A Christian and a LGBT person walk into a bar: An Overview of the Discussion Had
I am always interested in following an argument (or heated discussion), and teasing out the differences and similarities. It is always helpful to first seek understanding, then application (my rule of thumb for evangelism and life in general: listen, learn, lead). In terms of the LGBT world we as Christians have often done the third without taking time to do the first two. And even when we attempt the first two, it is often as an apologetic in it which we misstate the contending positions (not often for conscious reasons). That it why I was thrilled to see this wonderful (though simplified) presentation of the diversity of views concerning the connection of the LGBT to the Church (as presented by the good people at Home Brewed Christianity).
(ed. note- just as the author has stated, the following is simply an exercise in presenting 4 views on their own terms, made without representation or assertion of rights or wrongs. No endorsement is made for any of the 4)To start off on the right foot (or left if you go that way), Wikipedia, that scourge of professors everywhere has two interesting overviews of the issue: here is a listing of various denominations and their stated policies toward the LGBT community, and here is their overview of the issue.
4 Views on the Church’s Response to the LGBT community:
1) LGBT Seen as the Rejection of God’s Design
2) LGBT Welcomed but not Affirmed
3) LGBT Welcomed and Accommodated
4) LGBT Welcomed and Celebrated
For more information:
For a look at Ben Witherington’s defense of the traditional (conservative) position, here, and to see how it works in practice, see Exodus International‘s website.
For a look at how #2 works in practice, see Andrew Marin’s Love Is an Orientation website.
For a look at how #3 works in practice, see Tony Campolo’s Gay Christian website.
For a look at how #4 works in practice, see Nadia Boltz-Weber’s House for All Sinners and Saints or the work of Justin Lee (here is an interview and here is his blog).
For the record I added two here because most of us in the conservative subculture of Evangelicalism do not know anyone who could be called a gay Christian, and it has been helpful for me to hear Justin’s story and see how a heterosexual couple like the Webers could do church for all people. Once again I am not justifing anything they say or do, simply pointing that direction and saying listen. That said, I included examples of people who affirm the creeds, believe in the authority of scripture in our lives, and long to see God’s kingdom come into being here and now. We can disagree with one another without throwing around words like ‘heretic.’ I love these brothers and sisters in Christ (though I disagree at points with all of them). Along these lines you might look at the example of two people who many contemporary Evangelicals have loved and honored; yet have over time made announcements of their orientations. Here is an interview CT did with CCM star Jennifer Knapp, and here is an interview with Gospel music star Ray Boltz.
To see the pericope of scripture on this topic, HBC recommended these sites (and I enjoyed having the scriptures at my fingertips):
Last you might peruse Andrew Sullivan’s essay on Obama and his resent change of heart, posted here.
So take and see that the Lord is good. Read for yourself. Decide for yourself. Lead the discussion.
Why My Mom is Like God (And Why that Matters)…
“God is a parent,” that was a thought that rambled around the brainpan as our church’s traditional Mother’s Day service processed. “That’s a strange formulation,” my argumentative nature responded. I argued with myself a bit more, “No one is going to (or should) start saying, ‘I believe in God, the parent, maker of heaven and earth…’.”
Now, I don’t believe in replacing lines from the creeds,[1] but this line of thought did not horrify me. I am not here to argue scripture; plenty have done that better than me.[2] What I am here to say, is this, that while we in the church spend a lot of time talking about how fathers are metaphors or images for our God. Our moms stand equally as images for the reality of the Godhead.
We use the term Father because this has been revealed to us by Christ. He talked about His Father, and so do we. That language should not be abandoned as it is real and truthful. Yet there are many times that our same Messiah talked about God as being like a mother (and our same God has revealed Himself in terms of his motherhood). Looking upon the city of Jerusalemas he traveled down the pass on a donkey (to the celebratory crowds of followers), Jesus said,
“Jerusalem,Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”
How often has God been like a mother to all of us, gathering as together like a mother hen with his chicks? How longsuffering? How patient? How loving?
As a man, I connect rather easily with my Dad. We have a lot in common, interest-wise. We go to all sorts of sports events together, and I cherish all of times sitting in stadiums across the country: eating bad food, drinking too much soda, getting sunburnt, or rained upon. And so I have often tried to develop ways of spending time with my mom. One of the things we do is watch TV- we have some similar tastes in programming. One of our favorite programs is Survivor. We watch (sometimes together, sometimes apart) and talk about our favorites and the strategies of it all. Last night we saw a great ‘Mom’ moment. The main villain of this season was Colton, the naïve, arrogant, abrasive, sheltered rich boy from South Alabama.[3] On the reunion show they brought his mom on air, when she apologized to the nation on behalf of her son stating that while she did not approve of his antics, she loved her son and hoped he would learn from his mistakes. What a great mom, I thought. Here she is taking on the offenses of her son, making amends, and attempting to use the teachable moment to improve the life of her son. How like God wasColton’s mom?
Yet I am struck that on Father’s Day we get theological sermons talking about how a father is like God, and we can all come to know the true Father. And on Mother’s Day we get well-meaning, emotionally compelling, but sometimes vapid sentimentality about how great it is that Mom cleans up after us. Where are the sermons about how a mom is like God? Where are the pronouncements that you can come to know the true Mother?
Many of ya’ll,[4] are thinking the man has gone off the deep end; but there is a real pastoral concern here. Because language matters, image matters, how we talk, and what we do matters. When all our talk of god is exclusively male, phallic, and macho, those who do not possess these qualities tend to believe that only these people can be ‘like’ God. And when people begin to get this mistaken notion, they come to believe that they cannot be ‘like’ God. And if they are thus excluded from the ‘god’ club, then what is the point of faith, and church, and the Christian life?
This is what happened in England,[5] and I worry about what census and polling numbers tell us about the loss of Christian impact among females here in the States. More and more women are pulling away from Evangelicalism, and its churches. It’s not because of homosexuality, liberalism, or feminism. It’s because we the leaders of the modern church are more scared of having someone accuse us of being ‘liberal,’ than of actually being the church, and discussing the ways in which scripture speaks today. We need more sermons unafraid to boast of our God’s radical feminism.
So let me say this clearly and succinctly, my mom in all her greatness, her generosity, her outspokenness, her silliness, her great love for her children is like God. And thank God for that. We need more moms afraid to be like God, and more than that, we need a God who is a mommy God.
[1] It’s why I refuse to say the Filioque. If I find myself in a Western church reciting the Nicene I say “and from the Father” go silent and pick back up with the congregation afterwards. It’s not that I don’t necessarily agree with the sentiment ( I am not a communal Trinitarian as opposed to the hierarchial nature of the Filioque).
[2] See the repost from yesterday: Is God Male?
[3] Honestly my initial thought was why from my state? Why? Don’t we have enough reasons for the rest of the country to look down upon us, without this idiot making us look all the more stupid, racist, and mean.
[4] Most predictably my conservative friends, and those who wish I would stop ‘criticizing’ the Church, and get on with talking about how poor people, socialists, gays, feminists, and atheists are evil, have ruined the country, and are now trying to destroy the church.
[5] I know I quote this book extensively but I think Callum Brown’s Death of Christian Britain is a formative read that everyone must get. This analysis of how the church in Britain lost traction, lost its influence, and lost the ability to speak to the British on a real level is a horror story that we all must understand, and outside that island kingdom must work to avoid elsewhere.
Make Love; Not War (on Gays and / or Marriage)
I am a Christian. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and authoritative for the life of the believer. As far as possible I try to understand the ethics of scripture and apply them to my own life (sometimes better than others). There are real consequences to that decision and impulse. Nowhere is that impulse more problematic for me than the matter of sexual ethics. I am a single, thirty-something male (heterosexual if you most know) living in a culture and society awash with sex. Sex explodes everywhere around me (on my phone, my computer, my TV, my magazines, my books, my music, etc…). Yet as a Christian I believe in some particular boundaries to this act (which I also believe to be a God-ordained and yes, highly pleasureable activity), and I am paying a high price to maintain them within my own domain ( I am the king of my castle, the master of my domain). You might say as a single man I pay a higher price than any of the married Christian men I often hear whining about our current sex-satiated culture.
That said my heart pumps out a variety of feelings about the recent doings of the North Carolina voters. I bleed for my friends and loved ones within the LGBT community; even as empathize with the frustration of my brothers and sisters who use the phrase ” war on marriage.” It all seems a little too surreal. The same people aghast when it is asserted that taxes and regulations are valid are willing to allow that same government into the confines of what Church Father Origen called the most sacred of spaces: the bedroom. The maxim “You can judge my bedroom actions, but stay away from my wallet” seems well strange. It is no wonder that non-Christians think we Christians are a repressed and sex-starved lot.
For me this whole thing boils down to Augustine. Yes, I know, a sex-obsessed man with serious mommy issues is a strange person to bring into this debate (but then again in the graph above I referenced a eunuch). Augustine wrote what for me (and many others) has been the defining document on the relationship of church and state: The City of God.
[ed. note- I have not read this work in full but have read parts and many an essay or work discussing the text. If my analysis is off, let me know, please]In this work he argued that within our world there are two cities: the city of God and the city of Man. The city of God is the community of the church and the city of man exists in the surrounding community. Each community has a set group of members and each community was created for a set course of actions. The city of God exists for moral instruction and to usher the members of larger community into the presence of God. The city of man exists to protect and defend all the members of a given society. Any given society works best when the two cities exist in interdependence, each accomplishing its own goals and each staying out of the way of the other.
This separate but equal arrangement is harder in practice than in theory, but I believe it to be our best understanding and our way forward. Here the church is responsible for the evangelization of the surrounding city, the discipling of its voluntary membership, and the worshiping of God. This is important because moral authority can never be demanded, it can only ever be given. A member of the larger society sees something of value in the church, joins its community, and slowly is reformed in the image of its God. That member offers himself or herself as a willing sacrifice, a free will offering to their Lord, and that Lord honors the sacrifice by moving within that officiant’s life. This is the way of it, the Lord offers Himself and His way making each member of society response-able to answer that call to fellowship. A powerful Lord could demand, could force His creations to follow as a designer might his automated robots; yet our Lord is also a loving Father who desires righteous relationship and not just righteousness.
There are many who have tried to have righteousness outside of relationship, but these groups never end well. When the God-man Jesus Christ walked the earth, there were many such bodies operating within his confines, and two of these groups received comment from him. “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” He warned his followers. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness,” he warned these men. Here were men intend on using every mean available to see that every member of their society toed the moral line they proposed all should follow (and of which they repeatedly failed). No infraction was too small to escape their notice. They were righteous in actions as they saw themselves at war with the pagan degradation of the surrounding Roman society.
Yet here was this self-appointed Messiah eating with tax-collectors, drinking with prostitutes, and celebrating without thought for how it might look to others. Here was your Messiah, a drunkard on a first-name basis with the local hookers, and on the invite list of all the wrong people. Once they grabbed a loose and wayward woman in the middle of her brazen sinfulness, dragged her before this prophet, and demanded that he treat her like God would. He forgave her, and invited her into the community.
Think about if you were that woman whose posse would you rather join. The legal eagles who had passed legislation forbidding her brazen act, and were now demanding she pay the penalty for her slutty ways. Or the soft spoken man who picked her off the ground and offered a graceful entrance into a new community where she would be loved, accepted, and encouraged to grow in grace and stature.
We can make demands up-front, and insist that others who have not come to the same opinions as us live according to our rules, and our standards. We can enforce our beliefs with the sword. We can yell, scream, and shout. We can take the power of the city of man and use it to crush all those not as enlightened as us. We can win the culture battles, and vanquish our foes in the courts of man. All the short-term gains can boost our esteem, and fill our heads; but in the long run all we really will accomplish is the creation of a people determined to one day have our heads.
Or we can stand humbly in our little corner of the street, and say to the hungry ” have some food for your bellies.” And say to the thirsty “have some water for your parched throat.” We can say to the prisoner “let me remove your chains.” We can say to the orphan “find a home with us.” We can say to the widow “here, have a shoulder to cry upon.” We can lift our eyes to the skies and praise our God for his mercy and grace, and we can be purveyors of that mercy and grace within the community. We can become known for our love of all people, and our desire for everyone to find joy and peace. We can own our own lives. We can look to our teachings and apply them ourselves. We can become the agents of change we are looking for. And if we do this, and do it well we will be creating a communal space that attracts, a space that invites, a space that welcomes. People will come from the farthest corners of the world to find the joy and peace we have to offer. And as they join us, they will meet our God, and He will begin the long work of transforming their lives, renewing their minds, and writing his law upon their hearts. Marriages will be saved. Lives renewed. Our community reformed.
Or we can continue to talk of wars. We can continue to make enemies. We can win some battles. We can lose the war. Marriages ruined. Lives destroyed. Our communities desolate.
We can be the good news of great joy in a world of chaos and disorder. Or we can be the agents of chaos adding to the disorder. The choice is ours.
Taxes and the Christian: An Elevator Speech
The following is a short stump speech of sorts from Jim Burklo’s Musings Blog:
Progressive Taxation and Christian Faith
Some Americans believe that taxation is theft, and that taking care of the poor and vulnerable is the business of charity alone. Others call for a “flat tax” which they claim is more fair than progressive taxation, which imposes a higher rate of tax on those of higher incomes. Such ideas once represented a fringe of the political spectrum, but now they are expressed by serious candidates for the presidency. Since religious language is being used to support these ideas, a theological rationale is needed for progressive taxation and an adequate taxpayer-funded social safety net. To this end, here I present a “sound bite” and an “elevator speech”:
Elevator Speech: “Our nation’s founders held the Judeo-Christian belief that all human beings are sinners. So they created checks and balances in the Constitution to restrain our natural greed for power. Our sin of greed also renders our voluntary charity inadequate, so through our democratic process we collect taxes from ourselves to meet the needs of our most vulnerable citizens. Jesus said ‘Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required’ (Luke 12:48). ‘Much’ means that this requirement should have an equalized impact on people’s lives, rather than being a flat percentage regardless of income. So those of higher incomes should be required to pay a higher rate of tax.”
Additional Thoughts:
I hope that congregations of all faiths will grapple with these matters in worship this coming weekend. Whether or not we feel able to pray a blessing on our taxes, at least we can preach and pray about what kind of government we want, what uses of our taxes we intend to prevail, and how we can put our faith into practice as citizen activists!
Unsanitary Links: The Least of These- Fair Taxes and the Christian’s Moral Duty
In 2001 I met one of the new students at Beeson Divinity School. At the time I was unsure what to think of this blonde dynamo, but over the next fee weeks I came to respect her intelligence and thoughfulness (traits in short supply even at the Grad Level). Susan was (is) a law professor at the University of Alabama who became interested in seeing what the Bible and our Christian traditions might say about taxation. This time spent at Beeson resulted in her book, The Least of These: Fair Taxes and the Moral Duty of Christians.
This book influenced not only her classmates and students but attracted the attention of the sitting governor of the our state. He actually was inspired by Susan’s book to draft a sweeping reform to the Alabama tax code. Had that reform passed the tax level for the working poor would have dropped by 25%, and the tax level for the middle class (under $75,000) would have dropped by 15%. In fact the taxes of something like 90% of state residents would have dropped. Unfortunately the same Baptists who established and run our university came out against Susan’s reform, and their fearmongering (they claimed that the bill would raise taxes, which it would have for 10% of the population) led to the bill’s defeat in a statewide referendum.
Flash-forward almost a decade and the county surrounding our little university is bankrupt with a massive debt due to a poorly managed sewer update, and the Supreme Court’s ban on the largest tax fund (one that billed the working poor and middle class while exempting most white-collar jobs such as lawyer or doctor). Meanwhile our new governor has run off our working poor (losing untold millions of sales tax revenue), announced harsh cuts to education and health care, and is currently talking about cutting taxes for the top earners. All of this while he pontificates that Christians are his brothers and sisters, and no one else matters.
If ever Susan’s work was needed, it is 2012. So please take some time to either purchase her book here, and read the journal article that formed the basis for it here.
A Problem Named Tebow: The Modern Failure of Imagination
For the record I am an UT alum and well tend to despise anything from Gainesville (sorry thems the rules); and as a self-loathing evangelical (as one friend recently called me) I tend to get twitchy around “Jesus helps me win football game types.” Also on the record I hope that is the last reference to Tebow’s faith in this column (that story is done in my humble opinion). No what I want to address today is what I see as the essential Tebow problem: a c0llective failure of imagination both among the Football genius’s in Denver and those football savants in the media.
Tebow is not your prototypical QB (thanks Capt. Oblivious); but neither would he be a prototypical RB, FB, TE, or WR. He has a body type and skill set that defies quick categorization. I think that is what irks me the most watching him play, he does not look right out there on the field anywhere. It is annoying then to watch someone who does not look right be successful especially when one considers all the guys who have passed the eye test; yet, been miserable players ( I learned my lesson on this topic my sophomore year of college as I watched a freshman Peyton Manning and Brandon Stewart battle for the starting QB job- one of them looked the part and other turned out to be the part. Many in the league learned that same lesson in the Manning vs Leaf debate before the 98 draft).
That brings us to the problem that Tebow presents. We as fans; and both the Broncos staff and media have a fixed idea of what a QB is (and what a RB is, a FB is, and so on). Yet sometimes individuals come along that defy any such known categorization. So what do we do? Mostly we try to take these special individual and pigeonhole them into one such existing and arbitrary category. In the case of Tebow he has been asked, “what position do you want to play?” He has answered, “QB.” So we have said, “Alright try to do that, but here are our expectations for what a QB does. He does this, this, and this; and occasionally we let him do this, this, or this.” The problem is, though, doing these things is not Tebow at his best, and so he even though he has worked extremely hard and made miles of progress he is still no where near what we expect, want, judge, or deem acceptable. AND WE BLAME TEBOW FOR NOT MEETING THESE EXPECTATIONS! “See!” we say, “I told you he wasn’t that good. He’s all hype and no substance.”
But what if the Denver Broncos were to admit that Tebow is not a normal QB, and what if there were to say rather than pigeonholing him into a position that is an ill-fit (at best), we are going to do something different. He is going to be a starter. He is going to be on the field for every play that our offense runs, but he is not going to be assigned a position that anyone currently recognizes. What if they went out and recruited a good QB, a game manager-type (with a little athleticism and great confidence), a guy that is solid, stable, and can make most of the throws and reads a ‘normal’ QB has to make? And what if you put him out there with Tebow? What if Tebow and said QB wander all over the field? What if some plays Tebow lines up at QB and runs a spread offense and sometimes a little wildcat? What if sometimes he lined up in the backfield at either the FB or RB position and was available as a runner (who is a threat to throw) and as a decoy or extra blocker? What if he lined up as a split-end slot and worked routes like Aaron Hernandez does for the Patriots or Anthony Gonzalez has at times for the Colts? What if he went into motion and was available to take direct snaps, quick handoffs, and pitches for end-arounds and reverses (always a threat to throw)? Would you want to be the DE with backside contain responsibilities who had to take down a Tebow going full-steam after taking a pitch? What he went in motion took a pitch and then had both the fullback and running back go with him for the threat of the option or just on the option? What if he took a screen-pass and then had the ball in space to use his natural running ability? Would you want to be the poor CB with screen responsibilities who had to fight off a block just for the honor of going after a Tebow running in space? Can you imagine the sleepless nights opposing D Coordinators would have trying to scheme for this type of wide open anything can happen offense? And how would opposing defenses be ready for this type of offense (which they guaranteed never to have seen before or again)? Can you imagine the joy Bronco RBs, TEs, and WRs would feel as confused defenses fell over themselves trying to account for Tebow, only to forget to stay solid with Demaryus Thomas on the fly or Eric Decker on the post or as Tebow flys by in motion taking half the defense so that Ball can take a handoff off the tackle side that Tebow just vacated? I can hear the critics now saying, “you can’t do that. It would never work, and beside it would be a lot of work and what if he gets hurt?” The answers in order: watch us, just because it hasn’t been done does not mean it can’t be, and if so we run the same plays we currently run, and play more basic techniques (or perhaps we find some other athletes that don’t fit elsewhere and have them doing some of the same things).
I am currently reading the book, Too Big to Fail (review to come), and someone that has amazed has been the lack of imagination shown by the businesses involved. Yes, they have shown creativity in creating really bizarre investments; but they failed because even then they could not see beyond the categories they had already created. When Lehman failed to see that CDOs are not like the fixed assets their leaders grew up trading; they painted themselves into corners that only a tax-payer funded bailout could fix (and even then not so much). Or take this morning as I watched the brilliant film Moneyball (review pending as well), the problem addressed in the film is the failure of great baseball minds to think outside the box, the inability to see the values in players that did not play the way they were supposed to play. Beyond these three examples we see it day-in and out, at our jobs, at our churches, in our schools, in our governments, in our families, and so on and so on. Everyday we are surrounded by people that we attempt to quickly categorize, sort, and lump into their accepted places. We do this to try and make sense of our lives and ease up on the pressures of life. Yet how often do the people we know easily fall into the categories we have created for them (nor even does God, but that is another essay for another day)? I would argue that this is rare. So why can’t we have the courage to allow the people in our lives to break out of our neat nomenclatures? Why don’t we have the imaginations to see others in new ways, and new shades? Why do we force people into ill-fitting roles which do not suit and then blame them for the failure to not be what we thought they should have been? Why get mad because your husband failed to fill the role you had for him? Why get mad that your boss refuses to be the type boss you expect? Why fire employees for not meeting job descriptions for which they did not match? To break out of our comfortable fantasies and live life outside these imagined boundaries would take all our energy, our strength,our wits, and our patience; but I got to think that once freed from their bounds, these newly liberated beings might just surprise us, and in that surprise bring unimaginable joys and benefits.
Love / Hate Unsanitary