Week 6—Queerfully and Wonderfully Made*
It all begins with an idea.
*full disclosure: I didn't invent this awesome title
Why this matters
Why does this matter?
Last week we saw that when Barna research asked respondents what word they most associate with the Christian church, the word most used by both Christians and non-Christians was "anti-gay." This despite the fact that there are an estimated 5 million LGBTQ Christians in the US. Arguably, I would suggest that this is key to understanding the massive cultural shift in the last decade: for the first time ever, when asked to name their religious affiliation, the majority of Americans now list "none." David Gushee writes: "This is not a perception problem, solvable by a rebranding campaign and a PR firm. This is a human suffering problem within the very heart of the church."
So one reason why queer inclusion is vitally important is that it appears to be directly connected to the survival of the Church itself. But another, more urgent reason, is found in research by the Trevor Project which found dramatically increased risks of depression and suicide risk among LGBTQ youth. That risk is particularly elevated among transgender and non-binary youth: more than half considered suicide in the past year. And yet, transgender and non-binary youth who reported having at least one gender-affirming space had 25% reduced odds of reporting a suicide attempt in the past year.
So a compelling reason for churches, families and communities to have these discussions is that it is literally-life saving.
Gender Identity, the Bible, and Science
This week we read an excerpt from a compelling autobiography by Jennifer Finney Boylan: She's Not There: a Life in Two Genders. The author describes her first four decades growing up transgender without the vocabulary or knowledge to describe her experience. Reading these sorts of first-person accounts is so valuable in building understanding and empathy among those of us who are cis-gender (when your gender identity aligns with the gender assigned at birth). Of course, everyone's experience is different (the saying is: "if you know one transgender person, then you know one transgender person") which is all the more reason to read widely, to lean in, listen and trust their story.
Having hopefully dismissed the clobber verses that are used to oppose gay and lesbian inclusion, we turn now to discuss gender identity and expression. The Bible does not address gender identity directly— and that's important. When faced with silence from Scripture, we can turn instead to the consistent and overall call to love. Our consideration of what it means to love our transgender or non-binary neighbors involves listening well, believing their stories, and leaning into the science. And there is much we can learn from the emerging field of gender studies, which upends much of what folks in my generation were taught. It is interesting to learn that gender in the animal kingdom is not as binary as we think, with all sorts of intriguing variations. It's important to know that gender in humans is also not as binary as it appears. Even on the chromosomal level, we learn that 1-2% of the world's population is neither xx nor xy, but some variation (about the same percentage of redheads in the world). We can read the history of transgender and non-binary people throughout the centuries. Some cultures even have a tradition in which "two spirit" people are honored.
For cis-gender folks, it may seem like transgender and non-binary people are suddenly more prevalent. But there is actually no reason to believe that is the case. Rather, we are simply hearing more now about this reality that has always been present for several reasons: greater awareness means that non-binary people have a name for what they are experiencing (Boylan's book describes this well). Despite some heartbreaking and alarming pushback, there is more acceptance today, making it (somewhat) easier for transgender and non-binary folks to come out. The rise of puberty blockers is bringing the question of gender-affirming therapy to the public view. (Puberty blockers simply allow pre- or early- adolescent youth who are experiencing gender dysphoria to put a pause on puberty and particularly the development of secondary sex characteristics. This is a helpful resource that gives young people the ability to delay more permanent gender-affirming therapy, giving them time/space to explore what they are experiencing.)
Gender identity is often compared to handedness. We don't decide to be right or left handed, we discover it at a very early age. It's something intrinsic to who we are. The majority of people are right-handed, but there is a significant minority (10%) for whom left-handedness is the norm and a smaller group (about 1%) who are ambidextrous. When we use the non-dominant hand, it feels wrong. At some points in history, lefties have been marginalized or viewed with suspicion. My father was actually born left-handed but forced from a young age to use his right hand. And yet, despite that early conditioning, he always knew that he was naturally a leftie.
Queerfully and Wonderfully Made
There is no clear clobber verse denouncing transgender or non-binary Christians. The usual argument used is the creation account in Genesis 1. So take a moment and carefully read Gen. 1:1-31.
Those who use this passage to oppose diverse gender identities, generally will argue that gender is binary in this account. They will argue that God created you in a particular gender, and God does not make mistakes.
Gen. 1 does describes human creation with two binaries—male/female. At first glance it seems set. And yet, we've learned throughout this workshop to take the time to read Scripture more carefully, to look at the context.
And here we see that the creation account contains many pairs that seem like binaries— dark/light; day/night, sky/sea, dry land/sea. Yet each of these binaries is, in fact, not a binary but rather polarities. They describe two endpoints on a continuum. We have dark and light—but we also have twilight, dawn, all sorts of times when light is dim. We have day and night—but all sorts of times between noon and midnight—evening, morning, etc. We have dry land and sea but also have swamps and bogs and wetlands. It's a figure of speech called a "merism." It's similar to the phrase "I searched high and low." We know that doesn't mean your search ignored all the mid-range places, but rather is a figure of speech to outline the broad scope of your search.
In the same way, as the science has shown us, male and female are not binary, but rather two endpoints in a continuum of gender identity and gender expression.
The suggestion is made that it's wrong to use hormones or surgery to change the way your body appears. This gets into a whole complicated area of theology—why bad things happen (theodicy). That's a favorite topic of mine, so another day, another workshop, I'd love to discuss that. But the bottom line is, no one really thinks that everything that happens in the world is good, or that we should never intervene—otherwise we wouldn't wear glasses or hearing aids. My granddaughter was born with a devastating heart defect: her heart has only a single ventricle. Untreated, it is 100% fatal. She had to have 3 open heart surgeries, beginning on her second day of life. Christians prayed for her—and I am enormously grateful because today she is healthy and thriving. But no one ever suggested she shouldn't have the surgeries because God created her that way.
At the same time, our gender identity does seems to be innate—which means, yes, God did make us the way we are—including, as we know from science and history, "two-spirit" people—people who don't fit the gender binary. Gen. 1:31 says God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. Gal. 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
What are God's pronouns?
When you pray, how do you usually address God? Father, Savior, Holy Spirit, Lord?
We are often trained to picture God as male. That's because many of the images for God in the Bible are male—especially the image of Father and Son, as well as king. But we have other images as well—shepherd, rock, fortress—as well as female images like a mother hen and a woman with a lost coin. The Hebrew word for the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, ruach, is feminine.
What do you notice about God's gender in the Genesis account?
Gen. 1:26-27: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
You might first notice that, surprisingly, God refers to Godself in the first person plural in this account. That's because the Hebrew word for God used here, Elohim, is plural. You might also notice that in vs. 27 the image of God image is both male and female. Think about looking into a mirror—the image presented never contains something not present in the real. So since an image can't be more than the original, I would conclude that God must be both—or more than—male and female
This concept is not as new as it might seem—even for evangelicals. Both mystics and theologians have been emphasizing the "divine feminine" for centuries. In years past it was difficult to talk about God without using male pronouns. We didn't want to use "it" because God is personal, but we didn't want to use gendered pronouns. We had to use lots of literary gymnastics to avoid using any pronouns for God.
When trying to describe God, we often encounter these sorts of challenges because God is transcendent—"wholly other." We are limited by our language. But language is fluid. It changes. This has been acknowledged in dictionaries and style manuals, which have in recent years adopted the singular "they/ them."
So in Haven, we use they/them for God.
Nearing the End and Naming the Cost
This concept is not as new as it might seem—even for evangelicals. Both mystics and theologians have been emphasizing the "divine feminine" for centuries. In years past it was difficult to talk about God without using male pronouns. We didn't want to use "it" because God is personal, but we didn't want to use gendered pronouns. We had to use lots of literary gymnastics to avoid using any pronouns for God. We are nearing the end of this workshop. Early on we saw the Wesleyan Quadrilateral as a model from the book of Acts for how we can approach decision making. Now is the time to begin prayerfully thinking through how that rubric can help you discern where you stand on LGBTQ inclusion.
Here's my take on it: Christian tradition mostly opposes inclusion, but we've also seen how the Church has moved positions in the past, especially on the issue of slavery and women's roles. As we've shared the research on LGBTQIA+, I believe reason—our thoughtful analysis of history and scientific knowledge, give us every reason to support queer inclusion. Similarly, I think our experience of our queer friends, family, and neighbors argues for full inclusion. Our hearts intuitively tell us inclusion is right. I hope our exploration of the clobber verses has shifted the final barriers to full inclusion.
As we are close to the end of our workshop—just one more week—you may or may not be at a crossroads, perhaps considering changing long-held beliefs. For most of us, the biggest factor in your view on queer inclusion is the Bible, which is why we've spent so much time on the clobber verses. But it's important to recognize that there are multiple factors at play. For many of us, what we believe about a few hot-button issues is tied up with identity. With words like "evangelical," "conservative" and "biblical"
I believe there are many benefits to adopting an affirming theology. Perhaps the most important is that it yields a clear, consistent theology that makes sense. Inclusion intuitively fits our picture of Jesus as loving, and embracing the full diversity of humanity. Having a consistent theology is important to our faith. When we feel bound to a theology that doesn't make sense of our knowledge or experience of the world, we experience cognitive dissonance. This tends to distance us from God as unknowable. It tends to separate our heart from our head.
But when we adopt a consistent theology—one that makes sense of our experience of both God and our world– our faith becomes real and invigorating. You can see your faith lived out in real life, in ways that matter.
And yet, sometimes, when we change our view on a hot button issue, it comes at a cost. For most of us, it will at least shape your identity—how you view yourself. For some it will be the cost of a job. For some it may be a loss of a church family. It might be a loss of a friendship or even a family member.
I hope I've given you good reasons to choose an affirming approach to LGBTQ inclusion. But I want to acknowledge those costs. So I'm going to invite you in this final week to think about what the decisions you will make on this issue might cost you. We will not ask you to decide today or next week or the week after that—you will decide when you decide. But I'm inviting you right now to name the cost and bring it into your prayers for discernment.
Loving God, we lift these things to you. We lift the concerns of our heart, because we know you care about all these things—our communities, our families, our friendships. We are worried and burdened.
Lord, we pray for youth who are struggling. Who are struggling with shame. Who feel they need to hide who they are. Who may not feel safe at school or sometimes even in their own homes. We pray for their protection. We pray for their hearts. We pray that they might know that they are worthy, beautiful, and loved. We pray that we might be someone who shows and reflects that to them.
As we bring all that we have learned close to our hearts, I ask that you draw near. I pray that our faith may become real as we lean into the truth of who you are.
In Jesus' name, Amen.
Week 5—This is the Big One
It all begins with an idea.
What is the Good News here?
This week's session is The Big One. Last week's clobber verses were fairly easily dispatched, but our one remaining clobber verse is the one that's usually the sticking point. It certainly was for me. It's one where we need to use all the tools we've gathered throughout our journey to dig in deep to discern exactly what this passage is about. This week we dig into Romans 1.
So often the clobber verses are pulled out of context, and thrown down in the midst of argument like a prosecutor triumphantly holding up the final damning piece of evidence to convict the guilty party. And yet, Scripture always needs to be read in context—both it's historical context and it's literary context. As we saw last week, the time we spend exploring the background in which a verse is found is one way we demonstrate the respect we have for God's word. It shows that we care deeply enough to really explore what God is saying through the biblical writers.
The clobber verses in Rom. 1 are found in Rom. 1:26-27:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
At face value, this seems to be the clearest of the clobber verses, as well as the only one that appears to address lesbian sex. It raises intriguing questions about what is "natural" and what is "unnatural", and what is the "due penalty" for perversion.
But most important, it should cause us to wonder about the context—what is happening in the world, in the culture, in the church, that prompts this passage? How does it fit into the larger argument that Paul is making in Romans 1?
Romans is Paul's most comprehensive explanation of the gospel– which, let's remember, means "good news"—so whatever else this passage means it ought to ring as good news. So how does this harsh clobber verse fit into that good news?
To see that we need to back up and really look at the context of this passage. We need to explore a big chunk of Scripture. Rather than quote it here, I'm going to ask you to open your Bible or search online and read all of Rom. 1:18-28. But first, pray. Ask God to speak to you through this passage. Trust the Spirit to open your heart and your eyes to see it with new eyes. You might even read it in several translations.
Paul trained as a rabbi, a teacher of the law. In Romans you can see this background in play, as he builds a complex, logical argument. As you read Rom. 1, try to follow Paul's argument and where he is going. Keep asking, what is this chapter about? What is his point? The clobber verses in v. 26-27 are not a detour or a tangent, they are part and parcel of a complex, broad, sweeping statement Paul is making. Keeping an eye on that bigger, broader argument is key to understanding the clobber verses. So keep your Bible open to this passage as we trace that argument.
What is Paul's point?
Paul is making a grand, large argument here—building it piece by piece. It will take two more chapters to fully unfold. So let's parse it out:
His argument is about the sinfulness of the whole world, but in this chapter, he’s focusing on the gentile (non-Jewish) world. In Rom. 1:18-21. Paul is demonstrating that even though they don't have Scripture or the prophets, they "have no excuse" because the evidence of God is all around them—in the creation itself, in the innate moral code—the evidence of God is all around us. And yet, there is sin:
Rom. 1:18-21: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Paul's argument about the sinfulness of the gentile world would be familiar to Jewish Christians—they would be nodding their heads, clucking their tongues about those immoral gentiles. But then… in chapter 2 Paul turns the tables on these Jewish Christians and shows how even the Jews were no better than the Gentiles—that they, too, are sinners.
Rom. 2:1: You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
All this is leading up to a very familiar verse: Rom. 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Paul's point, unfolded over three deep and complex chapters, is how the entire world—Jew & Gentile—is broken by sin and in need of a Savior. We are all sinners. This is all pointing to what Paul will spend the rest of the book explaining: why Jesus came to rescue us (all of us) from a fruitless way of life, to offer us the gift of salvation. Rom. 5:8: But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.
So… why pick on the queer community?
If Paul's point, then, is about the broad, global nature of sin and brokenness, and the universal need for a Savior-- why focus on same sex relationships? Paul's argument is so broad, so global, so comprehensive, to suddenly switch to something so particular just seems… odd. One would expect the culmination of these verses to be a more common sin like greed or pride or lust for power. Something that underlies the very essence of sin and brokenness itself.
Remember this most important principle of biblical interpretation: context, context, context. So let's begin with the literary context—the paragraph immediately before our clobber verses.
Rom. 1:22-25: Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.
Reread that first verse: they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images. Reread the last verse: They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.
What does that sound like? Does "worshiping the created rather than the Creator" sound like what is happening when a same-sex couple commits themselves to one another in a marriage ceremony? When they build a life together? Despite the allusion to "sexual impurity" in the middle of the paragraph, it doesn't sound much like it's about sexuality. Rather, it sounds very much like idolatry. And that fits the bigger, broad, global argument, because idolatry is a major concern throughout the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments.
So what is the connection between idolatry and gay and lesbian sex? Here we look at the historical context, remembering that in this chapter, Paul is focusing specifically on the Gentile world. So what's going on in Roman culture?
When we think today about visiting Rome, we might think of visiting St. Peter's Basilica, beautiful sacred spaces devoted to worshiping who we believe to be the one true God. But, we know that wasn't what you would have seen in the 1st c. In the 1st c. Roman world, as you walked down the street, you'd see, not a Catholic cathedral but rather an assortment of temples devoted to the various Greek and Roman gods. Spaces devoted to idolatrous worship. And inside those temples would be both male and female prostitutes. Worshipers of these pagan gods would visit the temple and have sex with one of those male or female prostitutes to join themselves symbolically to that pagan god or goddess. That connection between sexual relations and pagan cult prostitution is lost for us today because we don't have any of those pagan temples around us, but for people living in that polytheistic culture, it would be obvious.
Where is Aphrodite today?
We don't have temples to pagan gods and goddesses today, and we're unlikely to make idols out of gold or silver. But we do still struggle with idolatry. Paul's point is about how all sin—the sin of gentiles, the sin of Jews—the sin of all people, gay or straight—is idolatry.
If we believe that God is good, God loves us, and God wants only the best for us, then sin—violating God's will—makes no sense. If those things are true, then it literally is illogical to sin.
And yet we do. I do. And when I sin, while I would never say this explicitly, implicitly I am demonstrating that I doubt that God loves me and wants only the best for me. Which means I am turning away from God and putting my trust in something else. If I'm putting my trust in security, I will be tempted by greed and consumerism. If I'm putting my trust in other's approval, I will be tempted by pride and jealousy. All sin is, at root, idolatry—putting my trust in something other that the goodness of God.
Pagan cult prostitution was, in it's historical context, merely the most visible and obvious example of this bigger truth—that all of us are prone to putting our trust in the wrong things. In the chapters that follow, Paul will share the good news of the gospel: how Jesus has broken into the world to set us free from all that holds us in bondage and set us free to live the life we were created for—a life of love and joy and belonging.
Lucy & Ricky show us the way… or not
You may or may not be old enough to remember the I Love Lucy Show. It seemed like every other episode entailed Lucy and Ethel needing for some reason to swap roles with Ricky and Fred. As they took on the traditional tasks of the other gender, inevitably, hilarity ensued.
The fact that 50 years ago you could write an entire sitcom around the casual assumption that it would be absurd for women to work outside the home or men to cook and clean, is astonishing. Even more so If you read up on the leading role that Lucille Ball played as studio executive and producer of the show.
In our remaining two sessions, we will explore questions around gender identity. In preparation for that, it’s helpful to look at the broader question of gender roles.
And here we find a sort of clobber verse for women: Eph. 5:22: Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. Note the proximity of this verse to an equally troubling one we looked at last week: Eph. 6:5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
There are three main ways that Christians throughout the centuries have interpreted Paul's command in Eph. 5:22: #1. Patriarchy: the notion that men are to be prioritized in home and society. #2. Complementarianism: the notion that men and women have different but complementary roles in marriage, family life, and the church. Though women are given much more restricted roles, complementarians will say they are "equal in moral value and of equal status." #3. Egalitarianism: all human persons are created equally in God's sight. All are equal in fundamental worth and status, with equal responsibility to use their gifts to the glory of God without regard to class, gender, race or sexuality.
It probably won't surprise you that I argue for a Christian egalitarian view. And again, the context of our clobber verse is key.
The verse immediately proceeding Eph. 5:22 is: Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. How is this verse related to vs. 22?
Remember that things like verse numbers and paragraph breaks are not found in the original texts, but are added later by the translators for convenience and ease of reading. Some translators will place vs. 21 in a separate paragraph from vs. 22, as if they are unrelated. However, I believe this is an error—and I believe the grammar of vs. 22 supports this. Because, it turns out, there is no verb in vs. 22. The Greek literally reads: Wives, your husbands as to the Lord. That makes no sense!
But, unlike in English, in Koine Greek, you can borrow the verb from the prior sentence. So, if you disconnect vs. 21 and vs. 22 you get a nonsense sentence fragment. But if you connect vs. 21 and 22 in one paragraph you can borrow the verb, and it makes sense:
Eph. 5:21-22: Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
But that means that, whatever Paul is saying to wives in vs. 22 he is saying to everyone—all believers—in vs. 21. In fact, he is using the exact same word.
If you now look at what follows, in vs. 23-24 Paul uses the analogy of the church and Christ to explain how wives should submit to their husbands. But then he turns and addresses husbands:
Eph. 5:25, 28: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her… In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
Paul doesn't literally use the word "submit" here, but he describes something that looks like submission to me. How did Christ love the church? He gave himself up for her. What does it mean to submit to another? To give yourself up for the other, to serve them in love. I believe what Paul is saying to wives in vs. 22, he is also saying to husbands in vs. 25-28.
In fact, I think seeing vs. 21 as the topic sentence is the key to understanding the entire passage—including that problematic statement about slavery. An outline of the passage would look like this:
Thesis statement: Eph. 5:21: Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
vs. 22-24: Wives to husbands
vs. 25-33: Husbands to wives
vs. 6:1-3: Children to parents
vs. 6:4-5: Fathers to children
vs. 6:6-8: Slaves to masters
vs. 6:9: Masters to slaves
Paul gives us six examples of mutual submission in three pairs—first, one that would be clear and obvious to his readers (women, children, slaves)— then a parallel one that would surprise and challenge them (husbands, fathers, masters). I believe his overall point is that we are to submit to one another— to care for and prioritize each other, just as Christ loved and submitted—gave himself up—for us.
If you are a husband or father, this changes everything. But if you are a wife, in one way, nothing changes—you're still called to prioritize and care for your spouse. But, on the other hand, it changes everything about our identity. We are not called to mutual submission because we are weak, subordinate, or of lesser priority. We are called to mutual submission because we are following Jesus, who came to serve and to care for everyone.
Lord, I have a lot to learn about mutual submission. It is a hard discipline, and I can be a feisty thing. Help me to see this calling through a new lens. Not to deny my agency or my value or my authentic self. Rather, empower me by your Holy Spirit so that it might be an outflowing of your love and grace poured out for me. Help me to follow you in loving, including and serving all, regardless of gender, race, class, or sexuality. Amen.
Week 4—“I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”
It all begins with an idea.
Words, Words, Words
Language is funny. We tend to act like words can mean only one thing, as if there were a definitive, set, limited meaning for each word with no variation. When there's a misunderstanding, both sides tend to blame the other for not "saying it right" or "not listening to what I'm saying."
I'm married to a Canadian. Our early years were full of learning the difference between "American English" and "Britishisms". Saying "mum" instead of "mom", "garburator" instead of "garbage disposal." "Pudding" to me is always a gelatinous mound of gooey sugary stuff, but to a Brit it can mean any sort of dessert.
Think about words like church, flag, purity, liberal, police, revival. Each one has a dictionary definition, yet comes loaded with all sorts of connotations, emotions, and associations that go far beyond the dictionary definition—and yet vary widely among groups and individuals.
This week's exploration focuses on how many of our misunderstandings and miscommunications really come down to definitions. This is especially true when it comes to the LGBTQ community. Even words like "gay" are often used differently by straight people than they are in the queer community. And the word "queer" can be uncomfortable for older folks, even sometimes within that community, who associate it with a derogatory slur.
This week we look at two very similar clobber verses, both from the apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:9–10: We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.
The Greek word translated "perverts" or "homosexual offenders" is arsenokoitai. But when we talk about New Testament Greek, we are not talking about modern Greek or even classical Greek. The language the New Testament is written in is Koine Greek. There are no native Koine Greek speakers today. If you've ever struggled to read Canterbury Tales or other literature written in Middle English, you have an idea what the relationship of Koine Greek is to modern Greek.
Which is where the work of linguists comes in. When people trained in linguistics set out to translate a document from an ancient language, they have to do a bit of spelunking to translate each word. They will look at the context to give clues as to the meaning. They will look at other documents from the same era to see how they use it. For most words in the New Testament, that gives translators enough clues that they can be reasonably sure they have made a fairly reliable expression of their meaning.
But with these two verses, we have a unique challenge. First of all, there's no context in the verses themselves we can use to understand Paul's intent—they are both just lists. Lists of Bad Things, but no context to know what the Bad Thing is. Even more problematic, Paul's use of arsenokoitai is idiosyncratic—the words are found nowhere else in the Bible. Outside of the Bible it's only use comes after Paul, from writers quoting these verses. We have none of the usual clues used to translate.
Like many Greek words, arsenokoitai is a compound word—a mosh up of two other words. It literally means "men bedders." Historically it has been translated various ways: "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "the brutal," "pervert." The first time it is translated "homosexual" is in the RSV translation in 1946.
The Koine Greek word malakoi is used in conjunction with arsenokoitai in 1 Cor. 6:9. It means "soft", but can be understood in three ways: 1. Literally soft, like fabric. 2. Morally soft or spineless, not having integrity. 3. An insult aimed at effeminate men. Some apply it to the passive (penetrated) partner in sexual relations. In Roman culture, married men having sex with boys– often a slave, or protégé–was common. The "one on top" was a way of showing ranking or superiority. The NIV and NRSV both translate it "male prostitutes"—we'll talk next week about the role pagan cult prostitution might play in the clobber verses.
As we noted last week, you can see the prevailing cultural patriarchy in the notion that being "treated like a woman" is associated with shame or humiliation. Scholar Michael Vasey writes that "homosexual activity was "strongly associated with idolatry, slavery, and social dominance… often the assertion of the strong over the bodies of the weak."
Think back to the role that associations and connotations play in our understanding of words. Whatever Paul means by the term arsenokoitai what is he thinking of? Does it sound like he means anywhere remotely like loving, committed gay relationships?
The bottom line is that we simply don't know what arsenokoitai means— certainly not with enough certainty to denounce all same-sex relationships. For this reason, I like the Message translation: 1 Cor. 6:9: Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex.
(for more on translating arsenokoitai, see David Gushee, Changing our Mind, p. 74-79, and Colby Martin, Unclobber ch 10).
What are the rules of sex? Are there any rules?
The fact that we are dismantling the clobber verses may seem like there are no rules, but that's not the case. It's not that sexual ethics don't matter. The way we live out our faith in our most intimate of relationships is significant. These discussions are important. But healthy sexual ethics go beyond just simplistic, arbitrary dos and don'ts. They challenge us to think deeper about how we care for and treat one another, about broad values and priorities. In many ways, that's more challenging than simply following the rules, but it also is more powerful.
Last week we looked at the relationship between the Old Testament laws and the Sermon on Mount. We saw how in the sermon, Jesus is not abolishing the Law, but "fulfilling" it—calling us to think deeply about the value or meaning behind what often look like arbitrary and superficial rules. Jesus is moving us from rigid rule-based thinking to a more thoughtful ethic based on heart attitudes.
For example, imagine for a moment that you're in a long-term monogamous marriage. One day, your spouse comes to you and says: "I met someone new at work. They are very attractive to me, and they appear to be attracted to me as well. They've given signals they'd be open to a sexual relationship. But I know the rules of marriage, so I've decided not to cheat. That would be breaking a rule."
Think for a moment about how you'd feel about that interaction, then imagine this alternate scenario: Your spouse comes to you and says: "I met someone new at work. They are very attractive to me, and they appear to be attracted to me as well. They've given signals they'd be open to a sexual relationship. But I know that such a betrayal would break your heart. I love you so much, I can't imagine causing you that kind of pain. It would break my heart to do that. I would never risk our relationship that way."
Notice that the outward result—fidelity—is precisely the same either way. Your spouse's behavior doesn't change. But the inner heart attitude—the motives, the stance your partner has toward you—is radically different. I think most of us would prefer the second scenario.
Sexual ethics are to be based around the values and priorities of the Kingdom of God. Colby Martin suggests these "rules" for sexual ethics (Unclobber, p.165-166):
If you are straight:
Don't be flippant about your body. Don't treat it like it has no value.
Don't break your covenants, don't cheat on people.
Don't sell yourself and don't devalue others by treating them like a commodity.
Don't use your power or influence to take advantage of others.
If you are gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, or queer:
Don't be flippant about your body. Don't treat it like it has no value.
Don't break your covenants, don't cheat on people.
Don't sell yourself and don't devalue others by treating them like a commodity.
Don't use your power or influence to take advantage of others.
Changing Our Mind: A Historic Example
Many of our churches are beginning to have these discussions about queer inclusion. As we do, the issue of tradition may come up. After all, "tradition" is one of the tools of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral we talked about in week two. Who are we to argue with 2000 years of Christian witness?
And yet, re-examination of long-held assumptions is also a part of Christian tradition, particularly for Protestants coming out of the Reformation. The Church has had several radical position shifts over the last two millennia. As we saw earlier in our exploration of Acts 15, in the 1st c. there was a radical shift from thinking of Christianity as something for Jews only to a broader movement that included both Jews and gentiles. In the 20th and even 21st c. we've seen shifts and debates within the church on women's roles.
A particularly revealing example is the shift in the In 17th & 18th c. among American Christians on the issue of slavery. It's interesting because it's relatively recent and was the source of intense debate—yet now is (for the most part) settled doctrine among Christians. That's a dramatic shift. How did that happen?
Let's begin by noting that the debates about slavery in the 17th & 18th c. were debates within Christianity. Both the proponents and the opponents of slavery identified as Christian. Like the discussion in Acts 15, both sides used Scripture in their arguments. But how they used Scripture was radically different. A side-by-side comparison of the texts usually cited by each side yields some interesting observations:
Proponents of slavery:
Ephesians 6:5–9 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ..
Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,
1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
Abolitionist arguments:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them
Luke 10:27 He answered: “Love your neighbor as yourself.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus
1Corinthians 7:21–23 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
1 John 4:11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
Looking at the two side-by-side we can see a couple of things: First, the verses cited by proponents all contain the word "slave." I believe they were written to an oppressed people, not to justify their oppression, but to reassure them that their bondage is not a barrier to belonging to the Kingdom. But the point I want to make here is that these verses were able to be plucked out without thinking or considering the context. In contrast, most of the verses used by the abolitionists did not contain the word "slave." Most were not writing about slavery per se. They weren't specific rules and regulations about slavery. Rather, they were laying down broad, general principles—Kingdom values like love and compassion and equality.
Theologian Mark Noll writes, "Nuanced biblical attacks on American slavery faced rough going precisely because they were nuanced. This position could not simply be read out of any one biblical text; it could not be lifted directly out of the page. Rather, it needed patient reflection on the entirety of the Scriptures; it required expert knowledge of the historical circumstances of ancient Near Eastern and Roman slave systems… and it demanded that sophisticated interpretive practice replace a commonsensical literal approach to the sacred text." -The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.
How can these same principles inform the way that we read the clobber verses? How often are we drawn to the simple, the easy, the obvious? We love certainty and clarity. But life is not like that. Life is not simple. Life is complex, full of complicated problems with multiple factors. As appealing as they might be, simple answers to complex problems are usually wrong.
One of the ways we show the value we place on the Bible, our faith, and one another, is our willingness to engage hard questions thoughtfully with complex, nuanced thought. That doesn't mean everyone has to be a biblical scholar, but it does mean we are called to be thoughtful and prayerful about our lives and our relationships. About Scripture and about our faith. About living life in the Kingdom.
In the US, almost every denomination ended up dividing over the issue of slavery during the Civil War. Some reunited after the war, some did not. At the end of our conversation about these radical shifts around gentile inclusion, slavery, and women's roles, one of our participants added a very wise observation: The pain that was felt as denominations, churches, and even families divided over slavery is so similar to the pain in Methodist and Nazarene Churches right now, as they were a decade ago in Presbyterian and Episcopal churches. And yet, there were those who were willing to endure the pain of conflict, to continue to speak out, because ending slavery was so vitally important. The pain they felt, the division and losses in membership, were the cost of justice, the necessary birth pains of what was to come. The same is true now in our debates around sexuality. This is holy work. So we pray for the UMC and the Nazarene Church, believing in faith that in the end, Love Wins.
This week's clobber verses were fairly simple to dispense with. Next week we will tackle the most challenging of the clobber verses—Romans 1. Taking these tools with us, being willing to do the hard work, will be essential to this task.
Come, Holy Spirit, come. Make us willing to do the hard work of loving well. Make us willing to think deeply about your word and the life you are calling us to. Help us move beyond simple answers to the deeper love, the deeper life, you have for us. Amen.
Week 3—A Curious Collection of the Rules of Bacon, Football, and Sex
Beginning with understanding
We began with a guided imagery exercise that encouraged us to imagine an alternative universe where cis-gender heterosexual folks were a marginalized minority. We explored together the emotional landscape of feeling powerless, shamed, and maligned.
Curious rules and oddities
Our exploration of today's "clobber verses" began with a clip from a satirical monologue by President Jeb Bartlett in the classic drama, The West Wing:
"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"
"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"
"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean: Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
"Think about those questions, would you?"
Aaron Sorkin obviously intended this speech rhetorically—but it highlights the problem Christians—who generally hold the whole Bible as authoritative—have grappling with their relationship to the Old Testament Law. Very few Christians quote from Leviticus today—unless it's to condemn homosexuality. It's full of some very odd rules—many of which very few Christians follow today. Pastors and theologians have attempted time and again to find a way to differentiate which rules are binding for Christians today and which aren't. They will distinguish between a "moral code" vs. a "cultural (or purity) code." But the fact is, the two are intermingled throughout the book. The rules Christians often think are "cultural" are placed right alongside the ones we think are "essential"—with no clear distinction.
It's helpful to remember that these laws were written to a people (the Hebrew community) coming out of slavery in Egypt, where they had no freedom—every aspect of their lives dictated by their oppressors. They are learning how to form a community of free men and women. And they are entering into the Promised Land—Canaan.
But there were already people living in that land—Canaanites, Philistines. (The fact that they are displacing another people group raises other theological problems– but that's a discussion for another day). The Levitical law was about being set apart from the people in Egypt and Canaan. The rules are making them distinct, different. They highlight how Yahweh is calling them to a distinctive way of life.
Why is it always about men?
Which leads us to two similar clobber verses: Lev. 18:22 “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (or "an abomination"). Lev. 20:13: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
The Hebrew word used to describe same-sex relations in both these verses is Toevah, usually translated "abomination" or "detestable." When you hear the word "abomination" what comes to mind for you? It's a word that we associate with horrible, gross, disgusting things. It is a word that evokes shame.
Toevah is used 117 times in the Old Testament. Only two of those 117 verses have to do with homosexuality. Most are things Christians do not condemn today. In Lev. 18-20 all sorts of sexual acts are forbidden, including sex with menstruating women. Many scholars note that Toevah is often associated with idolatry (we'll see the role of pagan cult prostitution in a future session). So rules about sex were part of differentiating Israel from their pagan neighbors.
It's interesting to note that Leviticus condemns "men lying with men" but not the parallel of "women lying with women." In fact, of the six clobber verses in the Bible only one discusses lesbian relationships. Scholars note the emphasis in the Old Testament on fruitfulness or reproduction. Children are a blessing, and having progeny, building a legacy, is a primary goal of life. Odd stories like the tale of Onan's "spilling his seed" in Gen. 38 seem to reflect this concern about non-reproductive sex.
To put it crassly, "lying with a man as a woman" appears to be referring to sexual positions. In the ancient world, sex in the dominant (on top) position was considered a way of showing dominance or primacy. There are lots of ugly ways that played out that have nothing to do with sexual gratification or love, but were all about domination and humiliation. It is about power—and who has it. One can see reflected in that the prevailing patriarchy of the time—where being treated "like a woman" is considered humiliating.
Watch out for the abominable… bacon
But it's not just sex. Food is also a key concern— with that same Hebrew word, Toevah, used to describe unclean (or non-kosher) foods. Pork, shellfish, all sorts of forbidden foods (including *gasp* bacon!) are also called an "abomination."
But then… in Acts 10 the apostle Peter has a vision in which a sheet, covered with all sorts of forbidden foods, is lowered from heaven:
Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. –Acts 10:13-16
This led to Peter converting a Gentile (non-Jew) to Christianity. Something similar is discussed by Paul in 1 Cor. 8 regarding food offered to idols. These stories are one of the reasons why Christians generally do not feel bound to kosher food laws. The bottom line is that many things that are called an "abomination" in the Old Testament don't seem to be so in the New Testament.
A lot of Jesus' teachings have to do with establishing a new relationship with the Law. This is a whole discussion in itself. An excellent resource is Glen Stassen's book, Living the Sermon on the Mount. Stassen shows how Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but to show us it's intent (Matt. 5:17). In the sermon, Jesus gives example after example where he specifically references an Old Testament law—and then shows how interpreting it literally is fruitless—what Stassen calls a vicious cycle. Stassen suggests the goal is not to rigidly follow the rules that control external behavior, but to have a transformed heart. In Matt. 15:17-20 Jesus emphasizes that we don't become pure by what we do or don't eat, that it is what's in the heart that makes someone clean or unclean. And so Colby Martin reminds us if we can eat bacon, we can accept homosexuality. If bacon doesn't make us unclean, neither does loving someone of the same sex.
Shame
The word "abomination" is used to shame people—especially queer people.
When we do something that we believe or have been told is wrong or immoral, we feel pain. We feel guilt. Humans basically have three responses to the pain of guilt. One is denial. We can think of the Roman governor, Pilate, who examines Jesus and finds he has done no wrong, but is too cowardly to stand up to the crowd shouting "crucify him." So Pilate washes his hands in an attempt to symbolically absolve himself of guilt. This sort of denial is rooted in shame. It is a way of hiding.
` We have an even more dramatic and tragic response to shame in the example of Jesus' disciple, Judas– the one who betrays Jesus. Almost immediately after putting his plan in motion, Judas is filled with remorse and tries to undo it. When he is unable to do so, Judas kills himself. This reminds us of those horrible, tragic statistics we read earlier from the Trevor Project research—demonstrating the destructive impact of shame. It leads to self-harm and devastation. It leads, whether figuratively or literally, to death.
Shame is so destructive because it has to do with our innate worth and identity. Someone experiencing shame does not just feel regret for something they did. They feel shame because of who they are. Their very core identity is a source of devastation. The tarnished identity of shame is intractable and permanent—you are forever defined by your worst moment. Even today, when we think of Pilate, we think of his cowardice. When we call someone a "Judas" we are calling them a betrayer.
Shame leads to hopelessness.
That is not the good news of the gospel. That is not the good news of grace. One can look to Peter—who similarly denied and abandoned Jesus in his time of greatest need. When the rooster crows, waking Peter up to what he has done, he is devastated. He feels remorse. But… he is not destroyed. He does not hide his actions, but is able to face it honestly, with repentance and healthy remorse. And because of that, he is able to move forward. We know about his denial—it is not hidden—but he is not defined by it. His remorse is transitory, and in fact, energizing. It moves him forward. He has a full and powerful life after that low point.
Because of the use of words like "abomination" and the associations we give to that word, queer people are often stuck in shame or denial. They feel marked by the label. They often hide themselves, their true identity, from their families and their church communities.
But the message of grace calls us to something different. Jesus is calling all of us to a more authentic spirituality. It's obvious from this blog that I don't believe homosexuality is a sin. But what's even more important is for people of all sexualities and gender identities to be able to be authentic. To create safe spaces where no one needs to hide parts of themselves. To not live in shame.
Come Lord Jesus, come. Help us to be a part of healing all that is broken, including all that is broken and hurting for LGBTQ+ people and especially for youth. Give us wisdom and soft hearts. Help us to create safe places where everyone is known, loved and valued for their full and complete selves. Amen.
Week 2—Welcome to the wonderful and messy, painful and hopeful world of church conflict
Why we do this
We began by looking at sobering stats about the effects the marginalization of the LGBTQ community has on queer youth in particular—increased risks of homelessness, depression, and even suicide. But there is hope: LGBTQ youth who reported having at least one LGBTQ-affirming space had 35% reduced risk. This is why the work that we are doing to open our hearts and minds to queer inclusion is so important.
Scholar David Gushee explains how this data led him to explore affirming theology: "The fact that traditionalist Christian teaching produces despair in just about every gay or lesbian person who must endure it is surely very relevant information for the LGBTQ debate… It became clear to me that however complex the exegetical and theological issues are, existentially and humanly I needed to wrestle with these questions in the community of the bullied rather than the community of the bullies."
How do churches decide stuff???
Before even digging into the "clobber verses", it's helpful to look at what we can learn from the history of the church about how to resolve conflict. Queer inclusion is not the first time the Church has faced conflict over an important issue, and it won't be the last. The history of the early church in the book of Acts is a story of the church coming together time and again to resolve those conflicts and move forward.
The first major conflict arises over the issue of circumcision in Acts 15:1-31. This is not something most churches are conflicted over these days, but it was in the 1st c. The conflict is triggered by the influx of Gentile (non-Jewish) converts to Christianity. Prior to Paul, the vast majority of new Christians were Jewish. The men would have already been circumcised when they were 8 days old—it was a done deal. But this influx of uncircumcised Gentiles raises the question of what Jewish practices do they need to adopt in order to be a part of the Christian church? For adult men this is obviously a really important consideration. And for the Church itself, there's a lot on the line that will determine how far their message reaches beyond the Jewish community.
So in Acts 15, a meeting or is called of the church leaders to resolve the issue—much like church leaders today are gathering to discuss and debate queer inclusion.
As we read through the story of how they resolved this conflict in Acts 15, the first thing I notice is that both sides are using Scripture. The side arguing for circumcision references the "law of Moses" in verses 1 and 5. And James, who as bishop of the church in Jerusalem seems to be moderating this meeting, cites "the words of the prophets" in verses 15-18. Both of these are references to the Old Testament, the only Bible they would have at the time.
So often in the church, the debate over including and affirming LGBTQ+ believers is framed as a debate of "Bible-believers" versus "Bible deniers". It's framed as one side having the Bible and the other side caving in to social norms or pressure. But this is not the case. Both sides are using and citing Scripture to make their argument. Indeed, most church conflict is like that— both sides leaning on Scripture.
For most Christians, the Bible is the primary and most important source of authority– the tool we rely on to find truth and the data we need to make decisions. This workshop assumes that, and will focus most of our attention on what Scripture has to say about queer inclusion.
But the fact that, like in the debate in Acts 15, most church conflict involves Scripture on both sides means that we need to bring in other tools to help us to interpret and apply Scripture to the particular issue. That doesn't lessen the primacy of the Bible. Quite the contrary, the effort to think and study deeply is one way that we honor Scripture. The other sources of authority we bring in are simply tools we use to help us consider how we apply Scripture to the concern at hand.
In Acts 15, we can see several additional tools the early church leaders brought to the discussion to inform their decision. The first is found in the very fact that such a convocation was called. Paul could have just stuck his tongue out at those who said the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and continued on doing what he was doing. He could have engaged in name calling or hostile accusations. Instead, he submits himself to this process—allowing the decision to be made in community. So, while our discussion about queer inclusion might be fraught, anxiety producing, and even deeply painful at times—it is a holy process. It is a process about building a beautiful and loving community where all voices are respected.
So the first supplemental tool we can see in Acts 15 is community. Reading on, we see a couple more. Both Paul and Peter describe what happened when they shared the gospel with Gentiles (vs. 4, 8, 12). Paul says there were "miraculous signs and wonders." Peter says "God gave them the Holy Spirit." James references their testimony as important in v. 14. So we can see experience—our experience of God's movement and activity—as another source of authority.
Finally, James begins his argument in vs. 19 with the phrase "it is my judgment" showing us that our reasoning—our intellectual capacity to research and learn and think about an issue—is another important tool in our communal decision making.
This particular set of four sources of authority was most famously identified by John Wesley as an important way of discerning together God's leading. Called "the Wesleyan Quadrilateral" it places the Bible in the center as the primary and most important source of authority, with experience, reason and community (or church tradition) as subordinate tools to help interpret and apply Scripture.
As we work our way through the six "clobber verses" that address homosexuality, we will come back to this pattern again and again—using these supplemental tools to interpret and apply Scripture to the question of queer inclusion, while also looking at what other biblical teachings might apply to this question.
I love the way the final decision of the Jerusalem council is described in their letter to the churches in vs. 28: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." There's a lovely humility there that highlights the work of the community, as well as our faith that God's Spirit is working in and through our discussion. No matter how fraught or deeply painful this process may be, it is holy work, and God is moving in and through it.
Our workshop is a place to lean into the practice of community, as we spend time each week discussing these passages together. I encourage you as well to intentionally set aside time each week to think, pray and process what you're learning. Ask God to speak to you and open our eyes and hearts to where God is leading.
A particularly ugly story… but is it a story about gay sex???
The clobber verse/passage that is most strongly associated with the Bible's position on homosexuality is the story of Sodom in Gen. 19:1-26. It's obviously where we get the term 'sodomy'. But note that the Bible doesn't use the term sodomy—that's an English word coined long after the fact based on people's interpretation or association with Sodom, not on anything in the text itself.
It's a very ugly and violent story, disturbing for a lot of reasons (let this serve as a trigger warning). The story begins when God calls Abraham to leave his home in Ur and resettle in The Promised Land (Canaan). Abraham brings along his nephew, Lot, who eventually settles in the city of Sodom.
When the story begins, Lot is visited by what appears to be three men—but the text tells us they are actually angels. The men of city show up wanting to gang rape the angels. The city is then destroyed by God as an act of judgment for their wickedness.
There are a lot of disturbing elements of this story—at one point Lot offers up his daughters to appease the crowd, the destruction of an entire the city, Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt. We could spend an hour on each of these disturbing elements, but for the purpose of exploring this as a teaching on homosexuality, I find three key questions to ponder: What is the most important thing in this story? Is this a story about homosexuality? Are the angels really male?
What stands out to me most in this passage is not the apparent (but dubious) gender of the angels, but the fact that the crowd wants to gang rape them. We know, of course, that rape is not an act of love, or even of desire or lust. It is an act of violence and domination. We have seen this throughout our sordid and painful history.
This story is offered up in Gen. 19 as an explanation for Sodom's destruction because of their "wickedness"—but Genesis never says what that wickedness might be. The closest we come to connecting it to homosexuality is in Jude 7, where it is described as unspecified "sexual immorality." Rape would certainly fit the bill, regardless of the gender of those involved. The context of Jude 7 is about angels—and it occurs to me there is something deeply perverse about a people who are visited by angels—messengers of God—and their first response is not awe or wonder or curiosity about their message—but rape. So it could refer to defiling the holy.
But we have a much clearer explanation in Ezek.16:49-50: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
Hospitality in the ancient middle east was not just a matter of etiquette or socializing. In a time before there was a Holiday Inn in every town and a Starbucks on every corner, showing holy hospitality to strangers traveling through your community was a life-saving act. It was an act of compassion. Their response to vulnerable strangers in their midst is a peek into their hardened hearts.
We will continue this pattern of exploring one "clobber verse" each week. In each case, it will be an invitation to move beyond a surface, superficial reading to think deeply about what the text really says. When we are willing to do the hard work of digging in, we honor Scripture by taking it seriously and being willing to invest our time and energy. When we do the hard work of listening to the LGBTQ+ community, prayerfully learning about their experience, being willing to navigate painful conflict even in our families and churches, we are engaging in holy work. We are showing the compassion of Christ, and trusting in God's Spirit to move in and through it.
Taking a Deep Breath
As we begin to discuss and consider queer inclusion in our churches and families, conflict often comes to the forefront. When we're talking about the lives and wellbeing of our own loved ones, this raises anxiety. We’ve gathered some tips from our leadership team for managing that stress and being able to be a "non-anxious presence" in those spaces:
1. Lower the temperature—use deep breaths and cognitive reframing to remain calm and non-anxious.
2. Listen carefully, ask good questions, and summarize what you heard.
3. Spend some time in prayer and silence together.
4. Use clear communication. Defining terms is particularly important here.
5. Look for places of commonality. Is it possible to reframe the conflict?
6. Keep coming back to prayer and silence.
Come, Holy Spirit, come.
Open our eyes, open our hearts. Help us to trust in you and in one another as we discern together. Help us to listen well to those on the margins, those it may be easy to overlook. Remind us that they are your beloved children. Help us to be brave.
In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.
Week 1—Welcome to the Workshop
Holding Faith / Holding Family is a Haven workshop.
Welcome! Our first week of Holding Faith / Holding Family was all about introductions. This is hard work—looking at long-held beliefs and assumptions and daring to reconsider them. It can be anxiety producing. Our team (Lina, Sarah, Mitzin, and myself) are honored to be with you on this journey, and grateful for your courage in saying yes to the invitation.
Our desire at Haven is to be a safe space. It's a safe space for gay, lesbian, bi, transgender and queer folks. But it is also safe space for people who are conflicted about all those things. People who are not sure what they think. Most of us come from evangelical settings, places that don't affirm those things. Some of us might still be. Most of us have had a journey to get to where we are today. And really, all of us are still on a journey, discovering new things. So we want to just celebrate showing up, listening, being attentive. We want to make this a safe space to ask questions, have strong convictions or to be uncertain. Free to not know everything.
Honesty, confidentiality, and non-judgmental support will be key as we move forward. Being known as our authentic selves is another key component, so much of our time was spent sharing our stories. For those who aren't able to join us in person for this workshop, I encourage you to nurture relationships where you can be authentic, known and supported in your journey of faith.
Resources
Throughout this workshop we'll explore your questions, and resources to help in that exploration. Remember that the topics we'll be exploring around LGBTQ+ inclusion are complex. Devout Christians will have a range of views on these issues, as well as on the larger issue of biblical interpretation. So there is plenty of room for discussion, growth and wonder.
Three initial resources that I will draw from in this course:
1. Torn, by Justin Lee. I like this book for several reasons: First of all, Lee is evangelical—this book is very winsome and respectful of evangelical Christianity. Also, he is gay. There are a couple of other books written from an evangelical perspective that I will recommend that are written by straight evangelical leaders. And that's helpful—it was a straight evangelical leader who helped me in my own journey from non-affirming to affirming. But I think it's important first to hear the stories of gay Christians. In this case, it's not a horrible story—and I'm grateful for that. He had a loving family. It's not a church-bashing book. But he does share honestly what it was like to grow up as a devoutly Christian gay youth in an evangelical church and family.
2. Changing our Minds by David Gushee. Gushee is one of the most influential evangelical scholars to write about affirming theology. He is a past president of the American Academy of Religion, He does an excellent job of addressing the biblical concerns most evangelicals have about LGBTQ inclusion
3. Unclobber by Colby Martin also focuses on biblical concerns. This book is more technical than Gushee's so great for those who want a deep dive into the Greek and Hebrew texts and historical setting of the biblical concerns.
I also encourage you to set aside time weekly to process what you are learning. How you might do that varies—for some it might be journaling, others a prayer walk, or meeting with trusted friends for deep discussion. Set aside at least 30 minutes weekly for your own discernment practices that help you listen to God's leading.
Reading the Bible Together
What bothers most Christians about queer inclusion is the Bible. The verses in the Bible which address homosexuality are called the "clobber verses"—because to queer Christians they feel like they're used to clobber them. Sometimes it might feel like there must be 100s of these verses in the Bible, but in fact there are just six. We'll discuss just 1-2 each week.
Along the way we'll be exploring not just those six "clobber verses" but what we believe about the Bible in general. Which is helpful, because LGBTQ+ inclusion is not the first major controversy the Church has had, nor will it be the last. The skills we learn throughout this process will help us to address a whole host of issues that will arise as we seek to live out our faith in real-life relationships and communities.
Devout Christians have a range of views of the Bible. Some are what we call "inerrantists"— who believe that every word is literally the words of God's own self. Some feel the Bible is a book written by men a long time ago that is of mainly historical interest. In between those two extremes are a range of more nuanced beliefs—that the Bible is inspired by God in a way that the words of humans are intermingled with a movement of God's Spirit, or that the Bible is the best picture we have of God. All of these views co-exist within modern Christianity and even within historic Christianity. We have a range of views within this group.
Yet, regardless of where we land on that continuum of belief, all of us have things in the Bible that are troubling or confusing to us. One for me is the "conquest passages" in Joshua and Deuteronomy, passages like Deut. 7:1-2 where it seems like God is ordering the genocide of an entire people group. Rachel Held Evans writes: "When it comes to processing these troubling stories, there are generally three types of people: (1) those who accept without question that God ordered this military campaign in Canaan and has likely supported others throughout history. (2) those who are so troubled by the notion of God condoning ethnic cleansing that it strains their faith or compels them to abandon it. (3) those who can name all the Kardashian sisters and are probably happier for it."
Evans goes on to point out how when we train ourselves to look away, to ignore the parts that are troubling or confusing, we train ourselves to be comfortable with genocide, rape, oppression, slavery—all sorts of horrible things. We may be tempted to ignore the parts of the Bible that are disturbing, confusing or ugly. But if we choose to look away, we learn nothing.
Exploring these difficult passages of Scripture without looking away takes courage. So I want to again celebrate you for just coming here each week. Being willing to ask the hard questions.
One rubric I've found helpful for dealing with troublesome passages is what I call a "Jesus-centered hermeneutic." In John 10:30 Jesus says, "I and the Father are one.” Col. 1:15-19 says: Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation… He is before all things, and in him all things hold together… For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things.
Jesus came to show us God. To show us God's heart, God's values, God's nature. To show us who God is. Jesus is the best picture we have of God. So, while we may never answer every question we have about Joshua—or Genesis—or Revelation, we have Jesus. And Jesus shows us who God is. When we encounter troubling passages or differing interpretations like we will see in the weeks ahead, we can fall back on this: how does this interpretation square with the picture of Jesus we see in the New Testament? We should reject any interpretation that deviates sharply from that image and picture of God that is revealed in Jesus Christ.
Next week, we’ll explore chapters 1 & 2 of Torn by Justin Lee, and the story of Sodom in Genesis 19:1–26.
Our Haven community has committed to spend the next seven weeks praying for you as explore your faith and the questions you may have. May we experience together the expansive, remarkable love of God on a deeper level.
Loving God, we want to be lead by you. So help us to lean in. Help us to listen. Help us to be kind and respectful to one another. Help us to open our hearts to what you are saying to us today. I pray your presence be with us as we seek you. May we know the height and depth of your love in a new and incredible way.
In Jesus' name, Amen.