I was recently asked by a member of
my church how I would respond to a woman who left her church because the pastor
openly supported LGBTQ rights. It is as divisive and emotionally fraught as any
topic in our current public discourse, but I’ll see what I can do. I’d much
rather have a conversation than produce a written response, but all I can hope
for is that one will read it with an open mind.
I think to begin;
we have to address the thorny problem of the authority of the bible. The bible
was not delivered by angels in the form of the King James (more correctly, the
Authorized Version) in 1611. We Protestants have been given the Bible by the
Roman Catholic Church. Which books would be part of the Canon were debated for
300 years, finally settled at Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in the year 382.
Well, not finally settled. The contents of the Canon have been under review and
attack ever since. Even Martin Luther proposed to remove 4 books from the
Bible, but it has survived more or less intact. So we are given these
particular books because Rome said so, some getting in and others excluded not
just for theological reasons but ecclesial, political, and cultural ones as
well. And the Authorized Version was translated with a specific purpose in
mind: King James directed the translation in many ways, including instructions
designed to guarantee that the new version would reflect the episcopal
structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy, and to
limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. (I’m not going to footnote
this, but most of the above is from Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in
English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.
ISBN 0-300-09930-4. It is also searchable on Wikipedia.)
All of that
leads me to a place where I don’t believe that the Bible is inerrant,
infallible, or divinely inspired in the sense of written by people, dictated by
angels. In a way I do think the Bible is divinely inspired in the sense that it
is a sacred text, just not one that communicates the unaltered word of God. The
Bible is the word of God, not the words of God.
So,
whenever I preach on a biblical text, I seek to both place the text in its
proper cultural context, and interpret what that text means for us today. I am
not worried about the historicity of the bible, but in the underlying truth.
The Bible is full of parables and allegory – when Jesus says he is the gate for
the sheep, he does not mean that he is an actual, physical gate.
Now, it is
possible to hunt and peck at texts which seem to pass judgment on relationships that are not heteronormative,
but you must place each within the correct historical and cultural reference.
The Leviticus passages (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13) are the easiest to
dismiss. Both of these passages are a part of the Levitical holiness code,
which is not kept by any Christian group. If it was enforced, almost every
Christian would be excommunicated or executed. It has been logically argued
that science and progress have made many of the Levitical laws irrelevant. For
example, fundamentalist author Tim LaHaye states that, although Levitical laws
prohibit intercourse during menstruation, medical authorities do not view it as
harmful, and, therefore, it should not be viewed as sinful. He further
explains, “Those laws were given 3,500 years ago before showers and baths were
convenient, before tampons, disinfectants and other improved means of
sanitation had been invented.” (The Act of Marriage, p.275) With that, LaHaye
makes this law irrelevant and rightly so. Ironically, though, in his book, The
Unhappy Gay, the Levitical laws are one of the chief cornerstones of his
arguments. Much of the holiness code is now irrelevant for us as moral law.
Thus, having children, which was of exceptional importance to the early
Hebrews, is now made less relevant by overpopulation, just as the prohibition
against eating pork and shellfish has been made irrelevant by refrigeration.
The Bible never addresses the issue
of homosexual love, yet it does have several beautiful examples of same-sex
love. David's love for Jonathan was said to exceed his love for women. (2
Samuel 1:26) Ruth's relationship with Naomi is an example of a deep, bonding
love, and Ruth’s words of covenant to Naomi are often used in heterosexual
wedding ceremonies. (Ruth 1:16-17) The Bible clearly values love between
persons of the same sex. (portions of the above two paragraphs from the
writings of Rev Mike Piazza)
It is curious to me how the
Leviticus passage is used as an axe against the LGBTQ community. We have easily thrown
away most of the rest of the rules from that book, yet we cling to this one.
Why? Because it suits those who wish to use it to affirm what they already
believe.
Paul had something to say about
this, but it is not surprising, given his status as a Pharisee. But again, the
context is important. The Rev. Peter Gomes makes the point in The Good Book that it was homosexual
behavior by heterosexuals that was being condemned in Genesis and Romans; it
was homosexual prostitution associated with pagan worship practices being
called sinful, not homosexuality per se.
Why has the Bible been used to damn relationships which are not heteronormative? Perhaps for the same reasons that Holy Scripture has
also been abused in history to oppress women, slaughter Jews, Indians, and
Muslims, and enslave Africans. Thank God we learn (eventually). Hate is a sad
legacy for a book that tells us the greatest commandment is to love God with
all our heart, soul, and mind, and to love our neighbors as ourselves.
And what did Jesus say about this? Nothing. Not a word. How would he feel about them and treat
them? Well, my understanding of Jesus is of one who always stood up for the
marginalized, the down trodden, and the disenfranchised. And there I find my
answer. Along with the new commandment which instructs us to love. And
regardless what you think about LGBTQ people and gay marriage (which I like to
call marriage) it wouldn’t hurt to begin from a place of love.
For the Christian, sin must be
understood as a disease that results FROM a broken relationship with God and
that results IN a broken relationship with one another and with ourselves.
Hence, Jesus' supreme command is to love God and to love our neighbors as we love
ourselves. Christianity is not a religion with new rules and laws but rather is
a new relationship with God. Those things that the legalists are fond of
labeling “sins” are actually just symptoms of the much deeper disease of
alienation and estrangement. Much of the energy of the Church has been spent
dealing with symptoms while leaving the disease intact. Jesus did not seem
overly concerned about the legal transgressions of those to whom he ministered.
Rather, he was much more concerned with healing the physical, spiritual,
emotional and relational brokenness of people. (Piazza)
I don’t understand what causes two
people to love each other, and I’ve been married for over 30 years. And I am in
no position to call another’s love wrong or imperfect or anything else. I
embrace diversity in our congregation and community, and affirm the dignity and
worth of every person created in the image of God. I honor the principle that
discrimination is incompatible with Christ's Gospel of unconditional love, and
welcome into full membership and participation in the Body of Christ persons of
every race, language, age, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental
ability, economic or marital status, and faith background. I affirm and
celebrate all loving and committed relationships. And specifically, as a
follower of Jesus, I wholeheartedly support marriage equality.
Jim
Thomas
No comments:
Post a Comment