Posts Tagged ‘homosexuality’

If you watch the above video, you may feel like I do that this is simply propaganda. Christians, particularly evangelicals, have been great at speaking for God and pronouncing his judgment on different things. Though I do not agree with this approach, they may or may not be correct. That’s besides the point. I want to speak of the logic behind this thought from two angles.

Tongue-in-cheek: Besides all the shameful theology going on in the video, there are a ton of spelling errors! C’mon! In the opening title of the video, the person spells Evangelical Lutheran Church in American incorrectly. “Church” is spelled c-h-u-r-c-h, not c-h-r-u-c-h. I’m pronouncing judgment on the producer of the video–God must have attacked his/her video with editing laziness. If you look at the tornado from the producer’s perspective and portray it using that video, it’s hard to see how it was coincidence. But no natural disaster happened during the Episcopal meeting so God is sending some mixed signals! Also, in a similar scenario, many don’t know that Hurricane Katrina demolished an evangelical seminary (Baptist something or other) in New Orleans more than it did the French Quarter. The French Quarter, a place of the satanic drink of alcohol, jazz clubs where one can find the evil instrument of drums, and some darn good cooking that will make you say, “[h-e-double-hockey-sticks] yeah!,” was the least hit of all New Orleans. So, what was going on at the seminary? That my real question.

In a seriousness: The Scriptures do tell us stories of prophets pronouncing judgment on God’s people. The funny thing is, that the majority of the time, it is because they haven’t taken care of the poor, alien, or outsider; not homosexuality. So, I have difficulty with this interpretation of God’s action. I’d like to process this through two subpoints:

(a) The theology that is displayed in the above video is not a theology of the Christian God. In fact, the idea is slightly deistic. The idea that God intervenes with judgment only via natural disasters is a viewpoint that God rarely is involved in our lives but only is when he wants to “make a statement” (per se). Thus, from my understanding, the theology is not Christian theology. If the producer(s) was follow Christian theology, s/he will make a video next time about his/her pastor’s sin next time he is sick. That theology of judgment is more biblical than an occasional only-when-God-has-to-make-a-statement view of judgment. The Christian God interacts in all areas of life, is involved in all areas of life. He does not sit in the clouds and occasionally throws lighting bolts at us. The video is more unorthodox than orthodox.

We must also remember that it is not a 1:1 ratio. Sometimes, Jesus says that one’s infirmity is based on his/her sin (cf. Mark 2:1-11), and, other times, this is not the case (cf. John 9). Thus, just because a natural disaster happens (which by the way, natural disasters are rarely used for judgment. I can only think of the flood where this is the case) does not mean it was God’s judgment. If so, the baptist seminary was evil, too. However, we are not God, and therefore, cannot be sure of this. This leads me to my next point.

(b)  I’m a firm believer that theology must always start with humility and prayer (maybe prayer first). Prayer, literally if on our knees or figuratively in our hearts, puts us in a posture of humility before God. We must be very, very, very careful of speaking about God. We need to speak about God as his people, but we must be very careful in doing so. I’m not sure if this was God’s judgment (and I highly doubt it), and so I will leave it at that. This video stands above the world and points down condescendingly at it. Jesus, on the other hand, condescends to humanity and spends much of this time on the margins of society. Read the Gospels, and this becomes very clear. It’s easy for me to proof-text and interpret things for my agenda, but it is much more difficult to follow the agenda of the kingdom with Jesus to the margins.

Let’s be on our knees.

There has been a lot of internet buzz about The Episcopal Church’s General Convention’s 99-45 vote to allow the ordination of gay bishops. Regardless of my personal feeling about this, I think N.T. Wright responds well to the whole issue. The issue clearly seems to be breaking with the rest of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church says they want to remain in the Angilican Communion, but they voted on something that would clearly cause schism.

In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States has voted decisively to allow in principle the appointment, to all orders of ministry, of persons in active same-sex relationships. This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion(more)…

What are your thoughts on the TEC’s vote? What are your thoughts on what Bishop Wright states?

*UPDATE* Gideon commented on this post with an excellent response to N.T. Wright by Father Cannon, who claims Wright is “off the mark” on this topic. Please check it out here.

I lean more to N.T. Wright’s side, but Father Cannon brings up great points. Thus, based on the two posts, where do you agree or disagree with both authors?

Tim (fellow blogger at blackcoffeereflections.com) and I will be filling in for Everyday Liturgy while Thomas is away on vacation (or “holiday” as the Brits call it). My first post dealing with the questions we (Christians) ask about global warming, homosexuality, etc., is up and is called:

 Answering the Wrong Questions

I’ve had my fair share of encounters with Christians over the years. I have found that Christians are in the business of asking the wrong questions and giving poor answers to wrong questions…

One other thought about homosexuality, and its place in the emerging church. If the emerging church continues to promote homosexuality to the top of its list of revisions to be (or not be) made, we run the risk of making it the issue. Thus, we fall into the same trap as our evangelical, conservative brothers and sisters, and we are right back to where we started.

Conservatives have made homosexuality (so to speak) the “number one sin.” In order to counteract conservatives, liberals have done the “pendulum swing” and promoted it as acceptable (or perhaps the former was to counteract latter). Emergent circles must be careful of being part of any “extreme” and must, rather, in order to promote discussion, remain more down-the-middle on homosexuality and the church. This is not to say one cannot hold one of the extremes as his or her viewpoint, but he or she must always allow the discussion to come to the middle for sake of unity.

Remember as a kid when your mom would tell you not to touch something because it was hot? Or, better yet, remember the last time you sipped your coffee too quickly, your synapses fired-the coffee’s too hot!!!-and you had to do that gag-thing to get it down (or you spat it out)? Many Christians have felt the same way about homosexuality. “It’s hot! Don’t touch it! Don’t get near it! Sit down! Don’t move!” Or we’ve engaged in a conversation about homosexuality in the church, sipped a little of it, realized that it was too hot (because your friend is angry like that), and gagged on the conversation just to get past it? Yeah, I’ve been there.

The issue of homosexuality in the church has been somewhat of a “hot topic” (understated) in

recent years. We, evangelicals, are partially to blame for this. Not only have we often condemned it over every other “sin,” we’ve actually have had a few of our main opponents of the issue take part in homosexual relationships (and, hence, their hypocrisy was exposed). However, I have to say that a fair amount of this condemnation has come as a counterattack to mainline churches and denominations that have accepted homosexual men and women and their lifestyles.

Much of this has ended in angry debates, harsh words, and hurt feelings. Mainliners have felt ostracized by evangelicals, and, equally so, evangelicals have felt so by mainliners.

Enter the emerging church.

Often, the emerging church been condemned for not taking a stance on homosexuality. This has come from people from the outside looking into the emerging church. Anyone in the emerging conversation will tell you, there is no “emerging church stance” on homosexuality. There are multiple opinions, and, unlike a denomination (which the emerging church is not one), it does not have a “set leadership” (per se), and so there is no possible way for emergents to have a “doctrinal statement” that includes the topic (and likely never will be). Thus, if you are looking for the emerging church’s stance on the issue, you’ll never find it because if you talk to me I’d say one thing, and, if you talk to someone else, they’d say another. It’s not as simple as a doctrinal statement.

However, many emergents within evangelical circles have attempted to remove the idea that homosexuality is the issue (along with abortion, of course). During the election, such people were reminding their fellow evangelicals, “Don’t be two-issue voters.” The reason is that the Bible has a few (somewhat obscure) passages about homosexuality, but it has many, many passages about helping the oppressed so, just by that fact alone, we should reevaluate how we vote (plus, Jesus didn’t really mention “homosexuality,” but he sure hangs with the poor folk).

My issue is this, as emergents, we must be sure to have open dialog about homosexuality. We must be continued to be known for this. We do not need a doctrinal statement. We are not a denomination. But we do need to have open discussion. We must belittle those who disagree with us. We must not say, “Well, you would agree with homosexuality if you just had a homosexual friend.” This is simply not true [and I think such a response is (how do you say?) a "cop-out"].

Here’s what I propose to all Christians, not just emergents — let us have an open discussion about the issue. But let us remember, we will not all agree on the matter.

It is not as simple as, “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it!” If that were the case, we wouldn’t have so many denominations or disagreements. Also, it’s not as simple as, “The culture of the Bible was different than ours.” Such an argument neglects global Christianity and the views of millions (billions?) of Christians across the world.

For me, when I want to talk with someone, we grab coffee. So…let’s grab coffee together (we’ll make sure it’s not too hot). Or some fish and chips. Or some lo mein. Or something they eat in Africa. But let’s talk. Let love be on our lips. Our positions will undoubtedly hurt someone, but let’s talk. It’s OK to disagree. It’s OK to walk away without a settling the matter. It’s OK to get ask for a refill, even though it costs $.53. Let’s do it.

But, if we neglect to talk and neglect to do it lovingly and open to disagreement, we may just create our own cliques, or worse, more denominations.

So, would you like to grab a cup of coffee with me?

This is in no way a new thought, but I don’t know about you, but, when I grew up in evangelical Christian circles, I knew that evangelicals vote Republican (or, at least vote on now Republican ideals). Why? Well, the answer is simple. Certain things - pro-life (however, only on abortion), capital punishment (see what I mean) is ordained by God, war against anyone that would prevent American (presumed Christian) ideals around the world, homosexuality is sinful, and…well, I’m having difficulty coming up with more.

Actually, I saw this most recently with a three-column spreadsheet of the issues and where each candidate stood on the issue “yes” or “no.” You’ve seen them. Column 1 - Issue, 2 - McCain (yay!), 3 - Obama (boo!). It was broken down into about ten issues, which was really the above four issues stated in a multiplicity of ways. The Iraq War was only mentioned once, and so was capital punishment. So, you can guess how the other two issues were posed throughout the last 8 statements (I think gay rights had five and abortion three). You don’t need to be a rocket-scientist to figure out the conclusion - the donkey lost.

I don’t think I would have been so perturbed if it wasn’t so reductionistic in two ways - (1) it didn’t make the answers as simple as “yes” or “no” and (2) it didn’t make the “important” Christian ideals as simple as abortion, capital punishment, war, and homosexuality. 

Christians should be politically confused.

“What?” Yes. Think about it - what about poverty? What about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? The Bible talks more about taking care of the poor than it does homosexuality. Feel free to prove me wrong. I’m not trying to be antagonistic but just making a point. 

What about life? “Well, yeah, we have that covered - we’re pro-life.” Well…kinda. But you believe capital punishment is OK. [You may be fine with that, but I'm not that comfortable playing God]. But you are quick to go to war. As Shane Claiborne says, I’m pro-life from “womb to the tomb.” That’s a good policy. 

What about justice? “Yeah, we have that. We got some conservative judges on the bench, and we can get even more this time around.” Not that kind of justice. I’m talking about dealing with third-world debt. I’m talking about, as Bono says, “Where you live shouldn’t determine if you live.” I’m talking about “loving your neighbor as yourself” (yes, Jesus meant that literally - doesn’t just mean American neighbors…what about global neighbors?). I’m talking about, “And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6v8).

What about violence? Is it OK that “The US arsenal is the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry in the world, equivalent to over 150,000 Hiroshima bombs…The US military budget is over 450 billion per year, and it would take the combined budgets of the next 15 countries to equal that of the US (Russia is the next biggest spender at around 70 billion, China at 50 billion, and the entire ‘Axis of Evil’ is less than 10 billion)” [p. 178; Claiborne, S., and Haw, C. (2008). Jesus for president: politics for ordinary radicals. Zondervan: Grand Rapids]. Does that bother anyone else? “Well, better us than them.” Whatever you say.

What about the environment? (”Whoa! Evan’s a lib.” I’m just a Christian.) I’m talking about, “God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good [or beautiful]!” (God said that, see Genesis 1v31; we usually skip that part because we are too busy trying to disprove those pesky evolutionists). I’m talking about, “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it” (Psalm 24v1). As I’ve said to many Christians before, I don’t care if you believe or don’t believe in global warming, I do care how you treat God’s creation. One author said, How you treat creation reflects how you feel about the Creator.

I’m not saying, now Christians should vote Democrat. I don’t think it’s as easy as putting us in one party. In fact, some of the above Christian ideals that I mentioned aren’t seen as “American.” I’m saying we should be politically confused. 

The Christian life is not cushy, easy, and comfortable. We constantly deal with the tensions of being in the world and not of it. We constantly deal with the tension of already bringing the Kingdom of God to earth and not yet because we still wait for its consummation. We constantly deal with the tension of following Jesus as King already, and not yet because we wait for Jesus as King on earth over all things.

So, Christians should be politically confused. It doesn’t come down to abortion, war, capital punishment, and homosexuality. It includes thoughts on those things, but it includes, dare I say, the rest of the Bible (for church historians, which we all should be, what the early Church believed). The fact is, it doesn’t matter who you vote for on November 4th as much as it does matter how you vote November 3rd and 5th and every day of your life. So, vote every day with our lives and by standing by what we stand for.

We’re a politically confused bunch, aren’t we?