It is amazing to me that over the years, I can VIVIDLY recall times of national tragedy and the emotions it brought. It always seemed connected to a tragic loss of life. Oklahoma City, a bomb, a car, and a building filled with people destroyed. Runners finishing a marathon only to find themselves running for a different reason. There was no mistaking the loss. Everyone felt it.
Of course 9/11. I still remember where I was sitting, answering a phone call, several in fact telling us what was happening. I remember my boss coming out of his office sharing that another plane hit the other tower. “We are under attack!” I remember more phone calls, “the towers collapsed!” How? This seemed impossible. I couldn’t imagine it! The lives taken in what seemed like just a few minutes. It is the first time I remember not being able to leave the television. Seeing the images. People running. People falling. And of course heroes rushing in to help! Loss and courage all wrapped up into that one event. I didn’t consider any loss I might face. I wasn’t thinking about the ways in which our lives would become more complicated. I just imagined those families, waiting for a phone call, posting pictures of their missing family member hoping they might still be found. Police and Fireman looking for survivors covered in dust and tears and fear. We ALL grieved!
Now, there were some almost underground conspiracies that the whole event was intentional. That the buildings were demolished with explosives. That it was all a ploy to gain control of our nations population. It was an attempt to enact globalism and perpetrated by big bad banks and corporations. But the people sharing these ideas were not my friends. Not people I knew. They were truly fringe.
I remember so many school shootings, but Sandy Hook stands out. Once again glued to the TV. A mix of trying to imagine that day for those teachers, those parents, those kids. And then somehow at the same time trying NOT to imagine it. It was too painful. We hugged our kids tighter that day. Maybe even checking on them in the middle of the night. A nation grieved that day. We wondered what was wrong with our nation? What could we do? What would those parents give up to have their children again? Would I be willing to give up anything to prevent another child from dying? And of course we know events like Sandy Hook have happened again and again and again. And each time most of our nation grieved. Prayed. Wept. And asked what can we all do to stop this? While the news certainly spent some time focusing on the politics of the event we also saw town halls with people weeping. We saw presidents wipe away tears as they talked about what happened. Churches gathered and prayed. There was a shared communal pain.
Now there were some who claimed it was all a conspiracy. Hired actors. The scene set by professionals. The goal being to control the population. To take away your rights. There are in fact many today that do not grieve when these events happen but immediately jump to defending their own interests rather than join in the pain. What would these people be willing to give up in order to prevent one more attack like this? Nothing, absolutely nothing. But some of these people were people I knew. Their default was not grief but gearing up for a fight to protect their rights. Whatever happened in those schools though awful was not more important than the things they valued.
As news spread of the Coronavirus, even before it reached the US, I wondered how we might respond if it hit our shores. We saw how China was handling it. Extreme lock downs. Make no mistake, any of our “lock downs” won’t compare to China. Then it hit our shores. I don’t really want to argue the point, but our nations leader downplayed how it might affect us. No worries, it will be fine, poof and it will be gone. But it spread. And it spread. Then it was in Michigan. As we learned more and more we knew it was incredibly contagious. Not growth by addition like the flu, but exponential growth. And it was deadly. At the time we believed it was roughly 30-50x more deadly than the flu. And in particular, extremely deadly among those who were older or had another health struggle. As a side note, as we continue to learn more and more about this new virus we know that it is perhaps not as deadly, but at the same time possibly more contagious than we thought. It has spread wider and faster than we thought. Either way, it would kill Americans.
Just a few days after Michigan went into it’s own stay at home order, I remember spending several days almost incapable of controlling my emotions. You can ask Mary, I’m a generally weepy person. But it would just come and come in waves. I’d imagine people I love who are older or struggle with other health issues. What if they get this? We talked to our pediatrician about our young children. All with special needs, several with weak immune systems and one with underlying lung conditions. They explained what steps we should take as a family if one of us needed to work outside of the house. What would we do if one of us got sick and brought it into the home? I wept. I watched the news as they discussed how quickly it was spreading. There was concern that if we didn’t slow the spread, hospitals simply wouldn’t be able to care for the sick. Most states acted to keep this from happening. I saw friends who work in hospitals sharing the anxiety they felt about being there. On one hand wanting to care for people but on the other, afraid of what it might mean for their own families. I remember telling my mom that I can’t imagine what it will be like to sit down at night and see over and over again how many people, sons, daughters, parents, grandparents have died. I then let my mind wander and formulate what the numbers of dead would look like. 9/11 over and over and over again. Eventually, every day another 9/11. 1000, 2000, 3000 people each and every day. Today, Covid-19 deaths have reached almost 75,000. Twenty-five 9/11s. What would America’s grief look like? How potent would it be? How many would weep? How often? What would we be willing to give up to save our families, our friends, our neighbors? This would not be an event that we just watched on the news. It would become personal for so many.
But I haven’t seen it! At least not to any degree that I would have imagined. The numbers of dead are not something to weep over, they are something to argue over. Conspiracy theories aren’t fringe. Not relegated to infowars.com or other disgusting people like Alex Jones. But, people I know. While on one hand claiming the media is biased and can’t be trusted sharing random videos from people they don’t know claiming to have discovered the conspiracy behind it all. There is no grief. No pain. Only battles. No communal moaning. No communal weeping. No calls for prayer and doing your part. No willingness to lay it on the line to prevent another 9/11 and another and another and another.
And I have to be honest, I really don’t think it is that hard to understand. Are numbers off when it comes to mortality rates or how fast it spreads or how many show no symptoms? Yes, but it isn’t a conspiracy. This is how collecting data works. This is how science works. The more data, the more accurate. If you want to run a study on the likelihood of a penny landing on heads, a test of 3 attempts will never give you the right answer. But eventually, over time, you will arrive at the right answer. It isn’t a conspiracy by the penny bandits. And will the number of dead be adjusted? Definitely. But there are as many who say it is likely higher as there are that say it should be lower. And the unbelievable distrust of science? I can’t explain it. It is insane. As my smarter than she should be for her age oldest daughter explained last night, Science is the only discipline that intentionally tries to disprove itself. Opinion columns are not science. Random YouTube videos are not science. Some random person saying “everything you are hearing is wrong, everyone is lying….but me,” IS NOT SCIENCE! It is not data. It is not research. If this is the world you want to live in then just tune into Alex Jones, he has been saying the same thing for years. So I have edited those voices and those sharing those voices out of my life for now. It isn’t that I dislike these people. I care deeply for many of them. But today I feel the need to grieve. I feel the need to talk to my kids about what we are experiencing. I feel the need to sit, breathe, pray, not know what to pray and at times weep.
So my hope is that grieving will come. That people will slow down enough (which you think wouldn’t be a problem right now) and let their minds imagine the pain of thousands of families. Thousands of doctors and nurses or grocery store workers or delivery truck drivers. That the pain would become tangible and yet at the same time spread out over all our shoulders. That the shortest verse in scripture would become the most appropriate for our time – “Jesus wept.” As Jesus entered our suffering I want to in the ways currently possible, share in the loss of others whether it be a life of a loved one or to a lesser degree a favorite family event. It hurts but it should be lessened in that we all share it.
I have been thinking about what it means to be a peacemaker for a while now. In particular during our highly divisive times, it seems nearly impossible. Whether it be in our nation or in our churches, peace is the last word I would use to describe our present situation. I have lost friends. There are some family members I haven’t talked to in months and months. That doesn’t seem to me to be peace. Sunday at church, it was discussed again as our pastor, Jeremy Wicks, taught on the Beatitudes.
This is a hard one for me. Is peacemaking and peacekeeping the same thing? My perspective is that peacekeeping is often silent. It says nothing. It causes no ripples, no waves. It steadies the boat rather than rock it. In an effort to not cause division, it says nothing at all. One could describe peacekeeping as peaceful. Even if we are in the middle of a storm at sea we pretend the water is calm. Lacking conflict or raised tensions. Peacekeeping changes the subject. Peacekeeping avoids topics of extreme importance. Peacekeeping discusses the weather, your favorite sports team, how your kids are doing in school. I don’t want to go political, but I see this so clearly with the current situation of our president. In a way I can’t remember before, there is this idea that my obligation as a Christian is to support him and not criticize him. You can visibly see Christians get uncomfortable when you barely even denounce something Trump has said or done. And in that discomfort, they end up defending him. I’ve never seen anything like it before. Even those who claim they voted for him because they saw no better option believe they now are obligated to never speak poorly of him or his presidency. Is this what the Bible calls us to? Now scripture does call us to be “peaceable”. It calls us to “strive for peace with everyone” and “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” If possible? Strive? I think these words assume we are in the midst of an effort to both do right and not intentionally cause division. And at times, doing right and speaking right will NOT lead to peacefulness.
To be a peaceMAKER then requires me to speak and act when we see discord, division, hate, violence….all the things that break peace. Silence WILL NOT make peace. Martin Luther King Jr. said this in so many powerful ways when dealing with the discord, division and hate of his day, hate that continues in our day:
“The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.”
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
I recently said that the worst kind of Christian is not one who blatantly defends and supports ways and actions contrary to Jesus but those who say nothing. But perhaps they think THAT is actually their Christian duty? I want to clearly say, “NO, no it is not!”
But the question remains when we are told to both be “peaceable” and “peacemakers”, knowing there are times to speak and act and times to step away, when do we do either of those things? I’ll admit that I haven’t spent a ton of time researching this in detail. But here are my thoughts based on reflecting and considering this question over an extended period of time.
First, we speak up on behalf of the victim, the wounded, the poor, the defenseless, the outsider, the child, the orphan, the widow. We speak when there is injustice. In a culture where everything feels political and partisan, many keep quiet about these things. But if others are to take standing up for children taken from their families or the poor turned away and even worse, blamed, as partisan political statements, it is a risk we must take. Those around us must know that talk of or actions of harm to others is unacceptable. We will not remain silent.
Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow
Isaiah 1:17
The mouths of the righteous utter wisdom, and their tongues speak what is just.
Psalms 37:30
Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Psalms 82:3
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.
Proverbs 31:8-9
Second, we speak when those in leadership claim to represent the way of Jesus and yet fail to do so. Christians are not obligated to unquestioning allegiance to any leadership. In fact, scripture explains that leaders, in particular, Christian leaders are held to a higher standard of life and accountability. The religious leaders of Jesus day are the one category of people Jesus seems to regularly speak against. And in very vivid terms. I think in some sense this is directly related to point number one, those in leadership have the greatest power to harm others. Jesus is the one King we give allegiance to. No other leader should demand or deserve a silent loyalty. John the Baptist also confronted both the religious and political leaders of his day. Whether it was the arrogance of the religious leaders or immorality of Herod, he spoke up. And it isn’t just Jesus or John, the rest of the New Testament calls us to “test” our leaders in their words and deeds. James says that teachers in particular will be “judged more strictly.” Paul encourages Timothy to reprimand elders who sin publicly in front of everyone. That is far from blind allegiance. And Luke in Acts commends the Berean Jews for being excited to receive a message from Paul and yet also examining scripture to see if what Paul said was true. It is worth stating again, that our responsibility to speak when leaders, christian leaders, no longer represent the way of Jesus is directly related to their ability to harm others. There is one category of people that Jesus so directly relates to that to treat them with love, care and compassion is to do so to Jesus himself and it isn’t our pastors or senators or president, it is the least of these.
If there is a third category of occasions when scripture calls us to speak and not remain silent, it is when we are given opportunity to explain WHY our lives look as they do. Why are we hopeful in the midst of pain and struggle? Why do we love those who seem to have nothing to offer? Why do we give so generously? Why do we forgive rather than demand penalty? Why do we love our enemies? Why are we so willing to take up a cross on behalf of others? Why do we see all people as having great worth? (Of course it helps if these things are true of us.) In those moments scripture calls us to speak confidently, without shame. We give witness to the “good news”, Jesus. We share what he has done for us. We share of his amazing love. We share of his forgiveness of us. We share of his love for us even when we had nothing to offer. We speak of his life on the fringes touching, speaking with and eating with all people. We speak of his life, words, cross and resurrection. Now is not the time to be silent. Hopefully, we have lived or are seeking to live a life worthy of those questions being asked of us.
So do you have disagreements about how to interpret one particular passage or another? Do you have doctrinal disagreements with your friends and family? Do you have opinions about what worship looks like in the church? Do you have opinions about whether Jesus is about to return or it is way off? These questions just create what the Bible calls quarreling. I believe in these situations we are called to unity. We are called to being peaceable. That doesn’t mean there is no conversation but relationship is always primary, not “being right.”
One last thing to consider before I end. It is time to speak, but HOW? What things should guide my speech and words? First, we should be slow to react. Now slow may not mean months and years, but it also means that immediately may not be the best time. Our first reactions are rarely lead by the spirit and are usually careless. The first voice in our head is usually our own. So take a moment. Walk away and then come back. Type up that response and then delete it. Ask a question before responding. Be slower. Second, speak gently. (1 Peter 3:15, Titus 3:2, Colossians 4:6) This is SO hard! I usually want to do something similar to Bill Engvall’s “here’s your sign!” Idiot! When I think of gentle, the first person that comes to mind is Mister Rogers. Fred Rogers said important things. He offered critiques of his current world. How do we treat the most vulnerable. How do we treat those different from us. How should we love our neighbor. And yet he did so with a gentleness that puts people back. Those ready to lash out, struggle to do so because of the manner and way in which he interacts with them. So when we speak ask, “would Mister Rogers say this?” Third, we use scripture, the word or we could say, the Word in flesh as the basis for our words. We call people back to Jesus. God in flesh. The very form of God the father. The perfect revelation of his will and way. Why do we believe what we do?—–Jesus is why. If we can’t find it in Jesus, perhaps this is an issue we should remain silent on. And if someone responds with something like, “what does Jesus have to do with it”, well that is when I usually walk away. If Jesus has nothing to do with it, then the conversation is over or at least a different conversation is needed unrelated to the topic at hand. I have seen those conversations go on and on with hypothetical this and law is the law that. Pointless words if Jesus is not the foundation of them. Lastly, we speak in love.Always love! I think we all know when we are being loved. When someone has our best interest at heart. It keep us from doing harm. From wounding the other perhaps, if we are honest, because we really want to. We stay away from personal attacks. We assume the best even when it is a struggle. So the last question to consider is a nakedly simple question, do I really LOVE the person I’m talking to? Until we can say “yes,” maybe we should remain silent. I will admit it again, all of these things are hard. Hard for ME personally. I struggle with them. But I know if I am to grow, mature and reflect Jesus to others, these are the things I must work on.
I have the Fox News app on my phone. I know, I know. Sue me. I always like to be reminded of how far the republican party has wandered. But every once in a while they get something right. Today was the day. Cue the band, confetti and a fireworks finale!
In case you missed it, Christianity Today issued a column by it’s editor stating that they believed Donald Trump should be impeached. And not just that, but the president “is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.” So, while I applaud CT coming out and stating this position, I doubt it will change the minds of any Evangelicals. Too late. And evangelicals knew all of this when they chose him as their republican nominee and then president. No, there is nothing this man can do that will change their support of him. Why? Because he has already done it.
As you can imagine, Trump never fails to respond from being called out and he has revealed his understanding of the agreement he made with evangelicals. They do the dirty deed of voting for and supporting him no matter what, and he will reward them handsomely when the deal is done. I almost put that he would leave a $100 bill on the nightstand in the morning but perhaps that would be too crass. Of course, now I’ve said it….
He tweeted nearly immediately calling CT a “A far left magazine, or very “progressive,” as some would call it, which has been doing poorly.” Um, “far left” and “progressive”?! No, that is asinine, and if you as a Christian repeat it, you have revealed how little intellectual integrity you have. I assume that goes for the crazy leftist Max Lucado or John Piper among others as well. Christianity Today is about as non-controversial a publication representing evangelical Christianity that exists today. But you see, labeling things “leftist” or “liberal” or “socialist” is a way to show they are the enemy. He also expressed his frustration that “No President has done more for the Evangelical community, and it’s not even close. You’ll not get anything from those Dems on stage.” You see, he expects total allegiance. We must place our faith in him, never waver, never wonder. THAT WAS THE DEAL!
So this brings me to FOX news. They of course brought in their “evangelical christian leaders” to show how awful this article is. So, what did they get right then? They brought in Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition who said that Galli (editor in chief for CT) should consider changing the name of the publication to “Christianity Yesterday.”AND THERE IT IS! Fox is right, the evangelical Church of yesterday is dead. The Church I grew up in, the ones that raised us, taught us are gone. That church existed yesterday, does not exist today, and will likely not exist again. Christianity Today will be used as a resource to study what the church used to be.
So on one hand, it saddens me. I believe that within a generation, the evangelical, and perhaps even larger church as a whole, as we have known it will be done. Buildings will be emptied, turned into shopping centers or schools or just to rubble. It is already happening across every segment of the population year after year. People are leaving the church! They aren’t coming back! The church’s influence on american culture will end. Now, there is a chance of repentance. Perhaps we can remain hopeful for that. Hopeful that the church will turn. That churches who have remained silent so as not to cause division or rock the boat will perhaps speak up now? As the CT article shared that there are times where one needs to speak, where silence is being complicit and leading your people by a lack of words. That “it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern.”
Two other things that give me some hope. First, there are churches that have declared their allegiance not to “evangelicalism” or to Trump or the republican party or even the republic but to the way of Jesus. To his Kingdom vision that was ushered in at his coming as a baby and is being ushered in today. To the way of welcome and love and sacrifice and the possibility of resurrection, healing, and restoration. I believe my church, Mosaic Church in Traverse City, is one of those places. And there are many more. It is imperative that these churches figure out how to pass that faith on to the next generation. Which leads me to the second thing that gives me hope. According to nearly every study, younger generations see what older generations are missing. They see the dissonance. And one day, they will lead us and our churches. They may be starting from scratch or they may be taking up what we intentionally leave behind, but one way or another, a new thing will emerge. Yes, maybe they will read Christianity Today to remember what the church used to be. To remember how it failed. But they will be creating a new story. The church itself will experience resurrection. God haste the day even if we won’t be able to see it!
Twice over the last week or so I have come across authors and scholars pointing out a need to begin discussing what comes next for those who have come to the place of realizing something is wrong, something has happened to conservative/evangelical Christianity.
Keith Giles who has written several books on Jesus and the ways in which he needs to be released from political entanglement, trapped by our allegiance and reliance on politics, and our view of scripture and the church, is now launching an intense mentorship project in which he works with a small group to begin reconstructing our faith. He says it this way, “I’ve spent over 12 years blogging about my own deconstruction process, and an equal amount of time writing books about why we need to look at the Gospel, and the Church and the Church and the Bible from a different perspective. It almost comes naturally for me to do these things. It’s automatic…. And, I’m not saying I will totally stop doing this, but I do feel as if I need to shift the majority of my time and energy towards helping people who have already deconstructed their faith to experience reconstruction.”
David Gushee has also just recently posted that he will be sharing excerpts from his current project discussing where those who have left evangelicalism go from here. He said this in his most recent Facebook post, “There are millions of us post-evangelicals, tens of millions, really. We know who we are, where we have come from: “Lord I Lift Your Name on High” and Bible churches and John Piper and The Message and Wheaton and Hillsong and Fuller and “complementarianism” and Zondervan and “God didn’t make Adam and Steve” and Bob Jones science curriculum and biblical inerrancy and when Billy Graham devolved into Franklin Graham and reparative therapy and required chapel and when Jerry Falwell devolved into Jerry Falwell Jr. and #MAGAvangelicals and Trump as Cyrus and all the rest. Yes, we know what we are leaving. But we have not yet determined where we are going.”
There is a recognition, and I agree with it, that without some wisdom and discernment and guidance many who are feeling the same things, seeing the same things and asking the same questions will find the journey too difficult, especially alone, to continue. We’ve seen in recent weeks, and over the past few years, many faith leaders with significant roles in leading the church “walk away.” Hillsong worship leader and song writer, Marty Sampson, recently shared his current journey. He has clarified that he wouldn’t say he has totally “left the faith” but is on shaky ground. And of course many have watched with intrigue Joshua Harris’ journey. He and his wife have announced their split and he has shared that by any way in which he would have defined what a Christian is in the past, he no longer would be labeled so. He said this in a recent interview about how to move forward, “I spent so much time in a very conservative environment judging all these more progressive people that I’m now tempted to go past that [and] be like, forget it all. But it can get to feeling, like, what are you holding onto in Christianity? Why do you need it still?”
When you have held on to something so firmly and you feel it all begin to slip, what do you do next?
This process is what we would describe as Deconstruction and Reconstruction. I think for many, Deconstruction is a terrifying idea. And maybe the connotation of the word is what leads to despair. We can almost hear “destruction” when we say it. Our faith, our world, our way of life will be destroyed. And it seems Joshua Harris is implying that just the thought of going back through and rebuilding what has been torn down is too much to bear. But we all deconstruct things. It should be a natural part of our faith experience. If you aren’t deconstructing things, you are not growing, learning, developing, maturing. For something to grow it has to change. And to change, something we used to believe, used to be, must be left behind. Deconstruction is a good thing! A necessary thing to those who wish to grow. And maybe that is the problem with much of the Christian faith? Change is a threat. We already know all there is to know. We already are what we should be. Well except that we are told to pray more, read the Bible more, go to church more, give more. And I’m not sure those things are actually helpful in keeping someone from feeling like the foundation that held them up for so long is starting to crumble. So as I have noted in other posts, those with questions, those who doubt, those who feel things CHANGING often feel like the only choice they have is to leave the faith all together. And the Church has implicitly and sometimes explicitly told them so. They have repeatedly been warned of the “slippery slope.” They have been told to start down that path will lead to destruction. So why bother sliding all the way down? Just jump ship and spare yourself the pain.
I believe we must get to the point where this process becomes a normal, ongoing pattern of faith and learning. If this is something we do as a normal part of maturing it won’t be as jarring. When we are told “don’t ever doubt” and we push those questions back, they will only stay there for so long. Eventually they come flooding in all at once and it will often be too much to bear. So as a general practice, we need to take our positions and beliefs and hold them with unclenched hands. Hold them, but don’t grip them. Our hands are open and willing to let go if needed and open to accept new understandings. We need to be content with knowing some things for sure and being unsure of other things.
I believe we also must gather and be with others who are doing the same things. It is too difficult to do alone. And here is the good news, when we join others in taking our faith seriously enough, scripture seriously enough to live in the tension of knowing we’ve got things wrong, it is actually exciting. We begin to see our faith expand. We see the gospel actually become good. We see our doubts not as threats but as evidence of my growth. We actually begin to construct, or reconstruct, something more beautiful. Being alone, feeling alone WILL be crushing during this time. If you are in the Traverse City area, I’d invite your to join me at Mosaic Church. We take questions seriously. They are welcome. You are welcome. So please, don’t despair. Know that God is not intimidated by your doubt, fear, and questions. He will join you in it. Remember, one of the last things Jesus did before he died was ask a question, “My God, why have your forsaken me?”
I’ve been duped. I’ve been tricked. Lied to. I don’t know how else to explain how I feel about Evangelicalism since our last election cycle in 2016. Yes, when Trump was elected president. I’ve felt cynicism rising up inside me. Bitterness and anger too. And it isn’t too far to say that I feel hurt. I know I shouldn’t, but I do. And it isn’t because I am some reactive liberal though I’d guess my conservative friends think that is the case. In fact, no party owns my allegiance. Jesus does. And I haven’t been happy about every person who has ever been elected. What I’m feeling isn’t that. It is something more. I think the reason I feel so much frustration is because I realized that the “church” I grew up in didn’t actually believe what they told me all this time.
I wouldn’t say that as a young person, or even into young adulthood, I felt like Evangelical was the PRIMARY term we used to define our Christian identity. I grew up in “conservative” churches. I think we would more likely say we were a “Bible Church” than Evangelical Church. But they definitely were Evangelical churches even if we didn’t use the word all the time. In the last several decades though, that term or identity has become more prominent. And now the label, especially among white churches, has come to take on more of a political ideology/position than anything else. White evangelicals were more united in voting for Trump in 2016 than any other republican presidential candidate in the past 4 elections at 81%. That is a HUGE majority. And before anybody even for a moment thinks “well, we obviously couldn’t vote for Hillary”, white evangelicals continue to offer Donald Trump immense support. More than ANY other religious affiliation. So, no, they didn’t vote for him because they had no other choice. They made him their nominee, voted fervently for him in the election and continue to support and defend him at nearly all costs. Honestly, I’m not sure Jesus himself could have beaten Trump among white Evangelicals. Simply put, they have given up trying to hide their cards and laid them down on the table.
However, “evangelical” wasn’t meant to have such political overtones. It initially had to do with several main priorities. Traditionally an evangelical was a person or church that believed in the authority of scripture, the sacrificial work of Jesus on the cross, the need for individuals to convert or become saved, and that our faith should affect our public life. In general, I agree with these statements especially if given the chance for some explanation.
I also want to clarify that as I share these thoughts I know I am speaking in broad brush strokes. I know some of this may FEEL like I am making personal assessments. INDIVIDUALS were my Pastors, Sunday School teachers and Youth Leaders. It may also feel like I am talking about a specific church. The one’s I attended growing up. But here my intent is to speak of the “church” of my upbringing in general.
So with all of that being said, and for the reasons below, I no longer want to be considered an Evangelical. For what the word has come to mean today, it no longer defines me or what I believe.
#1 – Sexuality I grew up at a time where the most humiliating thing a teen could do was get pregnant. Of course that goes for the girls. Guys got off easy. It was the time of purity rings and True Love Waits. As a youth pastor, books were coming out left and right telling teens to “Kiss Dating Goodbye.” Sexual purity was the most important thing a teen could pursue. Teen boys were told of the dangers of pornography and that to look at a woman with lust was to commit adultery with her. Teen girls were told to dress modestly so as not to lead boys into temptation. For adults, the worst thing you could do was get a divorce. The sanctity of marriage was championed at every opportunity. Adults and teens were forced to stand before their churches, confessing their sexual immorality, adultery, broken marriages or else be disciplined and removed from the church. Church ushers would be aware if someone was no longer allowed to attend and be prepared to keep them from entering the church building. In the 90’s it was reported that our president had had a sexual relationship with his intern. The church in unison claimed that “character matters!” How could someone who didn’t take marriage and sexuality seriously lead our nation? Simply put, they said he couldn’t.
But they lied to me. The church never believed any of this. In 2016 they elected and continue to support a man who has no boundaries when it comes to his sexuality. He has been divorced multiple times, bragged that other men’s wives were not safe in his presence, bragged and laughed about sexually assaulting women without their permission, paid off porn stars to keep his infidelity a secret, and has been accused of sexual assault and harassment by 24 women. But the church tells me Trump is a christian leader sent by God.
Of course it was eventually discovered that the church itself wasn’t any safer for girls or boys or women. Sexual assault and harassment was happening right in the church buildings. Girls were ashamed to say anything. And somehow many preachers thought they were untouchable and were protected by the “church” at nearly any cost. The institution was more important than any one person including those who had been assaulted, harassed, and raped.
I have no other explanation than the evangelical church never believed what they told me. They lied to me. The tricked me. They lied to those young girls standing in front of their churches fearful and ashamed. They lied to those women who finally left a bad marriage. I’ve been duped.
#2 – Truth I mentioned above that one of the things that typically helps define an Evangelical is the value of the authority of scripture. The Bible is Truth. Without error. In every fact and detail, it is inerrant. I was told that to in anyway remain open to the idea that scripture doesn’t answer every factual, scientific question with 100% accuracy was to cast doubt on the whole thing. Even today as some of my views of scripture have shifted and some of my interpretations have changed, people still throw out bible references claiming that all scripture is “inspired” and true. Truth is found in scripture. And Truth will set you free. Without it we have nothing.
After high school I attended Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, MI as a Bible Major. There again, Truth was emphasized. In my senior year we had a “Senior Seminar” course in which we wrapped up our schooling, calls to ministry and studied some relevant development of the time that could affect our ministry. Our class studied the shift from the Modern Culture to a Postmodern Culture. We read books and had discussions. It was said that the relativism of the Postmodern Culture was perhaps the greatest threat the church will face in upcoming years. That “Truth” would no longer be valued. That someone could say whatever they want and believe whenever they want with no one having a mechanism to tell them they are wrong.
In 2016 this same church elected and continues to support a man who feels in no way obligated to truth. He will literally say whatever he wants in the moment. On the very first day of his presidency he began defending a lie that his inauguration crowd was the largest ever. How stupid and unimportant!? Why lie about it? It was our first introduction to “alternative facts.” And only a few days ago he said that when a crowd began to chant, “send her back” that he quickly quieted the very few people shouting. It was a lie so obvious, it was absurd. Some estimates place the number of Trump’s public lies and misleading statements since taking office to be over 10,000. And now there are studies that state that our culture can barely tell the difference between opinion and fact due in part to Trump’s perpetual attack on truth. And the church continues to defend him and his lies. Franklin Graham just recently said he doesn’t think Trump lies a lot. He claimed that Trump just does what we all do.
I have no other explanation than the white evangelical church never believed truth was important. They lied to me. The duped me.
#3 – Secularism Growing up, to define anything as “secular” was to question it’s worth. As a musician this often came up in the context of music. We shouldn’t listen to “secular music” but instead listen to Christian music. Even instruments that were introduced and used in Secular Music were thought by many to be instruments that shouldn’t be used in the church. I remember the controversy and conflict caused by the first drum set being set up in the sanctuary of my childhood church. In general, all areas of life were to be influenced by our faith and Christian perspective. Others called it a Christian Worldview. EVERYTHING intersected with our faith. You might even put Christian Schools under this category. The churches I grew up in had a direct role in running the local Christian School. It was thought that Reading, Science and Math were best taught with a Christian perspective. Secularism in general is the idea of keeping God separate and removed from some aspects of life.
But leading up to 2016 and certainly since I’ve discovered that the white Evangelical churches I grew up in was lying to me. I can only assume they never believed it. I have heard people outright question what Jesus has to do with war or economics. Christian leaders like Falwell claim that the way of Jesus doesn’t apply to how Trump should lead. He is not our Pastor in Chief. He and our politics are exempt. I’ve heard Christians state that Jesus command to love our enemy has nothing to do with our ACTUAL enemies. White Evangelical Christians, followers of the crucified and tortured Jesus (tied with catholics) are more likely to support the use of torturing our enemies (68%) than any other religious affiliation. They are also least likely (25%) to believe we have an obligation to care for refugees in our world. (More on that later.)
I have only one explanation for this, the Church has always been secular. They lied to me when they claimed my entire worldview should be shaped by my faith. They never believed that Jesus has authority over EVERYTHING.
#4 – The Bible This may have some overlap to my section on Truth above but I want to separate out one idea. The Bible is the center of Evangelicalism as I have stated above. We went to self proclaimed “Bible Churches.” Not Jesus churches, but Bible churches. From the youngest age we told our kids to memorize scripture and to “hide scripture in their hearts.” As you can see above under secularism, the church literally meant “HIDE” it. But I digress. Children then and today receive pins and ribbons and stickers and candy when they take the time to read and memorize scripture. I was the king of Sword Drills finding Biblical references as quickly as possible. Honestly, as a parent I struggled with these programs because I felt like there was so much pressure to get my kids to memorize the words that they never had opportunity to learn what the words actually meant. And having just a regular Bible wasn’t good enough as we got older. The best Bibles were Study Bibles with notes added at the bottom of every page. Today you can find a study bible for almost any particular purpose or person.
But something more recently has crept into our current culture both regarding the Bible and other categories of thought. It is a suspicion of scholarship. You could add a suspicion of science. It can only be described as anti-intellectualism. Bible scholars are treated as a threat. It is ASSUMED that because they are challenging what may have been a presumed understanding of biblical text they have some hidden agenda. Now to be fair, you could argue every scholar and every PERSON reads and learns with some sort of bias. But nearly everything we know and understand about scripture and the world of scripture was given to us by scholars. People who’s main job it is to study scripture, it’s languages and context. This then overlaps into science. Any one with an expertise in any field is seen as biased and a threat. For example, white evangelicals are the least likely of any religious group to believe that Climate Change is happening as a result of human activity at 28%. This is despite the fact that real scientists (not opinion columnists or politicians) are nearly unanimous on the matter. Our bible literally starts with God telling humanity to steward the earth. Why aren’t we leading the way?
I don’t know how to explain this reluctance to accept or even consider scholarship especially as it relates to scripture. I can only assume that they lied to me about how important scripture is. They never believed it. The Bible was merely a tool to support what they already believed and wanted to force others to believe. I was duped.
#5 – Missions Every year in the churches I grew up in we had one week designated to missions. It usually went by the creative and original title “Missions Week.” The church would invite various missionaries that we supported to come and share their efforts in nations all around the globe. The whole church would focus on the need to share the gospel all around the world. Especially to nations and people who had never heard of Jesus. Somewhere in the church, often in the main lobby, there was usually a bulletin board with a world map. Pins and images would show us where the missionaries our church supported were serving. I remember hearing remarkable stories of faith in the midst of real danger. Families risking everything to share the story of Jesus. We would learn about the 10-40 window which was a part of the world where Jesus was least likely to be known and perhaps the most dangerous to share. Those missionaries could be described as heroes.
Usually at some point during Missions Week two things would happen. First, families would commit to give above and beyond their normal giving in support of these missionaries. What would God lead you to sacrifice so that the gospel could be shared? Of course now I do wonder if that “above and beyond” was more about the church leadership not really wanting to give up any of their own budget for it. After all, we have buildings to build, parking lots to pave and staff to hire. But either way, the church was called to be a part, even from a distance, of what God was doing in our world. The second thing that would typically happen was an invitation to consider whether God was calling you to serve as a missionary. It seemed like every year some would walk up the aisle and commit to serving God in this way. We would pray for them and maybe even applaud their commitment.
As a teenager then the whole idea of Missions took on another level in the form of a mission trip. I along with several youth leaders and teens visited Guatemala. My most vivid memory is that of being taken as guests to the home of a local Guatemalan who was responsible for managing the building project at a local Christian training facility for missionaries where we were helping. As I remember it, the home had a dirt floor with the only roof being above the shared bedroom for he and his many children. Their was a cistern in the middle of the home that collected water…again, no roof. He then provided a meal of corn on the cob for our entire group. I remember the ears of corn were HUGE. I remember the guide telling us that the food he provided us could have fed his family for days. Through all of these experiences I was lead to believe that my church had a deep concern for the people of the world. But I was fooled.
Over the last several years I have realized that the white evangelical church never believed that we had a role to play in loving the world. We sang “Jesus loves the little children” but we didn’t mean it. Or perhaps we meant it as long as they stayed “over there.” When the nations of the world suddenly show up at our doorstep we send them away. When the “children” show up we separate them from their parents causing trauma that will forever affect them. We forbid people from nations in the 10-40 window from ever entering our nation. We build walls on our border and claim these migrants coming from Guatemala and other countries have nothing to offer us. They will only use our great nation, costing us our security, comfort and wealth. And it isn’t just illegal immigration that the white evangelical church stand against. Trump has set a limit of allowing 30,000 refugees to enter the United States in 2019. The lowest in 40 years. And the Trump administration continues to enact policies that will likely completely end the ability of migrants to seek asylum in the United States. And the policies that have lead to so many children being separated from their families can only be described as intentional cruelty to keep others from trying to seek asylum. I already mentioned that white evangelicals are the least likely category of people to believe we have a moral obligation to care for refugees. They are also the only category of people who by a majority believe that immigrants threaten American society and that we should completely ban any refugees from entering our nation.
How do I reconcile this with Mission Weeks, and sacrificial giving, and unbelievable stories and slideshows, and missionary bulletin boards front and center in the church building and invitations to join God in sharing the gospel with all people “red and yellow, black and white”? I can’t. My only conclusion is that they lied to me. They never believed it.
Conclusion: So yes, I feel betrayed. I feel hurt. I feel lied to. The church I grew up in, (whether I now fully agree with everything they hold or not) never really existed. If it did exist, it died. And its death was shockingly fast. So I am leaving it behind. It is not an institution I any longer want to be associated with or help preserve. I am an #exvangelical to use an increasingly popular hashtag. Is there hope for change? Honestly, I don’t know. I’m not sure the “bell can be unrung.” It seems fear and self-preservation are the new priorities of the white Evangelical church and these two things are the anti-thesis to the way of Jesus. “America First” should have no part in the language of the Church. To use a phrase from a video I saw recently, “it is theological heresy.” I am really trying to set aside that anger and bitterness. I am trying to separate individuals from what the movement as a whole has come to represent. I will continue however to share what I believe are the values of Jesus and the implications of his “Good News” or Gospel in our world. I will continue to point out that there are real victims. Those who are being hurt. I don’t know any other way to proceed. For others who were told what I was told and feel how I do today, there are other places to truly encounter God and follow Jesus. Evangelicalism does not = Jesus. If you are the Traverse City area feel free to reach out to me. I find that bitterness, anger, hurt and despair grows the quickest when you feel alone.
I have been a part of a group of a few families that has been studying the Gospel of Matthew now for over 3 years. We joke that we have taken as much time to study it as Jesus took to live it. I suppose in some way that shouldn’t be funny but actually appropriate. That being said, we are nearing the end of Matthew’s gospel and just covered chapter 24. Most look at this chapter as an explanation of the “End Times” and the return of Jesus or his “Second Coming.” Though not the point of this post, I would suggest the meaning of this chapter was intended to have specific meaning to his contemporary audience first and foremost. But like many passages in scripture there is often a meaning on the top layer and then several meanings under that layer. A passage can give us wisdom and insight in a number of different areas. With that in mind, the entire chapter deals with this idea that something is coming and some will be prepared and some won’t. On one hand, we won’t know exactly what or when it will happen, but on the other hand we should keep our eyes towards the horizon. Live for the future that is coming. We should pay attention and stay focused. He gives the example of a fig tree. He shares that as summer approaches the twigs get tender and the leaves begin to sprout. A follower of Jesus should not be so consumed by the immediate situation and circumstances and forget to look for the signs of what may be coming down the road. I believe that the modern church has become incapable of reading the signs. They have missed the leaves sprouting from the fig tree.
There have been many studies over the last several years that have looked at the rapidly changing landscape of religious commitment and identity in the United States. A lot of this is summed up in the rapid increase of the “nones” among Americans. These are those who say they have NO religious affiliation. Today there are as many who consider themselves Nones as there are Evangelicals. They also match the number of Catholics. The decline of those who consider themselves Christian has come across every segment, Protestant and Catholic. Among Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants. No group has escaped the decline.
I remember, what feels like decades ago, the discussions about young people leaving the Church. They seemed to be leaving en masse. But at the same time there were many who felt like this was a normal trend. Young people, those entering college, tend to wander. They stretch their wings, question things and eventually, make their beliefs and their faith their own. Many felt like any significant concern was unwarranted, and that when young people got older they would return. I ran into this article a few days ago and the question is being asked again, will these younger generations return to the church? Are we seeing the “fig leaves sprouting” and should we be concerned about the future or is it nothing? Are we paying attention? Are we reading the signs of the times?
I am of the opinion that there is reason to be concerned. That this is not just a normal part of transitioning from youth to adulthood. Unfortunately, I don’t believe most of the Church is interested in self reflection. It is time for humility and repentance, but instead I see reactions of fear and self-defense. The Church as a whole has dug in it’s heals and buried it’s head in the sand. It seems possible to do both at the same time.
There are several reasons that I believe the rise of the Nones is not just a part of the normal trend of young people to wander. First, the transition of age and phase of life was not the only transition happening over the past several decades. The United States has been in a transition from a Modern culture to a Post-Modern culture. And younger people have experienced most if not all of their lives in a Post-Modern environment. At the same time, the Church has remained mostly in a Modern context and very intentionally so. They often see Post-Modernism as a threat and Modernism as the result of a Christian world view. So if the church sees the culture as a threat, it is difficult to not also portray Post-Modern people as a threat.
Second, the decline of those who consider themselves Christian and rise of those who have no religious affiliation is happening across every age, sex, race, education level and political party. Though not surprising, the slowest growth among the Nones has been among those 50+, republicans or conservatives and among the black community. But even so, it is not JUST a young people problem.
Third, the reasons for leaving are not about their doubt in God or that they have no desire to lead a spiritual life. The most common reason for saying “none” when it comes to religion is that they “question religious teachings.” I dare you to go into your church and REALLY question what they believe. Challenge their understanding of the gospel or scripture or science. I dare you. It won’t go well. The Church is not a safe place to question anything. So people leave. The second most common reason, and perhaps with some overlap to the first, is that they don’t agree with the Church’s position on social/political issues. The Church, in particular the evangelical church, has become so intertwined with the Republican party and with conservative politics in general. For example, 73% of Nones support same sex marriage. This is not a popular position in most Churches today and good reason for the Church to doubt your faith. This entangling is not healthy and anyone who doesn’t fit in the Conservative Box will likely struggle to find a home in the Church. So they leave. Add what I mentioned above about the changing culture, it would be foolish to assume that when they grow up, they will suddenly become unquestioning Republicans. And this issue is only becoming more polarizing. It isn’t getting better.
Some point to the fact that the True Church isn’t actually getting any smaller. Among the data is the fact that those with a “strong religious affiliation” has remained constant. Some argue then that this means it is just those who were never really committed in the first place who are leaving. My initial thought is “well, duh, those who have been unsure in the past have now finally left.” Isn’t this what we would expect? This doesn’t let the Church off the hook though. The question still remains, why were so many in the Church unable to feel strongly about their faith or more so, their need to be in a Church Community? Perhaps it is because the Church saw people as number and tithers? Perhaps we never took following Jesus seriously and challenged people to that sort of life? Maybe, those who are “strong” in their faith are the problem? Hmmm?
So will young Christians return to the church? As of now, I don’t believe they will. Unless the Church can change course. But let’s all be honest…the Church isn’t very good at change. The church isn’t good at humility. The American church in particular isn’t very good at being challenged without claiming to be the victim. It seems to be the only time they actually want to carry a cross. If I am reading the “leaves budding on the fig tree” correctly, there will one way or another be a remnant in the American Church. It is possible one thing will have to die before the next thing begins. OR, and a big OR, the Church could embrace questions. The Church could imagine that there are new voices and new ways of seeing things. The Church could dissect itself from politics and nationalism. The Church could stop defending itself, protecting itself and reach out in Love, just simple Love, to those around them. The Church might confess of it’s own sin before judging everyone else’s. The Church might again become a place of Grace and Peace. The Church could take the call to follow Jesus seriously. I guess we will see what happens. The fig leaves are sprouting. Who is paying attention?
The verse to end all debate. That is what many think it is. Whatever the topic, this verse gets thrown out as the be all and end all of the debate. It has been thrown out to me several times in the last few months as I have shared more publicly my position on the LGBTQ community and the church. If you push back on an issue that any person, denomination or church has held for a long time without having taken hardly any time to critically consider, out it comes 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
“All Scripture is Inspired “
This is what I imagine is going on in their head: “Well surely the only possible explanation is that you no longer believe in the Bible where as I believe that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired.” And there may even be a good old “inerrant” thrown in while they are at it. Which I’ve always wondered why God didn’t inspire the biblical authors to explicitly say in an overarching way that scripture is “inerrant.” That is our word, not scripture’s. Things that make you go hmmmm. And then this happens in my head, “Oh my word, it never dawned on me…scripture! Totally my bad! WHAT, DO YOU THINK I AM AN IDIOT!” Again, in my head.
I honestly, no kidding, usually give an out loud chuckle when I see it. Not that I don’t believe it, but that I don’t think they actually believe it the way they are implying they do. All Scripture. It seems to me they are assuming I have omitted some passages from what I consider important and they haven’t. They take ALL VERSES as true and apply them to their lives. And it is of course obvious that they don’t….to everyone else anyway. What they actually mean by “ALL” is: ALL the scriptures that THEY think are still relevant today and in the way that THEY think they are relevant.
But I came across this video this past week. It is awful. Disgusting. I barely want you to watch it. There is a good chance you’ve already heard about it. But you can view the video HERE. In it you will hear portions of a sermon that the pastor at All Scripture Baptist Church gave on the first Sunday of Pride Month on Leviticus 20:13. In the video the Pastor argues that those who practice homosexuality should “surely” be put to death by our government. He pokes fun at Christians who want to claim the homosexuality is a sin but “homo freaks” shouldn’t be put to death. He wished that our government would show up at Pride Parades and arrest anyone who looks like a “homo”, put them on trial and then put them to death. “How can you cherry pick one verse, christian?” How can you then call murder a sin? You either take this one verse exactly as it reads or you can’t take any verse as authoritative. That is how the argument goes right? And one couldn’t argue that conservatives, both in Christian circles and politically, no longer believe in the death penalty? Most do. What this pastor is preaching is what “all scripture” truly looks like when carried to the end of the line. And before we say, “well, you can tell the sermon was cut and pasted together so we are probably taking things out of context”, he defended himself when confronted, saying “I preach what the Bible says and unfortunately it’s not very popular.”
So please stop. Stop throwing out some verse followed by 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Just stop. Everyone, EVERYONE, even those at All Scripture Baptist Church, has a way of picking and choosing which verses apply today and how. And the worst of the worst have no idea that they are doing it and how they are doing it. If you can’t articulate how you decide which verses to choose, which to leave behind and how you interpret those verses in our context, then tread humbly. The Bible then becomes nothing more than a weapon to be thrown at anyone who would oppose you.
I wanted to put all of my “Coming Out” posts in one place for easy sharing. Feel free to pass along to friends who are asking questions or friends who are certain they already have all the answers. Pass along to LGBTQ friends and family who are trying to sort through all the stuff they are hearing from Churches and Pastors and other Christians.
There is a LOT of information below. I think all of it is important but feel free to pick and choose what you are looking for.
I’d like to say I planned this series to conclude during Pride Month but I’d be lying. The series just took way longer than I thought, and I had more posts than I thought (all previous posts are at the end). Either way though, it has worked out well. I want to share some final thoughts as I wrap this up. A few miscellaneous thoughts and then I’d like to address 5 specific groups of people: The Convinced, The Unconvinced, The Opposed, The Church, and The LGBTQ Community.
Miscellaneous:
So first, I’m a straight, cis-gender, middle aged, white guy. Honestly, I’m not sure I have any right to speak on these matters. But then I consider that some people might hear me in ways that they wouldn’t hear others. Maybe? But I wanted to acknowledge that reality. It is why I started out my first post by admitting that calling my series “Coming Out” is hardly accurate. I will never experience what the LGBTQ community experiences when they Come Out.
Second, I’m sure there could be push back on every point I made. I know closing down comments kept that from happening. But I did it to protect the hearts of my family. And I suppose having grown up in conservative/fundamentalist Christianity there isn’t anything I haven’t heard before. There isn’t an “Aha” moment where someone will share something I haven’t already considered or heard. I will however allow comments on this post. Who knows, maybe there won’t be any. However, if someone just wants to argue, or is rude, or hurtful or if I deem their comment in any other way to be, well assholish….I will delete their comment. If you have genuine insight or thoughts or questions that reflect a heart for LGBTQ people, lets talk. Forgive me as I can’t remember where I saw it, but I recently read a quote that said something like this, “If your heart doesn’t break for LGBTQ people, then you have no right speaking on the matter.”
Third, shortly after posting things on this blog and my Facebook page that stated my conclusions I did have some who shared with me their concern for myself and my family. They assumed I had let culture determine what I believe, that I no longer value scripture, that the devil has lead me astray, that I’m listening to false teachers, and more. I know these people love and care about me. I know that their intentions are good. But I would also say this, for anyone who has known me closely, spent time with me, discussed faith and scripture with me, heard me share thoughts while leading worship or teaching in church and you now think I’ve suddenly lost my mind…..well, I actually think it says more about what you’ve always thought of me than any new revelation you’ve come to. And frankly, I’m OK with whatever conclusions they may make of me.
The Convinced
For anyone who has felt that separation or tension between their heart for LGBTQ people and that voice in the back of their head that says, “but the Bible”, for those who just couldn’t face that tension anymore and concluded that they just didn’t care what the Bible said on this topic anymore, I hope that this has been helpful in giving you complete freedom to love and affirm and welcome our LGBTQ friends and family in our faith communities and lives as well as believing that scripture doesn’t disagree with your heart. In fact, it affirms it. I hope that the Spirit has whispered in your ear, “You are free.” I don’t think our LGBTQ friends and family need a timid, half-hearted love from us. They need us to dive into life with them. Invite them fully into our own lives and faith communities.
The Bible is powerful. And that power can be used to wound and hurt and exclude. And it has done so quite successfully. Don’t let those who would use it that way steal God’s story, His GOOD NEWS. It’s ours as well. That “power” can then be used to heal and bring hope and bring invitation and welcome and give affirmation. It is meant to point us to Jesus, the lover of the broken down and left out. Yes, it is an ancient story written to people in different times and cultures that ours, but the mystery of it is that it’s also a story FOR US. Claim that story. Read that story. Don’t be afraid to study that story or find others that will study it with you. I truly believe you won’t be let down.
The Unconvinced
For those who remain unconvinced, I have a question. Is it at least POSSIBLE that someone who wants to remain faithful to scripture, digs into the text and it’s context, and as a faithful follower of Jesus and God’s call in their life could disagree with the “traditional” understanding of this issue? Is it at least possible that a faithful look at the texts we’ve covered could result in a different interpretation? If so, we have arrived at what Paul calls a “disputable matter.” For Paul and his time these disputable matters were things like eating certain foods (offered to idols, with blood, etc) or whether they were to observe Sabbath. To us these seem like merely secondary issues. I’d argue these were SIGNIFICANT issues to Paul’s readers. Anything associated with idolatry was a big issue. And Sabbath had been one of the primary ways in which they demonstrated God’s presence in their lives and community. It was one of the Big 10! These issues along with others were tearing the early church apart. So saying something is a disputable matter doesn’t mean it is an issue that doesn’t matter or that the Scripture isn’t clear on it (their scriptures were clear on both). I’ve often wondered why Paul didn’t just clear things up and tell the Roman church and other churches what to do? Why not just spell it out for them? This is OK. This is not. He was “inspired” right? He could have come up with the right answer. There has to be ONE right answer! There has to be ONE truth! But he didn’t. The right answer in this situation wouldn’t help the church, then and today, deal with any other issue that at one time seemed to be agreed upon and now there was uncertainty. They needed wisdom, not answers. We need wisdom today as well.
At the same time Disputable Matters wouldn’t be things that form the center of our faith. The things that Paul says are of “first importance.” And claiming something as a disputable matter doesn’t mean we give up the right to claim some things as sin. As I mentioned in the last post, many of the ways in which homosexuality was practiced in Paul’s day we would ALL agree today is still sin. When we see an issue as a “disputable matter” we agree to grant freedom to those living faithfully to Jesus. We trust the Spirit to guide them. We do no harm to others. We do not exclude. This is a possible way forward for those in our Churches and LGBTQ communities who arrive at a place of uncertainty yet have hearts that are soft and loving toward one another.
We then focus on the things that we do ALL agree on. That a Christian Faith not lived out in Loving Others is no Christian Faith at all. At least not one worth preserving. We agree that the arc of the gospel story in the NT is towards inclusion. That it brings into community those who were once outside of community. We agree that when sin is to be the focus of our thoughts it is best to first focus on our own brokenness and seek to continue to be transformed into the likeness of Jesus. We agree that the world desperately needs to hear and see the story of a God who loves them and pursues them. These things and more we should be able to agree on.
The Opposed
For those who after reading still find themselves fully opposed to the position that the Church should fully embrace and affirm LGBTQ persons, I have several suggestions. These come from knowing exactly where you are coming from. This was my world. This is where many in my family reside. Your position is not a mystery to me. But I believe these things will at least create the possibility for you to build relational bridges with the LGBTQ community. I hope you at least want to show love to them.
First, don’t enter into conversation with the opposing view if you haven’t studied for yourself. What you have been told by others isn’t a good enough reason to believe it. When I spent a significant time studying the role of science and faith in particular as it relates to the Creation/Evolution debate I discovered that all of the “arguments” conservatives were prepared to make were made up debates. They had only “imagined” what those who accepted Evolutionary science believed. Therefore, their “arguments” were pointless because they were prepared for an imaginary adversary that didn’t actually exist. So, you need to study. You need to read. You need to read the opposing view. Don’t take your pastor’s, your church’s, your denomination’s word for it. If you aren’t willing to do the hard work of reading and studying, just keep your opinion to yourself. You are only building walls.
Second, don’t tell people you believe what you believe because YOU believe in the Bible. Because clearly anyone who would disagree with you must not value scripture? I have already stated that I believe many in the affirming community have dismissed taking the time to have a good scriptural argument for their position because they have actually taken this bait hook, line and sinker. However, there is no conversation to be had if you don’t agree that many on both sides believe what they believe exactly because they DO believe in and value scripture. At least give others the benefit of the doubt that scripture is important to them also. That in those pages and words we discover who God is and what Jesus has done and how we are to live.
Third, don’t ever use the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin”…the Bible never says it. Jesus never says it. Love others. Love sinners. Just love. I think that expression was created because we realize that much of what we do and how we act and how we talk definitely feels like hate to those on the receiving end. This in our minds excuses that behavior. “The hate you feel isn’t towards you, it is towards your sin.”
Fourth, stop talking about the Gay Agenda as if their goal is to make everyone gay. Their agenda is to live. Their agenda is to be a part of families. To be a part of Churches. To have cake at their wedding. To buy a home. To go to the Doctor. To adopt a child. To not be afraid. THAT is their agenda.
And fifth, get to know and befriend a LGBTQ person. I realize it may be hard. You may not currently know anyone or at least don’t THINK you do. Listen to them. Eat with them. Hug them. I GUARANTEE you Jesus would.
The Church
To the Church as a whole, we have been wrong. Some have hopefully arrived at an affirming position. We can admit that we were wrong. We have excluded those who God would accept and welcome with open arms. Others won’t arrive there, but I hope they can admit the Church has been wrong in the treatment of our LGBTQ friends, family and neighbors. That we would weep for the pain we have caused. That our insides, our guts, would tremble when we consider what our LGBTQ brothers and sisters have endured at our hands. We all need to repent and ask for forgiveness. Recently while reading and studying Matthew with my small group I found it interesting that Jesus seems to hold Israel of his day responsible for the deeds of their ancestors. I think the idea is that our past is a part of our present. The actions of our larger community are a part of my story and my community. We are responsible for one another. We bear a burden to right the wrongs of each other as a community.
Our posture has been US vs THEM. We often assume LGBTQ persons are not in our families or churches. We assume that “Gay Christians” don’t exist. Recently the Marin Foundation conducted the largest study and survey of LGBTQ persons ever about their religious experiences. What it found was amazing and surprising, but probably shouldn’t be if we are honest with ourselves. 86% of the LGBTQ community were raised in a faith tradition. Most of course being in a Christian Church. This is actually higher than the general population! And “raised in” doesn’t mean occasional attendance. It means weekly engagement and participation in their faith community. You understand what this means right?
THEY ARE US! The battle has been US vs. US! We have been hurting, wounding ourselves! Our daughters. Our sons. Our friends. And you may not even know it!
Most, 54%, of the LGBTQ community left their churches as adults (after 18 years old). And most, way more than the general population wished they could come back. 76% of those who left said they were open to coming back. And the heartbreak continues. The number one reason they left isn’t even what the Church “believes” about homosexuality. It is because of their experiences and the treatment they received! And even after leaving the church, over a 1/3 continue to practice their faith. Either in private or different types of faith communities. And many of those actually take their faith more seriously than those still in the church! Can you imagine what would happen to our churches if these faith filled, loving people were welcomed back? Can you imagine how each of us would experience love in ways we never have before? Please Church! Change course! Repent! Love!
The LGBTQ Community:
Let me start: “I am so sorry! I have been wrong! We have been wrong! Let us carry your pain. Let us share in your wounds. Tell us your stories. Sit with us. Worship with us. Please forgive me! Please forgive us! If you need time, we will give you time. If you don’t trust us, please let us earn it back again. I love you!”
I am convinced that God loves you so much! More than I can imagine! More than you can imagine! I am convinced that your gifts, your abilities, your “unique you” is so important to our faith communities. We are not the same without you! I won’t try to convince you that you need us. That you need me. But I know we need you!
To my daughter Pearl: you are loved! Don’t let anyone ever make you feel you are not. They lie! God loves you! We love you! No matter who you are, what you become, who you love. If there are ever those who would hurt you whether they be family or friends or strangers, we are with you. We have your back. We will stand in front. We will walk by your side. Always!
Final, final thoughts:
I know I have shared a lot, but I will end where I started. I believe that the Church, followers of Jesus, can and should fully affirm and welcome our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters into the Church! I know MANY are not there yet, but times are changing. And changing quickly! I believe the future of the LGBTQ community is bright. I believe that for Churches and followers of Jesus who can bust down the walls we’ve piled up and begin to build bridges, our future is bright as well. In the end I truly believe “Love Wins!”
I hope I have helped. I hope I have moved us forward. Thanks for reading.
In my previous post, (links to all previous posts in this series are at the bottom) I looked at the passages in the OT that deal explicitly with same-sex sexual activity. In this post I want to look at the 3 NT references. All 3 texts come from Paul so people are correct to point out that Jesus never addresses it. Some would say that in speaking to “sexual immorality” in general he would have meant to include this aspect of Jewish sexual ethics but the point remains, there are several things that Jesus took the time to address in detail, and the writers of the gospel took the time to include, but homosexuality is not one of them. But Jesus NOT saying anything is not alone enough to draw any conclusions from. We must deal with what IS said by Paul.
After reading about the OT passages it may not be a surprise that historical context will once again be one of the most important things to consider. This includes the culture during that time and the actual Greek words used in those texts. The main question is this, did Paul have in mind then what we have in mind today when we consider homosexuality? Namely, an unchanging orientation of sexual attraction towards the same sex, lived out in a committed, monogamous relationship. If this isn’t what Paul had in mind or was addressing, then these text may not apply to our specific questions/context today.
“The plain reading of the text.” I can’t tell you how often I have heard that phrase. I liken it to when you get that amazing, brand new, super popular toy for your child at Christmas. You know the ones. They come in a box….un-assembled. And so you decide it would be super disappointing for your child to open it Christmas morning and not be able to immediately play with it. You open the box, dump all the parts and look for the “simple” instructions. It says you just need a Phillips screwdriver and batteries and you will be good to go. BUT NO! THEY HAVE LIED! “Just following the directions” doesn’t work as it should. Missing parts and extra parts. And the images in the “step by step” directions don’t line up with what dumped out of the box. I think this picture helps us understand what it is like to REALLY look at scripture and this scripture in particular. Pieces missing. Extra parts. And the pictures don’t line up with what we are actually looking at.
The two passages above, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, can give us a sense that it will be a piece of cake to figure out. All we need is a simple Phillips screwdriver to put this thing together. It says it right there plainly (if you happen to grab a NASB or ESV or NLT Bible), “homosexuality” is wrong. That word certainly clears it up doesn’t it? So I want to talk about two things regarding this passage. First, why this word, homosexuality, has no place in these passages. Second, what words are actually there and what they could mean.
The word “homosexual” first appeared roughly 150 years ago. It is, generally speaking, a new word. It is new because our overarching understanding of same sex attraction is new and continues to grow. And it first appeared in a Bible in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of 1946. Of course several other translations in time followed suit. What is interesting is that if you look at a current RSV translation, they no longer use the word “homosexual” in these passages. In 1971 the RSV Bible dropped the use of this word. You can read some very interesting background to that decision in this blog. In short, they admitted it was a mistake.
So the big question regarding this word is what does it mean to us today and did Paul, or Paul’s world have a similar understanding of same sex activity in their context? I have shared in another post that most today, including many staunch traditionalists, admit that homosexuality can not simply be deduced to a choice. Today we have come to understand that sexual orientation is an “enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.” This orientation typically begins around the time of adolescence. For homosexuality or bi-sexuality this of course means that attraction is found in the same sex. For those in the Transgender community, they realize their gender identity at even earlier ages. Often as early as they can remember. Now, despite this broad understanding today, it is only recently a broadly understood reality in our own context. It was only in 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association removed Homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. And despite all the study and research and real life observation of our own LGBTQ children and friends and neighbors, there are many today among conservative/fundamentalist churches that do not liken homosexuality to their own (unchanging) heterosexual orientation but describe it as something simply chosen. So what does it mean to us today? To use an expression that is perhaps a cliche, LGBTQ persons are “born that way.”
Before we answer the question about whether Paul or those in his historic context would have had this same idea in mind, I want to look at the words in these passages, what they may mean, and what nearly EVERYONE agrees would have been the primary context of same sex activity in Paul’s world. So first, the words. Both of these passages are a list of behaviors or sins, what some call a Vice List, that are contrary to Kingdom living. They are signs of a people who have turned from God. Paul even states that these sorts of people will not “inherit the Kingdom of God” which is NT language for salvation. Hence some argue there is no such thing as a “gay christian”… both can not be true. The two words in these list that current translations consider to be addressing same sex activity are Malakoi (1 Cor.) and Arsenkoitai (1 Cor. & 1 Tim.). Ken Wilson points out that something being in a list doesn’t tell us what those things are. Lists don’t explain things, they just, well, list them. We must rely on other sources to describe those things. So is there another place in scripture that describes these words? Gives more detail? For instance, we can look to several other passages to better understand what is and isn’t adultery in 1 Corinthians 6.
First, lets look at Malakoi. It is a word that literally means “soft.” It did take on other connotations as well. It could be meant to describe someone who isn’t manly or takes a women’s role. It was sometimes used to describe a man who couldn’t resist a woman’s charms because they lacked self control, which was considered an attribute of a woman. It could also describe a man who “doted” on a woman…clearly not a man’s role. It was also used to describe a man who allowed himself to be penetrated sexually. Jesus used the term in Matthew 11:8 in which he asked if people went out to see John the Baptist because he was “dressed in fine clothes” (Malekoi) like those in the palaces. There has simply never been a consensus on how to translate this word or the next word we will look at for that matter. In the 1 Corinthian passage, it has been translated as weaklings, wantons, sensual, effeminate, and male prostitutes. Gordon Fee (certainly not a progressive) in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, when looking at the historical context said that he believes it is best translated as an effeminate call boy which takes us again to the practice of Pederasty. Fee admits, with this word being used so little and other words which would more directly describe same sex behavior, that this is a “best guess.” This word could then be pointing to young, male prostitutes. It was common in that world to assume anyone, male or female, that dressed up “fancy” was in the business of selling sex. Can we ALL agree there is a difference between a young, male prostitute and a married gay couple of 10 years with a child? I sure hope so.
The second word is Arsenkoitai. If you are hoping for an easier word to translate and interpret, I am sorry to disappoint. Paul’s use here is the first known use of the word in Greek. Some assume he got it from the Greek translation of the Leviticus passage we looked at in the previous post which has the words “arsen” and “kioten” next to each other. Those two words basically mean “male bed.” It has been translated as sodomite, homosexual, practicing homosexual, abusers of themselves with mankind and more. Again, Gordon Fee believes that this most likely addresses male on male sex of some kind but we can’t be positive. It could be some sort of male sex in general or some sort of male on male sex. The word itself doesn’t tell us that. Justin Lee points out the difficulty of translating this word when he compared how his NIV translation used two different English words for the two different verses above. In 1 Cor. it said “homosexual offenders” and then in 1 Tim. it said “perverts.” These are very different ideas. Can you imagine today talking to a teen boy who is feeling attraction to other boys and telling him, “be careful, you might be a pervert”? I sure hope not. As I said, this is the first known use of this word in preserved literature. However it does pop up in just a few other writings after Paul’s use. In those uses it most often has to do with some form of “economic exploitation” and sometimes not related to sexual activity at all. In those other ancient documents the words appears in “vice lists” of economic sins even though the documents include another section of sexual sins. This could make sense when we see where this word is positioned in our own text. The lists go from sexually immoral, adulters followed by our word and then to things like kidnappers, thieves and the greedy. It is also interesting to note that in 2011 the NIV removed its translation of “male prostitutes” for malekoi and translated the two words together as “men who have sex with men.” This then removed that sense of economic or sexual exploitation in the passages context.
So if the words themselves can’t tell us exactly what they mean we then look to Paul’s context and the context of the Roman world to better understand what he could be addressing. To put it bluntly, we would have difficulty even imaging the sexual world of Paul’s day. Perhaps you have heard of Pompei and the imagery that is displayed throughout the city. Scot McKnight in his book a Fellowship of Differents says that “the sexual activity across the Roman Empire, of which Pompeii was a typical example, was a total lack of sexual inhibition. Converts to Christ came from this circle of people.” You could say that sex lacked nearly any moral quality to it. There were no purity rings in the Roman Empire. McKnight again shares that sexuality for Romans was broken down into “pro-creational sex” (with their wives) and “recreation sex” (sex with young boys, prostitutes and slaves). And almost everyone participated. McKnight shares that “at the center of sexual relations among Romans and Greeks was dominance, for in penetrating another, one exercised dominance and status over the other person.” Ken Wilson in his book, A Letter To My Congregation shares that the most common context for same sex activity were orgies (lust/inhibition), temple prostitutes (sex was completely intertwined with pagan rituals), Pederastry (sex w/ boys) and slave sex (think domination again.) It is agreed among ALL scholars and historians that these were the MOST COMMON practices of same sex activity in Paul’s day. But as Ken Wilson shares, “and yet, these pervasive and grotesque practices – this whole scene- is merely a historical footnote that has little impact on our imagination as we read Paul’s words today.”
So was Paul ignoring what we can all agree was disgusting, exploitative, harmful, idolatry in order to address the kind of monogamous relationships we are talking about today? Some would argue Paul makes no effort to exempt some same sex activity so his intent must have been to include it all. But why would Paul exempt something that was not a part of their culture’s general understanding if not certainly, general practice? The question remains, did Paul and his world have a generally accepted understanding of “homosexuality” as an orientation in the way that we do today and is that what Paul had in mind in these passages? After reading both perspectives it is my opinion that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that this would have been what Paul had in view. There are some like Scot McKnight, NT Wright and Preston Sprinkle that point to contemporaneous (some not so contemporaneous) examples of monogamous, same sex relationships in Paul’s time. But these examples are so rare in relation to the practices detailed above. And even then, they very often still have some sort of assaultive/exploitative nature to them. For example, NT Wright points to the marriage of Nero and Sporus. But as Ken Wilson shares, Sporus would have been a boy when Nero first started a relationship with him and Nero had him castrated, dressed him like a woman and called him his wife. Many examples are relationships that started as a part of Pederastic practice and then when the boy grew into the adulthood they continued in a sexual relationship. Again, this should only be considered exploitative. One could argue that most of the examples given of same sex “relationships” during that time could have a #metoo attached to them.
When we consider these two NT passages, the words that are used, how unique and difficult to translate they are, and the historical context of that day, it is absolutely plausible, if not most likely, that these passages are referring to some sort of exploitative, perhaps specifically economically exploitative acts and are not meant to address the questions around homosexuality today. You could say that what he condemns is actually those who are heterosexual having homosexual sex as an outflow of what we would all consider sinful sexuality in the forms that it took.
Romans 1:26-27 – Shameful Lusts & What is Natural & Given Over
The last passage that directly mentions same sex activity is found in the first chapter of Romans which is again written by Paul. I believe for many Christians who struggle reconciling their heart for LGBTQ people with what they believe the Bible says, this passage may be the most difficult to get past. I hope to show that once again, when we understand the context and then take a closer look at the text, we will once again be freed to completely love, accept and affirm our LGBTQ family, friends and neighbors in our churches without feeling like we have set aside scripture in order to do so.
First, here is a brief introduction to the themes and context of Romans. I believe this is helpful to understanding what Paul is doing in chapter 1. Paul has yet to have been able to visit Rome despite wanting to. However, despite him not making it to Rome, the church in Rome is growing. Others have gone to Rome and shared the Good News of Jesus. Rome was the center of that world and of the Empire with roughly 1 million people living in a 10 square mile area. At the time of Paul’s writing, the church in Rome was made up of a very diverse community which reflected the diversity of Rome itself. However for a time Rome had expelled all of the Jews from their city. During that time the Church continued to grow and was made up of Gentiles who had begun to follow Jesus. Remember what Scot McKnight said above, the Roman world had no inhibitions when it came to sexuality. Perhaps we could say no inhibitions when it came to any number of “moral” issues. All of the Gentiles in this new, Roman church came from that context and lifestyle. After roughly 5 years, Jews were allowed back into Rome and now Jewish believers who come from a completely different “moral system” are once again gathering with these new Gentile believers. It would be fair to say there was a culture clash as Jews wrestled with what was acceptable. They felt the need to “clean up” these Gentiles. Paul in chapter 2 deals with this desire and talks about the fact that they consider themselves “teachers, guides, instructors” and yet don’t follow their own teaching. Paul talks about the fact that the Gospel is for everyone, Jew and Gentiles (1:16, 11:17-18, 11:32, 12:5). Yes, Romans is a deeply theological book where Paul lays out a deep, detailed account of the gospel BUT we must remember he is writing to a specific people at a specific time with specific obstacles which he was no doubt aware of.
This takes us back to Chapter 1. I will talk more in detail about this passage in a moment but I want to start with how it sits in Paul’s argument generally. Paul in typical form first introduces himself and then shares his desire to visit them. Then in an abrupt shift, he launches into a section which starts in vs 18 and continues to the end of the chapter. This section functions as another sort of “vice list” as he describes the very “worst of the worst”sorts of people. McKnight likens it to a description of “notorious sinners.” As Paul shares about these people and their “wickedness, foolishness, sinfulness, shame, depravity, evil, arrogance” and more, the Jewish believers would have been giving a loud “you preach it” in their hearts if not their mouths. (Of course the Gentile believers would be thinking about their families and neighbors. Paul is describing the world they and their families live in.) As the Jews consider the messiness of the churches they are now entering back into, they are so excited to hear Paul come and straighten them all out. People are always anxious to have people tell them what they want to hear. It can even win elections right? Colby Martin, in his book Unclobber, points out that Paul has “sprung the trap” for his listeners and is about to completely “level the playing field” for this church of Jews and Gentiles. In Romans 2:1 we get the “ohhhh, snap” moment: ” Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.” Who is the “you”? This trap only works if it is directed to the people who think themselves special and holy. In 2:17 he names the “you” as those who call themselves “Jews.” Granted, he also criticizes Gentiles for assuming themselves special because they accepted Christ when so many Jews did not. But here, he has lured Jews in and pointed out the error of their ways…..they too are sinners. The mountains have been demolished and the valleys filled. They (those in the Roman church) are all alike. That passage in chapter 1 functions as a condemnation for those who consider themselves Holy. I wonder if we read it this way in our churches? Do we read it and go, “oh yeah, tell those awful sinners a thing or two.” Or does it humble US?
Now let’s look more closely at what this passage actually says. In verses 18-23 Paul sets the context for who he is talking about. Paul describes a people who, though having God’s goodness and presence “evident” to them, have turned from God and “exchanged” their worship of Him for that of men, animals or other “created things.” We would call this idolatry and paganism. There was of course Emperor worship as well as a whole list of god’s whom they appealed to and worshiped. One could even argue that unhindered sexuality itself was an idol. Their worship would include the same-sex activity that we have already described earlier in the post. So this passage describes the end result of a people who have completely turned from God. Verse 1 says that because of their turning, “God’s wrath is being revealed” against them. Wrath is a tough word. In fact this passage may be where so many end up claiming that natural disasters or even HIV/Aids is God’s “punishment” against homosexuality in our current world. The whole practice is so awful that God would take the lives of countless people, create orphans by the 1000s just to show his displeasure. I believe that God’s “wrath” has been misunderstood by us today. For some great reading on wrath, I’d recommend the book A More Christlike God by Brad Jersak. You can read some of his thoughts in a post HERE. But for now I think Paul explains what he means by wrath in the verses that follow. God has “handed” or “gave them over.” That phrase, “gave them over”, appears 3 times in this passage and implies that God has left these people to their own devices and consequences that may come. It is their sin, not God, that brings their consequences. So, when humanity has completely turned from God, worshiped created things instead of the Creator, God released them to their own choices and sin.
In verses 26-27 Paul brings up same sex activity. In all of the previous passages we have looked at, we were making “best guesses” about the context of the behavior. We looked at the MOST COMMON and pervasive practices of same sex activity in Paul’s time and then, based on the greek words used, believed it was most likely he was addressing behaviors such as orgies, temple prostitutes, pederastry and slave sex. But here we KNOW the context is a people consumed in idolatry and paganism. Paul says that “because of this” (their complete turning from God), the end result is a people who been “given over” or released to their own “shameful lusts” as it says in verse 26. Lust is an appropriate words for what Paul is talking about. Verse 27 describes them as a people “inflamed with lust.” I like how The Message translates it, “all lust, no love.” This again describes a complete lack of inhibition and intrinsic amorality to sex that existed in the Roman world. Have sex, have as much as you can, and have it with anyone you can. No rules. Sex was then completely wrapped up in their pagan practices and that included both heterosexual activity and same-sex activity. So my question is this: when you consider the teen sitting next to you in church, considering suicide, praying every night that God would “take the gay away”, would you describe him as someone who has become “inflamed with lust” because he has “completely turned from God”? If not, why do we think these passages are talking about him? Do we think that language can describe a married lesbian couple raising their child who have become a part of their local church? Or the Gay man who has just completed seminary in the hopes to serve God in the Church?
The other image used in this text is that of “exchanging natural for un-natural.” This seems to be, if I am reading Scot McKnight correctly, where he sees the strongest difficulty in totally affirming Homosexual relationships in our time. As he sees it, God has a created order and whether we like it or not, that is what God intended and intends. Of course McKnight also admits that Paul uses the “natural” order of things for women having their heads covered and not teaching church gatherings. Both of these McKnight believes no longer apply because they were addressing a particular culture at a particular time. So as I have said in a previous post, “we all pick and choose” what passages endure and which don’t. I would like to suggest that Paul is making a fairly simple point and one I made above. Paul is saying that heterosexual people are engaging in homosexual sex. So in that sense, it was certainly un-natural for them. I also think I must again state that I don’t believe it is likely that Paul had in mind what we consider homosexuality today when he was addressing his context. So the idea that someone could “naturally” be attracted to the same sex was not his concern. Some scholars also argue that the “natural” understanding relates to the pro-creative aspect of sex which would be the natural goal of sex. Hence, male on male sex (which to this point has been the only behavior pointed out in scripture) can’t produce children and is thus “un-natural.” This is also the first time women are mentioned in the context of same-sex activity. But again, not all scholars believe we can be certain that Paul was addressing lesbianism. He could have also been dealing with women having anal sex which again, would not produce children. So the claims of “natural” being the end all of the argument doesn’t have nearly the weight you might assume.
I want to offer one final point of historical context that is interesting. Some have pointed to Caligula (Gaius Caesar) as a perfect example of what Paul is describing and maybe even the specific inspiration to Paul’s words here in Romans 1. Caligula was the Roman Emperor prior to Claudius who was responsible for kicking the Jews out of Rome. Caligula’s reign ended some 15 years before Paul writes Romans. Those in Rome at that time would have easily recalled Caligula and his behavior. Here is a quote from another Blog Post describing Caligula as it relates to Romans 1:
Neil Elliott has called attention to the striking similarities between Paul’s language and the incredible greed, violence, and sexual excesses of Gaius Caligula, an emperor who reigned in a period not too long before Paul wrote Romans. First of all, Gaius is closely linked to the practice of idolatry. The Roman writer Suetonius reports how Gaius “set up a special temple to his own godhead, with priests and with victims of the choicest kind.” Another Roman writer, Dio Cassius, comments negatively on how Gaius was the only emperor to claim to be divine and to be the recipient of worship during his own lifetime. Gaius also tried at one point to erect a statue of himself in the Temple in Jerusalem; he was dissuaded only by a delegation from Herod Agrippa. Hence the link between Gaius and idolatry would have been well-known indeed, particularly in Jewish circles. But Gaius also serves as “Exhibit A” for out-of-control lust. Suetonius reports how Gaius “lived in perpetual incest with all his sisters, and at a large banquet he placed each of them in turn below him, while his wife reclined above.” He records gruesome examples of Gaius’s arbitrary violence, vindictiveness, and cruelty. Later, Suetonius chronicles Gaius’s sexual liaisons with the wives of dinner guests, raping them in an adjoining room and then returning to the banquet to comment on their performance. Various same-sex sexual encounters between Gaius and other men are similarly recounted. Finally, a military officer whom he had sexually humiliated joined a conspiracy to murder him, which they did less than four years into his reign. Suetonius records that Gaius was stabbed through the genitals when he was murdered. One wonders whether we can hear an echo of this gruesome story in Paul’s comments in Romans 1: 27: “Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own person the due penalty for their error.” Gaius Caligula graphically illustrates the reality of which Paul speaks in Romans 1: the movement from idolatry to insatiable lust to every form of depravity, and the violent murderous reprisal that such behavior engenders.
I have to conclude that the behaviors and context Paul is dealing with and the words that Paul uses to describe not only the behaviors but the PEOPLE fit much better when looking at the behavior above than to committed gay relationships today. Simply put, you can’t say the command of Paul to abstain from same-sex activity applies, yet the other descriptions don’t apply. I can’t imagine telling that teen boy that he is feeling those things because he has “turned from God.” And I can’t imagine that God would “give that teen boy over” to depravity. I believe God is right there with him. Sitting with him in his room at night. Hoping he realizes how much he is loved. And if the only reason he doubts it is because of what the church is saying to him….shame on us! Now that is a “shameful” act.
Conclusion to NT Passages
I will have one more post where I share my Final Thoughts but for now I want to conclude my thoughts regarding the Bible and questions of accepting and affirming LGBTQ persons. I have to admit, when I first set out to study in detail what the Bible actually had to say about same-sex activity or homosexuality, I wasn’t sure where I would end up. I was nervous. As I said earlier, my head and heart were in some ways at odds. I just felt like “something was wrong” with the Church’s position and posture toward LGBTQ people. But I was committed to digging in and seeing what I would find. And I have to say, when I am committed to letting the Bible function as it wants to, as it is, I have never been disappointed. And I wasn’t here again. I feel confident that scripture, in both the OT and NT, are addressing completely different contexts than ours today. Yes, gang rape is bad. Yes, men having sex with boys is bad. Idolatry and paganism in the form of forced temple prostitution is bad. Uninhibited sex with anyone and everyone is bad. But that teen boy I keep talking about or teen girl who for the first time is feeling attraction to the same sex….no, I don’t believe these passages are talking about them. That male couple who just got married? No, the Bible isn’t talking about them. That lesbian couple with a child? No, the Bible isn’t talking about them. Well actually, the Bible does talk about them. If you are a LGBTQ person, please hear me. You are fearfully and wonderfully made. You are a masterpiece. You bear the very image of your creator. In you, we see His face. You have a purpose. God loves you as His own dear child. If you have been hurt by Christians and have been unsure about God, He has never turned his back on you but steps with you everywhere you go waiting for you to turn to Him. You are loved. You are loved. You are loved!
And Church, we can love them too! Just as they are. They can worship with us. And lead us in worship. Learn with us and teach us. They can celebrate our families and become families of their own. They can have a fully affirmed role in our Church. And I believe we will be surprised that many of the lessons the church so desperately needs to learn right now will be taught to us by these people. A people who have been wounded and hurt. Pushed aside and shamed. And when they walk through those church doors into our communities…they are heroes. Willing to risk so much to experience the love of God and to love others. My God, we need them!
Resources:
Let me say that almost everything I have shared in these posts comes from other people. Sure, I am attempting to put some of my own words to those ideas but those thoughts were initiated by others. Here are several great resources that deal specifically with LGBTQ questions if you want to do your own digging. I have read most of these, but I include some that I have not been able to read yet but come highly recommended by others.
God and the Gay Christian?: A Response to Matthew Vines – (This is a critique of Vines book. I honestly found it as persuasive as Vines’ book that we can affirm LGBTQ people. The author share that if you can accept woman pastors or that creation and evolution can go together then you already view the Bible the way in which we can affirm LGBTQ people.)
pilgrim musings 