(11 minute read)
NOTE: This will be familiar to some. I wrote this
piece previously with references to the Duck Dynasty and Rev. Frank Schaeffer
controversies. It was titled "The truth of our hearts". I have
deleted those references in order to make it more generically applicable to the
ongoing struggle of the Church v. Homosexuals.
What is the main purpose of the
Christian faith? What comes first? Preaching to believers? The Bible? Doctrine?
Theory? The Church? Rules? Punishment? Mercy? Wounding people? Compassion?
Love? Salvation? Jesus? Helping others? Helping the less fortunate?
It seems to me that in order to bring people to
salvation the church needs to reach out to unbelievers and believers as well, not
drive them away from Christianity.
When it comes to dialogue about
homosexuality, religious opponents find the most intolerant passages that there
are in the Bible to cite as defense of their open ridicule. They wear these
passages as badges of their disdain for the unworthy, the doomed. This open
ridicule is part of the problem.
Is it justified? What is the second
greatest commandment? Insult and ridicule thy neighbor?
Yes, people are entitled to their
beliefs and behavior, Christian and non-Christian alike. But the rhetoric of intolerance
and contempt doesn't just drive people away from “The Church”. That's a relatively
small problem. The larger problem is that it drives people away from finding
Jesus. Is that good? To drive people away from the possibility of salvation
and a richer, more fulfilling life? Too often people stop at salvation as being
the defining moment of their Christianity and don't apply the faith to how they
live their lives, conduct themselves and interact with others. Christianity by its very nature requires
socializing with others and ministering to needs.
I think the Bible has to be a place
that we turn to for guidance since it will be used as further justification as
the foundation for arguments either way. Is it a useful resource in this
regard? Do we single out a particular sin du jour and make that sin a
foundational cornerstone of the faith or do we use love as that cornerstone, the
foundation of our faith?
I'll say right here that the Bible
is NOT the literal infallible word of God. (Get out the holy water, padre,
there are demons to exorcise!) The paragraph below provides my justification
for that statement. (If you have a Bible that is the infallible literal word of
God--lucky you. BTW millions of Christians disagree with both you and me.)
We need to keep
in mind that the New Testament did not exist in Jesus’ time and the whole Bible
is an assembly of written words put together over the centuries.
I have several Bibles.
My first Bible is the one that my Grandmother Thomas gave me. It's a King James
Version (KJV) as is the second one I was given when I went into the service.
The Gideons provided that little pocket Bible. My Aunt Lucille sent me a
"Living Bible", a Bible in the language of the times as in "I'm
telling it like it is." I also picked up a direct word for word
translation of the King James into modern English from archaic English. Then I
have my New American Standard (NASB) study Bible. I also have an English
Standard Version (ESV). My phone has the New International Version (NIV). Shelley
also bought me “The Message”. There are other versions as well. I think there
are around fifty different versions used by the over 20,000 different sects of
Christianity. There may be more. All of them are different and unique in how
they represent the word of God. So in that sense the Bibles that we have can't
really be considered the literal
infallible word of God. I'm not a literalist. I'm not really a contextualist
either but I do turn to the Bible for
inspiration. Theologians argue over the various translations, words and what
was said in the context of the times in often opposing views, including even the
question of whether salvation, a basic tenant of the Christian faith, is
permanent or has to be constantly renewed. The translation of ONE word can make
all the difference. Is salvation as ephemeral as a wisp that hangs on the
translation of one word? Seriously, we can't even agree on salvation.
WARNING! INAPPROPRIATE JOKE.
When I was growing up in the Southern Baptist
church I heard jokes about Catholics that I believed were inappropriate then
just as they are now. But I'm going to share one to illustrate my point.
The joke goes that there was this guy that
died and went to heaven. St. Peter is showing the newbie around when a cloud
with a wall around it catches the guy’s attention. "What's that?" he
asks St. Peter, who replies, "Oh, that's the Catholics; they don't think
anybody's up here but them."
Anybody can do good and lead an exemplary
life. They don't have to be Christian to do that. They can be of any religion or
none. So it seems to me that the main purpose of the Bible can't be that we
should just do good unto others.
Rather than go through what all the Bible is
and isn't I think we can just say that the main purpose of the Bible is to give
us a platform from which we're supposed to bring people to the belief that
there is a continuance after death, that they can be saved and have a desirable
afterlife through Jesus Christ. What's more, we should practice and live our
faith by helping others in order to have a fulfilling purposeful Christian life.
So back to my question: Why the inflexibility
against homosexuality? Why all the vitriol directed their way? It's one thing
to deny rights in the religious sector and quite another to deny a person
rights in the secular world. What non-believers see and are subjected to is
Christians imposing their religious views in the secular world.
My wife and I, both previously divorced, were
married in the Presbyterian Church without disapproval. (Obviously we're not
Catholic.) The Bible is clearly against divorce and adultery. Violently so in
some instances. So, by allowing us to be married in the church, isn't the
church, using one of the same arguments used against gay marriage, therefore
condoning our “lifestyle”? But even the Catholic Faith has numerous loopholes
to their prohibition to marriages outside the faith and between divorced
people.
Our marriage is considered legal in this
country because the state provided certification and approved the “union”. A marriage
performed by the church would not be recognized by the state until the proper government
paperwork is done. (Even on this point the state is willing in some cases to be
flexible and will recognize "common law" marriage for certain
purposes.) Lastly, a marriage will be recognized as legal if there's no
religious involvement at all.
Religious people could certainly find plenty
of passages in the Bible about divorce to use against us. But my wife and I
have not been ostracized from the church we attend now because we were
previously married and then divorced, and our 25 year vow renewal was held at
the church we currently attend. No one held our previous status of being
divorced against us. No rocks were thrown. (Good thing too. I don't run very
fast any more.) If churches came out against divorced people they would empty
out their congregations pretty quickly.
Why not rail against women for not being
submissive?
"A woman should learn quietness and full submission. I do not permit
a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man."
1 Timothy 2:11-12
Most churches (though not all) lay Timothy
aside just as other sections of the Bible are laid aside like several from
Leviticus (such as prohibitions against certain foods and fabrics and
what-have-you).
The constant disparagement of homosexuals not
only drives them away from the church and Christianity but many times from
their friends and family as well. It sends the message certain kinds of people
are not welcome and all too often unbelievers in general feel that they are in
this category. This is just the opposite of the way it should be. So why do it?
They just might be in need of the word and love of our Savior.
Then to add insult to injury, some churches
oppose gay people having rights in the secular world as well so that the
government can punish them in ways unavailable to the church.
Decades ago I left the church because of all the
hypocrisy, hate and intolerance expressed by so many. After my four year hitch
in the Army I tried again attending a home town church. I had let my hair grow
out and qualified as a "long-haired hippie". The pastor just happened
to give a service that morning vilifying hippies and their (my) immorality in
general. I was a tee-totaling vegetarian at the time and did not do drugs. As I
left, not to return to a church for several decades, I was thinking that the
time would come when long-hairs would be welcomed and desperately needed to
support and continue the church. I pass by that church now on Sunday morning
and there will only be a half dozen cars in their parking lot. How many souls
might they have saved if they had reached out instead of driving people away?
Look around your church at the congregation.
Who is missing?
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter.
It's easy to bully homosexuals because they're a minority. Gay people realize
that "love the sinner hate the sin" is bullshit. It's Christian code
for “your kind isn't welcome here” any more than hippies were back in my time or
divorcés in another or black people in another.
It occurs to me that hymns and
praise music are not hateful or degrading to any specific group of people. I
have never heard praise music in a church condemning, say, divorcés. Praise
music is invitational and/or an inspirational call to worship. It's "Come,
ALL ye faithful." Not ALL except for unwed mothers, the addicted,
homeless, homosexuals, you know--different people.
There's an easy way for churches to
handle this. First ask congregations:
- Are white people welcome?
- Are stinky people welcome?
- Are unwed mothers welcome?
- Are black people welcome?
- Are ugly people welcome?
- Are people of color welcome?
- Are journalists welcome?
- Are people of a certain political party welcome?
- Are fat people welcome?
- Are the infirm welcome?
- Are people of color welcome?
- Are divorcés welcome?
- Are women welcome?
- Are sinners welcome?
- Are women with their heads uncovered welcome?
- Are unbelievers welcome?
- Are people that curse welcome?
- Are illegal immigrants welcome?
- Are pedophiles welcome?
- Are the sick welcome?
- Are adulterers welcome?
- Are prostitutes welcome?
- Are addicts welcome?
- Are the poor welcome?
- Are the rich welcome?
- Are the out of work welcome?
- Are the homeless welcome?
- Are criminals welcome?
- Are other faiths welcome?
- Are those without hope welcome?
Really; give a lot of thought to
the list and make yours as comprehensive as possible so that you don't have to
go through this again. Also keep in mind that some people may fit into several
different categories. In other words, poor people may be welcome unless they
happen to be stinky as well. Then let people decide if there are some that are
welcome but with certain restrictions, like women not being able to hold leadership
positions.
Then, after congregations decide
who is acceptable, they can proudly post a list at the entrance of their place
of worship of those that aren't welcome and those that are welcome but with
certain restrictions. Get it right out there in the open so that people can
know before they ever darken the door, listen to a sermon, crack a book or find
salvation. This will save them from being surprised later on.
So in the end, what defines us, I believe, is
the love that resides in the truth of our hearts. In the indefinable, unexplainable language
that is love. The kind of love that Jesus talked about. The love that brings
hope and salvation. The kind of love that we're commanded to
give in Matthew 22: 37-40 (KJV). I think this scripture makes for the perfect
closing.
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law
and the prophets.
Now there’s
a passage that is surely the same regardless of the translation.
UPDATE, 2/27/19
This essay was written in 2014. The UMC church we were
attending had a schism over the issue of homosexuality in 2015. That UMC church
no longer exists.