake of having a fancy home, a pair of SUV's and the latest electronic toys, while giving little or nothing to charitable causes? It's not necessarily a sin to own nice things, but what does it say about a person when those purchases take priority over meeting the needs of the less fortunate?
Adulterers. According to Christ's own words, anyone who divorces and remarries is an adulterer (Matt. 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). This is not a single act of adultery, but an ongoing state, since God does not recognize the dissolution of the original marriage bond (1 Cor. 7:39). Matthew does allow for divorce in the case of unfaithfulness (the other gospel writers don't), but the only allowance made for remarriage in the New Testament is the death of the first spouse.
Many modern theologians have "discovered" that remarriage following divorce really is okay, at least under certain circumstances, but their reasoning is considerably weaker than that used by pro-gay theologians (whom they would accuse of twisting scripture to "justify an immoral lifestyle"), given that they have to overcome the explicitly worded statements of Christ himself.
Despite that, we have yet to see any promotion of "ex-adulterer" groups to support those who choose to submit to God's perfect plan by leaving their sinful second marriages and living celibately until such time as they can reconcile with their original spouse. But surely this should be a priority for evangelicals, given the gravity of such a sin and how commonly it's practiced within the church.
Or maybe we're missing the point entirely by assuming that Christ freed us from one legalistic system so that he could impose another on us. Evangelicals prefer to speak in terms such as "God's design" and "God's best," of course, but the demand for conformity is just as strong as it is within any explicitly legalistic group.
If we are going to decide who is and isn't a Christian based on performance, however, we could do no better than to use the words of Christ himself:
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 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, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matt. 25:34-46, NIV)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)