"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the
weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you
ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a
gnat but swallow a camel!”
Matthew 23:23-24
We need to be absolutely clear that
in the Christian Church’s war on LGBTQ persons, our LGBTQ siblings have borne
the overwhelming weight of the suffering. The Traditionalists often claim that
they have had no desire to hurt anyone, but that does not mitigate the pain
they have inflicted.
But there has also been collateral
damage.
And the collateral damage should not
be underestimated. It is wide and deep and it will have lasting effects on the
whole church.
We have trivialized our
understanding of the Bible.
We are straining out gnats and
swallowing camels.
There are seven passages in the
Bible that are typically used to “prove” that the Bible condemns same sex
relationships. They consist of a few hundred words; a small fraction of the
total word count of nearly a million.
And these seven “clobber verses” are
all problematic in one way or another. When Christians act as if an
authoritative biblical witness can be found by lifting these seven passages out
of context we trivialize the whole Bible.
Those who read the Bible this way become
de facto literalists and they make it much more difficult to appreciate the
Bible as a guide to faith. It becomes a rule book rather than an inspiring
narrative. Instead of being a book of big ideas, it becomes a book of isolated
verses.
And those who have tried to counter the
condemnations of the traditionalists have typically joined the debate on those
same terms. We counter one series of passages with another. We cite verses. And
even though we may be using those verses as illustrations rather than as proof
texts, to the secular world it looks like proof-texting.
It is more like a game of biblical
trivia than an honest exploration of the biblical witness. And the result is
that we diminish the meaning of the Scriptures.
We appear to care more about archaic
and anachronistic rules than we do about actual human beings. The
traditionalists may claim to be honoring Scripture. And that may be their
honest intention. But in practical terms, they achieve a high view of Scripture
by making a few verses more important than the people for whom the whole
biblical witness is intended.
We have trivialized the meaning of
sin.
Paul Tillich, one of the greatest
theologians of the twentieth (or any other) century, questioned whether the Christian concept of sin
could survive in the modern world. He argued that for modern people a more
helpful word for sin is separation. In his famous
sermon, “You Are Accepted,” he described sin as a state of separation:
separation from God, from others, and from ourselves. And he defined grace as
the acceptance which overcomes that separation and reunites us with God, with
others, and with ourselves.
If sin was a difficult concept in
the middle of the twentieth century, it is nearly impossible now.
The traditionalist focus on the
“sin” of same sex relationships is spectacularly unhelpful.
In the 21st century we do
not see sex as inherently sinful. Forced sex is sinful. Unfaithfulness we can
see as sinful. But sex between consenting and committed adults is not seen as
sinful. Almost every couple I have married has been living together. And those
that weren’t living together were typically splitting time between houses or
apartments.
Focusing on the sin of same sex
relationships comes off as hypocritical.
But that is not the biggest problem.
When we try to identify sin with
same sex relationships we lose focus on the sins that are central to the
biblical witness: economic and social injustice. The Bible is far more
concerned with how we treat poor people than with our sex lives.
The focus on sex is petty and
hypocritical and it takes away from issues that really should concern us as
Christians.
We have made it look like we do not
believe in science.
The American Psychiatric Association
removed homosexuality as a mental illness from its Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) approximately twenty minutes after the United
Methodist Church declared it to be “incompatible with Christian teaching.”
Those of us who actually believed in
the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Scripture, Reason, Tradition, and Experience)
assumed it would not be long before the Book of Discipline caught up with the
science and revised our understanding of same sex relationships. But we
underestimated the growing influence of right wing theology and selective
biblical literalism.
We are at odds with the best
insights of science and medicine.
We appear backward, primitive, and
superstitious.
And United Methodists find
themselves lumped together with those who think the world was made in seven
days five thousand years ago, and evolution is a hoax. Not surprisingly, this
costs us credibility. But it goes far beyond sex and biology. The bad science
undermines the biblical witness across a broad spectrum of ethical and moral
issues.
It makes us appear irrelevant.
And then. Finally. We just look
stupid.
Traditionalists can talk about being
counter-cultural, and that could be a good thing. We should be counter-cultural
in our rejection of violence, and greed, and selfishness.
At its core, Christianity is
profoundly counter-cultural.
But this. Is just. Stupid.
As a wise person once observed,
“Just because you are a fool does not mean you are a fool for Christ. Sometimes
you’re just a damned fool.”
Those of us who are still affirming
a faith that is open and accepting might hope that we would not be affected by
the loud condemnations of the traditionalists. But it just doesn’t work that
way.
Those who condemn our LGBTQ siblings
do not speak for the whole church. They certainly do not speak for the whole of
the United Methodist Church.
They do not speak for the Episcopal
Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, The Presbyterian Church USA, the
United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalists, and others.
And in a broader faith context they
do not speak for Conservative, Reform, or Reconstructionist Judaism.
But to much of the secular world,
and among many casual Christians, those voices of condemnation sound like the
official voice of Christianity. And, in a general sense, condemnation seems
like the singular voice of organized religion.
In the war on our LGBTQ siblings,
Christianity is just collateral damage.
*It is important to read the 23rd
chapter of Matthew within the context of our understanding that Jesus was himself a Pharisee and that what he describes is an internal conflict.
Thank you for reading. Your thoughts and comments are always
welcome. Please feel free to share on social media as you wish.
Whew. Christians who hold the traditional sexual ethic regarding same gender practices are bigots, haters, sexually neurotic, ignorant, homophobic, and (one presumes) name callers? In a season of political divisive invective, how is any cause assisted by burning bridges rather than seeking the harder task of building them? I trust this kind of Trump-esque attitude, so tragically reflected on left and right, will yield to more gracious spirits...
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment.
DeleteI'm pretty sure I didn't call Traditionalists any of those names. I did say that I think the condemnation of LGBTQ folks is stupid. And I will stand by that.
It's important to recognize that it is impossible for the pain that you and other traditionalists may feel at reading blogs like this to equal the pain traditionalists have inflicted on LGBTQ folks.
This is excellent thank you. I expect to use it as part of a new member orientation.
ReplyDeleteYes the graphic is right; much hypocracy. But is the solution to move away from what Scripture says about homosexuality, or is the solution to bring all the church in line, to remove the hypocracy. I think the latter. There is not so much a war on LGBT people, as a war on Scripture, and it's perpetuated by the church!
ReplyDeleteThe above post claims that we are a laughing stock and have trivilaized Scripture. But if we ignore what it says about LGBT things, surely we will be a bigger laughing stock for having trivilaized it even further! If the Progressive approach on this was really a winner, then Progressive congregations would be growing. But instead they are shrinking.
Who has taken the 7 verses out of context? Nobody I know of. What basis is there for the claim that they are unimportant? Some of them, eg 1 Cor 6, indicate they are very much important!
Thanks for capturing my thoughts with your well-crafted words, Bill. The millstone of past and continuing condemnations is like an anchor on the church. Letting go of those views, honestly reading and interpreting Scripture as "a book of big ideas," and making concerted efforts of repairing the separation (a la Tillich) has been liberating in my faith community. Some left when we began to live into a new expression of our faith, but those who remained, and those who've come since, are experiencing the grace of God in new and powerful ways.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading their Wikipedia page, the Conservative branch of Judaism seems to have the same disputes we have. As they are operating under a more congregationalist structure, they can ignore outlying issues and focus on core beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThe Pope doesn't speak for me. And neither do the Southern Baptists. I think I'm more of a moderate within our church, but maybe I'm not. However, even the Methodist members that are more conservative than myself seem way more liberal on this issue than the average Baptist. And that's way more liberal than Roy Moore or official Catholic doctrine. This posts wants all of us to be seen as the same, when we are not. Instead of equating all these views, we should be working to show the grace that the UMC has displayed over the last 50 years. Rev. Trent apparently hasn't seen any of that, but I have.
Posts like this aren't helpful for maintaining unity. Through connection, incremental change is possible. I firmly believe that myself and the members that have maintained their connection with the UMC as we have become a more liberal church and society have experienced the fruit of the spirit by doing so.
But maybe we need to learn the invaluable importance of connection by being separate for a while. "War" is not the answer, especially if you are going up against the Romans. Losing is never the best option. Loving your enemy is truly the dominant strategy for life. Not a lot of love in this post for traditionalists.
Thank you for reading and thank you for commenting.
DeleteI want to respond to one part of your comment. You write:
“This post wants all of us to be seen as the same, when we are not. Instead of equating all these views, we should be working to show the grace that the UMC has displayed over the last 50 years. Rev. Trent apparently hasn't seen any of that, but I have.”
I think you have misunderstood what I am saying. I do not want “all of us to be seen as the same” with regard to the condemnation of LGBTQ folks. And I pointed out that we are not all the same. Unfortunately, the secular world and much of casual Christianity thinks all of are condemning.
I am profoundly aware of the historic emphasis on grace that has always been part of our DNA as Methodists. Unfortunately (again) I do not think that our official positions in the Book of Discipline have been as grace filled as they ought to have been.
In a more general sense, my major point was a simple one: in their attacks on LGBTQ folks the Traditionalists have done great harm to the UMC and to Christianity as a whole.
The "us" was ambiguous and only referred to the groups in the same paragraph. Rewritten below.
DeleteThe Pope doesn't speak for me. And neither do the Southern Baptists. I think I'm more of a moderate within our church, but maybe I'm not. However, even the Methodist members that are more conservative than myself seem way more liberal on this issue than the average Baptist. And that's way more liberal than Roy Moore or official Catholic doctrine. This post treats these very different groups (ie Catholics, Baptist and conservative Methodists) as the same, when we are not. Instead of equating all these views, we should be working to show the grace that the UMC has displayed over the last 50 years. Rev. Trent apparently hasn't seen any of that, but I have.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"in their attacks on LGBTQ folks the Traditionalists have done great harm to the UMC and to Christianity as a whole."
DeleteIt seems to me that Traditionalists in the UMC's attacks amount to not affirming homosexual relationships. That's very similar to our position on pre-marital sex. We don't affirm, but no where do we specifically condemn pre-marital sex. That's Biblical, BTW, as the Bible doesn't condemn pre-marital sex either (under my interpretation). We condemn rape. We call out racism as a sin. But no where do we condemn pre-marital sex in the Book of Discipline. In the BOD, we state that gay couples should have equal right to all the benefits of marriage. We specifically implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends.
Considering the Christian history regarding the LGBTQ community, it’s hard for me to see your perspective. If history bends toward justice, we have been a community nudging it towards justice. We've done the hard work of trying to move people to loving more.
If there are conferences that don't want to go to market with the UMC brand name and legacy and don't feel it's conducive to retaining and bringing in new members, then I support us finding different brand names for each other. I'm proud of our legacy. I find it hard to see how its reasonable to change the policy, and not change the structure and branding.
If the ask is affirmation and celebration, then the argument needs to occasionally make positive statements that you believe that there isn't anything wrong with homosexual relationships, and in fact, they are just as good as heterosexual relationships. Because IMO that's what thinking, logical Methodists would need to affirm the relationships. All this criticizing of the positions that aren’t the consensus view within the Methodist Church seems unhelpful. The argument needs to focus on why we need to go from our current consensus opinion to the new opinion. Your posts does not do this.