But, for this week...as alluded to in last week's entry, the logical progression is from politics...to money...to sex, of course. This week's question will really put our electronic conversation to the test--whether we can have a healthy "virtual" conversation about the gospel and human sexuality.
So...the question for the week is,"Would Jesus hang out with gay people?" And if so, how might we imagine him being with people who are gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered?
I think that's a different question than, "should gay folks be allowed to be ordained?" or "Is homosexuality a sin?" The question really goes to the quality of relationship Jesus might have...were he living in this time, place, culture...with people who are of a different sexual orientation than the norm.
I guess I like putting the question that way because the whole theoretical business--all the highfalutin questions about biblical standards, theological integrity, how we interpret scripture, etc.--gets transformed when you are in relationship with someone who is experiencing the attendant issues first-hand--whether they are "liberal" or "conservative" on the issue. People's theoretical ideas tend to change when they are able to really be with and hear the very concrete experience of the other.
The lack of any kind of relational element in the conversation over human sexuality in the church seemed so evident for me when I was at General Assembly. Of course, sexuality was the "hot" issue (as it's been for the last 25 to 30 years). But what was remarkable to me was how divided that body (and our church) is - how neither camp really talks to each other. They just divide up into camps of folks who already agree with each other. It's a tragic thing to see, to my eyes.
Sure - let's weigh in on what the biblical witness, what the gospel has to say about the deep theological/theoretical issues. But, since a lot of the theologizing we do has to do with *how* Jesus was in relationship with the real human beings of his time - let's imagine how he might be with real people in our own time, and how we might imagine his attitude toward them.
And...can we break 8 responses this week???
Imagine away!
Jeff Vamos
Posts
11 comments:
I'm going to start by laying my cards on the table. I don't place myself in either camp on the issues facing the church. Luckily, as Jeff stated, this is a somewhat different question.
That being said, I believe the answer is a resounding "YES". As one explores the biblical witness, in Jesus we see one who always gravitated to the edges of society. Those of non-traditional sexuality have consistently been pushed to the edge, as was evidenced throughout the country on election day.
I truly believe that those Christ would gravitate to in our society are the ones most of us try not to see or think about. Additionally, Jesus also spent a great deal of time with the "Pharisees". Several scenes from his ministry put him at their house eating. He had to be around them a lot for the number of questions they posed to him.
When I think of "Pharisee" in the contemporary world, I think of James Dobson. He, just like the Pharisaic contemporaries of Jesus, is attempting to put ancient faith into contemporary practice. They both care very deeply about the right application of faith. There is definitely a spirited debate to be had about whether he does a good job, but I believe that overall, he is in the same boat. So what I'm saying is that Jesus would hang out with gay people and Jesus would hang out with James Dobson.
Those in the middle, like me, don't seem to get much love from the biblical Jesus. I guess I will have to think about that...
I believe Jesus would hang out with gay people. But not just because they are gay, but because they are a group of folks who's voices need to be heard. I would like to think He would lend his support and offer encouragement for us to keep the faith. We saw the barrier of race crumble this week with the election of our first black president. I think in time same-sex rights will be a given. It just takes time, patience and drive.
For me, this question translates to: Would Jesus hang out with people who breathe? YES. (and on occasion, Jesus hung out with people who'd stopped breathing - though he did tend to fix that) Jesus would hang out with just about anybody - the exception being those who reject His message.
Hetero- or homo-sexuality is not what's important to me.
Brian and Jeremiah are right in that gay people represent a subgroup of "human" who need a little help in our society - who are being derided and oppressed by others. Jesus did indeed hang out with the "least of these".
What I'd be careful about (and I wouldn't say myself) is the concept that Jesus would hang out with gay people because they are sinners in need of repentance. At one point in my faith journey I was involved in a group (a mistake that I corrected quickly) that felt that Christians should only be friends with Jews if they are trying to convert them. That was wrong, and I rail against those who would take a similar tack with gay people.
Jeff-
Interesting question, and thanks for the invitation to engage it! Especially *this* topic since you "outed" me two posts ago! :-)
To the first part of the question, "Would Jesus hang out with gay people?" The answer has to be an unequivocal "yes." The biblical narrative – the only way we really know Jesus – has him hanging out with sinners and outcasts at nearly every opportunity.
But what was so interesting about the way the question was framed was that you seem to want to frame "sin" out of the question ("I think that's a different question than… 'Is homosexuality a sin?' The question really goes to the quality of relationship Jesus might have...)
My sense – again, from the biblical record which is all we have upon which to surmise what Jesus might do – is that you can't really separate those that Jesus hangs out with from the fact that they are (we are), one and all, sinners. He said himself "For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners." (Matt. 9:13; Mk. 2:17). That *is* the foundational quality of all his relationships. I believe he would call – as Knabe189 said – on Pharisees, outcasts, disciples and the GLBT community of his day, to repent and believe the good news.
How might it go? Well – depending on how you feel/accept John 8(!), it might go something like this:
… Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a (lesbian) woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery (with a person who happened to be a woman). Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, sir." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."
Or you could use the woman at the well in John 4, where Jesus went specifically to hang out with her. There it might have gone like this:
Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come back." The woman answered him, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five women, and the one you have now is (obviously) not your husband. What you have said is true!" The woman said to him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet."
The testimony of scripture is that Jesus doesn't come just to hang out, but rather he hangs out or is incarnate for the purpose of saving sinners. And to the extent that GLBT folks are sinners who lust and are in adultery, well, they are in no way "non-traditional" in their sexuality but just like everyone else. I realize this is completely opposite from Mark's perspective:
"What I'd be careful about (and I wouldn't say myself) is the concept that Jesus would hang out with gay people because they are sinners in need of repentance."
To that I would again, say, "What reason does Jesus give us for why he became flesh?" And "what good would it do for us if Jesus simply hung out with all of us who are tempted toward adultery – whether it is same-sex or opposite sex – and left us in our sin?"
What interested me most in this post, Jeff, was that you seem to posit as a "given" something that, perhaps, should not be. You said that "all the highfalutin questions about biblical standards, theological integrity, how we interpret scripture, etc.--gets transformed when you are in relationship with someone who is experiencing the attendant issues first-hand --whether they are "liberal" or "conservative" on the issue. People's theoretical ideas tend to change when they are able to really be with and hear the very concrete experience of the other.
As a dynamic, I think this is absolutely true. This is human. It sure happens with me! But it is not a given that this is a "good" thing. In fact, this can be "fear of man" (Prov. 29:25). What I mean is, if the biblical standards and my theological integrity tell me that "drunkenness is a sin" (Lk 21:34; Ro. 13:13; Eph. 5:18; Gal. 5:21; 1 Pt 4:3), should my standards or theology be transformed once I am in relationship with someone who is experiencing the attendant issues first-hand? My love for them might increase. That's good! My desire to see them free of this might overflow. Even better! But I don't think I am loving them well if I allow my biblical standards and my theological integrity to change and say, "your alcoholism is no problem; let's hang out." In fact I would say that my biblical standards and theological integrity should *not* be transformed.
Thanks for the challenging post, Jeff!
Thanks for the posts, Jeremiah, Brian (please let us know who you are!), Mark and David.
There seems to be a broad agreement here that Jesus would indeed hang out with GLBT folks--everyone has said yes to the question. But I think folk differ here on the question...what might his attitude be toward them? As toward "tax collectors and sinners?" whose lives he tried to turn from unrighteousness? Would he try to "heal" them of sexual sin? Or would he accept them as they are?
That, to me, is the purest form of the question. I think there are ways to disagree - but I will put my cards on the table too...I think that Jesus would not mess with the way in which God had created such folks, just as he would not mess with your identity or mine, as a Hoosier (born in Indiana, in case you don't get that), with occasionally cantankerous tendencies, who is heterosexual, and who loves woodworking, etc. etc.
The rub is here: whether you see sexual identity as a preference and practice, or as, truly, an identity. Those who we might call conservative on the issue, and take a very high view of scripture (David, I'd put you there, yes?), might see GLBT folks as people who have chosen such behavior - which behavior they see as "sin". Sure, they may have natural tendencies toward that behavior but - tough luck - the Bible clearly demarcates that behavior as outside the pale of what righteous human behavior is about.
Those who see this in light of a question of identity then see the GLBT issue as an issue of civil rights. Just as Jesus stood for justice, just as Christians stood with African Americans for civil rights - so ought Christians stand with GLBT people, and affirm them as people, not try to change them. To them, changing them is like trying to make me not-male, or even not-Christian. It's who I am, and not really what I've chosen. And, for those who do not know people who are Gay, it's hard for them to get this very critical difference. Many people see that as "sick behavior" that people are choosing.
I will also say that my theological tack here is based on the fundamental hermeneutic of love, that good ol' Protestant way of reading the Bible - all the diffuse, contradictory stuff in it - the stuff about whether homosexuality or eating shellfish is a sin, and so forth - all that has to be read in light of the main message, which is the love of God expressed in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If homosexuality IS a sin, we might see it in the same way other sins in Leviticus have been seen as time-bound constrictions that made sense for the society of that time, but must yield to the higher principle of Christian love.
To nuance this a bit - I want also to be clear that I am not "sot on sin"! I do not take this hermeneutic to relativize that way that we are all sinners (as David points out), and that the Bible does indeed give us very specific guidance about the what of human sin.
I do not think that this is to say that all sexuality is OK - that sexuality outside of covenantal relationships is fine, that promiscuity is cool - NO indeed. I think that is an absolutely critical principle that would not be in line with the hermeneutic of love either.
In response to David's John 8 example, the "go and sin no more" command of Jesus is appealing to this woman's failure to practice integrity in sexual relationships. We might muddy the water if we say that such adultery was with a woman. The sin was adultery - whether with a woman or a man. I would agree here. But the question is: would Jesus say this to a Lesbian if she had cheated on her partner? I think yes. Would he condemn the committed relationship? I would have to say no.
But here's the deal: I don't know if there's any way to change peoples mind about that fundamental difference, if they are convicted by what they see as the truth. I've been in so dang many conversations about this, it seems they so often result in a disheartening and red-in-the-face disagreement, and a solidifying into self-righteousness.
What I think is needed is a bit more humility. I actually like very much talking with people with whom I disagree. It requires me to rethink where I am (and I've changed a good bit over the years in my perspective). Perhaps the highest hermeneutic of love that we can practice on this is...to listen.
Which we're doing here. Electronically.
Onward!
Jeff V.
Jeff is right. I am a conservative with a high view of the scriptures. Outed again!
I feel though, that I don't fit the description given here of what a conservative thinks, so let me try to bring some clarity to the way a guy like me thinks, and then make some (closing) comments. I will only speak for a high-view-of-scripture perspective.
The dichotomy presented by Jeff is "whether you see sexual identity as a preference and practice (conservative), or as, truly, an identity (liberal)." I understand you to be saying, Jeff, that "truly an identity" means "God-given." Is that a fair capture?
As someone who has taken the time to work in the gay community in New York for five years (I was a volunteer at GMHC in Manhattan) and in ministry (at Harvest USA), I do *not* say that GLBT folks are people who have chosen their identity. As a Christian with a high view of the scriptural authority, it would not surprise me at all to find out that there is a "gay gene," (though twins studies do not show this) and that in fact all people who self-identify themselves as G, L, B or T have been scientifically shown to have been born that way. But it would also not surprise me to find that there is a gene that presupposes me toward alcoholism or a gene that makes me more likely to commit adultery or a gene that makes it easier for me to lie or a gene that causes a predisposition to steal.
My theology on all of these behavioral tendencies is that they are very *likely* to be in our genetics, post-fall. So all of these behaviors I would describe as part of our identity, but I would not call them "God given" because they are all alike, fallen behaviors. They are the behaviors that we get from the first Adam and against which we still fight (Rom. 7).
And if any of us know folks that struggle with alcoholism, adultery or lying, and struggles with them as "natural tendencies" (read: "biological"), we pastors ought never say, as you suggest conservatives do, "tough luck." May it never be! That is, I think, a gross caricature of biblical conservatives. I know many high-view of scripture folks working in the gay community with love, respect and care. But in all of those cases of sin (alcoholism, adultery or lying), even if all these behaviors are all genetic, we as pastors *do* ask Christians to do battle with their fallen biology, and to change. One can, therefore, affirm someone as a person, and yet still suggest they change. These are not mutually exclusive.
And this is why I disagree, Jeff, when you say that you "think that Jesus would not mess with the way in which God had created such folk." First, it leaves out the effects of the fall by attributing what people desire to do with their bodies to God. I don't think any of us want to say that Jesus would not want to mess with the person who said they had uncontrollable desires to commit bestiality, for instance. And second, I think God does redemptively, mess with us. Paul says, "Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers — none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you *used* to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). The Spirit does mess with us and wash us, and sometimes convicts us that things we did with our body are now wrong, and that those things don't identify us any more. It happened to me.
I hope that clears up where at least this high-view scripture person is coming from.
As for your supportive ideas about same sex unions, a couple of thoughts:
I've often heard the analogy to African American civil rights as you mention here, Jeff, and it is indeed an interesting comparison. Here is how I see significant discontinuites with the two issues: Unlike the biblical commands – in both testaments – against same-sex behavior, Scripture does not ground slavery in pre-Fall structures. The creation story tells us that the biblical writers viewed male-female unions, unlike slavery, as normative and transcultural. To conflate civil rights with homosexuality, biblically, is apples and oranges.
Also on this subject, the liberal (and liberal-reformed) tradition has argued well that the Scripture shows considerable discomfort with the institution of slavery. Yet there is not the slightest indication anywhere in the canon that same-sex intercourse is anything other than an act of disobedience against God's created order, and to be avoided by the people of God, Jew and Gentile believer alike, in all circumstances.
The love hermeneutic is a powerful argument. I'd like to know more about how the love hermeneutic works. My sense is that it means something like "the grand sweep of the Bible's message is toward freedom and liberation from bondage, and the emphasis in Jesus' ministry was toward welcome of the outcast." Again, is a fair capture?
But Jesus' view of love doesn't match well with current views of freedom that are only about liberation. The bible says that liberty and freedom work best with Christ's authority. What does Jesus actually do with his authority? He takes an already narrowly defined view of sexual ethics given in the OT Bible and narrows it even further. Did Jesus not understand the very love commandments that he lifted up? Paul as well – no slouch on the matter of grace and freedom from the law – did the same.
So Jeff, when you say, "If homosexuality IS a sin, we might see it in the same way other sins in Leviticus have been seen as time-bound constrictions that made sense for the society of that time, but must yield to the higher principle of Christian love," I could yield to that if I saw any trajectory here. But if you look at the expanse of the whole OT and the big-ticket items of major offenses against the justice of God, they always have to do with idolatry, economic injustices and sexual immorality. And Jesus retains that notion every time and in fact says he will not abolish the law. Paul lists these same sins, too.
As a conservative I can see how Christ fulfilled the law of holiness on, as you mention, eating shelfish (and we do have a text saying that "all foods are (now) clean." But Jesus does not fulfill marriage by abolishing it – he does it by marrying the church. Jesus never moderates the ethical demands of the OT on sexual issues, but in fact his way of loving us is to heighten these demands (in the Sermon on the Mount) so that we will know grace all the more.
Now we could say that Jesus doesn't understand love, grace or the sexuality of his own creatures, or we could redefine *our* meaning of love and grace and sexuality in light of Jesus' own teaching. And this is what I propose that we do.
As for my use of adultery to say that homosexuals practice sex outside of marriage, and the contention that the bible can be read to commend committed same-sex relationships, I will try to be brief. Dr. Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary has shown conclusively that the word porneia (which Jesus speaks against in Mark 7:17-23) always and everywhere in the second temple period included bestiality, same-sex intercourse, incest, adultery, prostitution and fornication. All Jews understood this and we have no texts that say otherwise. See his lectures this last year at PTS where he deconstructed Stacey Johnson. So while it would make my life with those people who attend my church with same-sex desires to day, "as long as it is in a committed relationship," as someone who has this high view of scripture, the texts don't allow me to do it.
Finally, would Jesus condemn a same-sex committed relationship? I would say yes for two reasons. First, when Jesus condemns divorce or adultery he appeals to the one place where we don't sin sexually – the committed relationship between a man and a woman (see Mark 10:5-9). Second Jesus (and certainly Paul), knowing the ancient Roman empire as they did, knew of youths who had been socialized as receptive partners in homoerotic intercourse, and lived in what we would call committed relationships with exclusive life-long orientation. Philo knew of them, so I am sure God incarnate did. And yet they use the word everyone knew – porneia – that encompassed those relationships, and did not provide and exception.
I have found ministering with those that want to engage this struggle with their own desires very hard and very meaningful. Discipleship is hard, and is never described as satisfying my own innate personal desires, but rather not living for ourselves because of the one who loved us enough to give his life for us. We've lost sight of this calling in the Christian life. But guys like Paul did it (2 Cor. 12:7-9) and Bonhoeffer lived it, and so must we. His grace is sufficient for me. His power is made perfect in human weakness. When I was brought near death, then I relied on the one who raised me from the dead. That is when I have been transformed – along with those who have besetting sins and trust in Jesus also – into the image of Christ.
Thanks for letting me respond, and for such an engaging topic. And for the call to mutual submission in listening to one another.
Onward indeed!
Of course he would--and does, in spirit! Jesus wasn't picky about who he hung out with (I know that's incorrect grammar, but "with whom he hung out" just doesn't work). He palled around with lepers, prostitutes, and other "fringe" members of society (I'm sure there were some "terrorists" in that bunch, too!). Besides, Jesus taught that the more "in need" of acceptance a person/group was, the more important it was to be kind to that person/group.
This is the way I see it. Because of the "Created in the image of God" message, I feel as though it is a matter of difference...just as one person has blue eyes verses, brown.
I do know though that for many, it is much more than pigment of the iris.
So, as a simple entry to this blog question, YES, I believe that Jesus would have hung out with gays, lesbians, trans-gender and bisexual peeps in his day. As they are still seen as "on the margin/fringe", I believe that we as disciples of Christ are called to "hang out with" those who are different than ourselves...to reach out across lines, borders etc. (This is MUCH easier said than done)
peace.
Jeff here....
Last comment...I think?...on this subject from me. Rich will be putting up a new question on the blog soon.
I admit - I've been a lazy blogger this week. Haven't been able to keep up! I do trust that folk have been reading and tuning in, tho. And, if you count my responses, we did get our record 8 responses!
Here's another question that might be interesting in light of the previous discussion...and also especially in light of David's comments. (And, David, by the way - it is really cool to get your point of view here. I find it useful/refreshing/fruitful to have a variety of points of view).
Anyway...here's the question (not addressed to anyone in particular!). Do you think that the Spirit - the same spirit that was at Pentecost, the same spirit that Jesus breathed onto his disciples - the Holy Spirit - do you think that the Holy Spirit can speak differently to different people? In other words, can two people, reading the Scriptures and praying for the guidance of the Spirit to aid them in interpreting them (also aided by the church's confessions) come to different conclusions - and is it possible that both can be right?
That question is not original to me. It's a question that our own Moderator, Bruce Reyes-Chow, asked at one point during one of his talks. I found it to be a very interesting question.
Because, here's the deal. Folk will never agree on this. David, you and I agree on a lot (surprisingly much) theologically, but there are also areas of great divergence.
For example, re: interpretation of scripture. I have previously (I think!) applied the terms "high" and a "low" to two views/understandings of how to interpret scripture. I guess I'd like to modify the terms just a bit - because I consider myself to have a very "high" view of scripture, inasmuch as I view it as divinely inspired, as the unique, authoritative witness to the living Word of God, who is Jesus Christ. I take it - including the details - very very seriously.
So perhaps more apt would be a "wider" and "narrower" reading of scripture (I think of the two great schools of Buddhism - Mahayana and Hinayana, the large vehicle and the small vehicle...alas, I digress). The narrower view takes very seriously a systemization of the smaller details into a larger theological system. Every detail of Scripture needs to fit that pattern. I don't want to put you into my box, David, but that is one way that I myself might make a distinction.
Then there's the broader way of interpreting scripture - the details matter in elucidating the main truth, which we (especially in light of the Confession of 1967 for us PC(USA) types) view as the word of God (small w); it is the authoritative witness to the Word of God (Jesus). We don't worship scripture, we worship a person. And as such, it's a document written by humans, and in a particular social/cultural/political context, which needs to be taken seriously to understand the implications of its main and plain meaning.
Some who have this broader view of scripture see the temptation of those in the narrow school to misuse scripture - even to use scripture as an idol. In the case of slavery, it was used to justify an abusive human ideology - namely the ideology of slavery. The details were more important than the main thrust - the overarching message of Jesus' gospel of love and reconciliation among all human beings. To such folk that message seems pretty plain, and slavery pretty obviously an horrible mistake in light of that message.
To those in such a school, your argument, David, that slavery is of a different category - that on this particular detail, different criteria apply - can seem like splitting hairs. It can seem like the ploy to make scripture fit a human perspective - such was what the Reformers themselves accused their Catholic scholasticist opponents.
People who read scripture this way (broad school) tend then to see those who take the details more seriously as tending toward the theology of the Pharisees, who missed the main point of their own tradition, "straining out a gnat, while they swallow a camel." I think here of Shane Claiborne's comment - about a study in which interviewers asked people the words that they associate with the word "Christian". The ones that come up most? "judgmental, hypocritical, gay-hating" and the like.
We miss an opportunity to express the love, justice and reconciliation of the savior ("the main message") if we don't listen both to the main voice of the scripture - not ignoring the details, but in order to interpret the details - and also to our own inner moral sense that God has given us. Calvin was a great humanist - his was the conviction that our study of ourselves, the pursuit of knowledge in any form, leads us to God. In doing so, our view of what scripture leads us to do and be of necessity needs to change. Such is also the case, I believe, with homosexuality.
But, back to my main point. "Narrower" and "wider" scripture intepreters (not to place any judgment on either term or group) will probably never agree. We both begin with different assumptions. So the question: can each see the other as having been informed by the Spirit of God, and as having faithfully arrived at a conclusion that has integrity?
Alas, I thought I would be brief!
Let's keep the discussion going........
Jeff
Jeff,
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
It's a question of narrow way vs. wide way. Or big tent vs. doctrinal purity.
I regretfully find that while it is possible to be consistent to one's belief if you are in the wide camp and are accepting of those in the narrow camp, it's not possible for the reverse to be true. It's a definitional thing - if you only accept a narrow band of beliefs, then anybody outside is not being faithful. I suppose it's possible for someone to say "I disagree, but I respect the way that you arrived at that conclusion." but unfortunately in religion we have set up a dichotomy of right and wrong.
I'm not sure how we move past that.
Jeff-
I think this question of yours/Bruce's is terrific:
"Do you think that the Spirit - the same spirit that was at Pentecost, the same spirit that Jesus breathed onto his disciples - the Holy Spirit - do you think that the Holy Spirit can speak differently to different people? In other words, can two people, reading the Scriptures and praying for the guidance of the Spirit to aid them in interpreting them (also aided by the church's confessions) come to different conclusions - and is it possible that both can be right?"
Perhaps that could be an upcoming discussion/question!?
David
Post a Comment