Around the Blogosphere…

Most Fascinating: 
The Australian Ballet with“En Pointe!” 

Most Powerful: 
Ben Moberg with “Insomniac Christians” 

“I give up on the imperative that I can reach God by my own means. I give up on all the ways I should on myself and accept that I am already accepted. There is no ladder to get me there. There is no step-by-step that will land me in God’s good graces. I am in it. I am here. I am lying in the hallowed ground of the love of God.” 

Most Encouraging: 
Sarah Hofius Hall features Rv. Bill Carter in “Jazz Belongs in Church”

“At First Presbyterian Church of Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania, jazz music empowers. It breaks through isolation, leads to reflection and encourages a spirit of community. For the last 23 years, Carter has organized a yearly jazz communion on the Sunday before Labor Day, bringing his jazz band, his congregation and visitors together. Now the nationally recognized jazz ministry is expanding to offer four jazz vespers services in the next year as a way to explore the powers of music and healing.”

Most Challenging: 
Drew Hart at The Christian Century with “Beyond a White Privilege Model”

“…A society dominated by white control can’t be fixed by white people taking control of the situation. The failure in the white privilege stewardship model, is that it inherently affirms and utilizes the very thing that it is called to resist and counter. If the answer to our racial problems is that white people must run things, call the shots, and be the saviors to the world, then we have missed the mark.” 

Most Insightful: 
Sandra Glahn with “’Act Like Men’: What Does Paul Mean?” 

“It is worth noting that the NIV renders the phrase I italicized as ‘be courageous’; the NET goes with ‘show courage.’ And indeed the emphasis is not about gender, but maturity—about being a grown-up. Paul made a similar contrast between ‘adult man’ and ‘child’ when he wrote three chapters earlier, ‘When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things’ (13:11). So in summary, he contrasts being a man with being a child, not with being a woman.”

Most Beautiful: 
Fall Colors Around the World 

Most Urgent: 
Boz Tchividjian with “#WhyIStayed: How Some Churches Support Spousal Abuse” 

“Instead of helping vulnerable individuals understand the importance of reporting this criminal behavior, too many within churches prefer to push victims back into the arms of abusers as they congratulate themselves and praise God on another successful “reconciliation”.   These victimized spouses stay with those who hurt them, resigned to the hopeless belief that is what God wants them to do.” 

Most Inspiring (via Tony Jones):  
Yale Divinity School with “Theology of Joy: Jürgen Moltmann & Miroslav Volf”
 

Best Analysis: 
Marg Mowczko with“But the Twelve Apostles are all Male” 

“Once Jesus had fulfilled all the requirements of the Old Testament with his death and resurrection, the old rules and restrictions became obsolete.  No longer were disciples to be only Jewish.  Jesus commissioned his disciples to make more disciples from every nation (Matt. 28:19 cf Acts 9:36).  These other disciples included Gentiles and women.”

Best Response: 
Sarah Bessey with “Be Not Afraid: A Letter to My Charismatic Brothers and Sisters”

“We are living out of our worst fears instead of our best hopes. We are teaching and preaching, we are writing, we are leading, we are praying out of crippling fear instead of the hope of Christ. This saddens me because it is so far from our historical roots as charismatic/pentecostals. And it is also so antithetical to the Holy Spirit.”

Best Reflection: 
Donald Miller with “Why I’m glad I’m not the same guy who wrote ‘Blue Like Jazz’”

“I’m so grateful I’m not the same guy who wrote Blue Like Jazz. Certainly I still love the book and am grateful for it, but it’s been ten years now and I’ve changed. If I haven’t changed, something is drastically wrong. People are designed to grow and if they don’t it’s because something’s wrong.”  

Best Interview (nominated by Haley Compean)  
Tavis Smiley on The Daily Show

Best Writing (nominated by D.L. Mayfield) 
Amy Peterson with “Wanderlust: A Personal History”

“I begin to wonder if I, like the brothers at Taize and the desert monks, need to learn the discipline of stability. Do I need roots, when this earth is not my home? That third instruction from Saint Anthony sinks like a seed into the dark recesses of my heart and lies dormant for a long time: In whatever place you live, do not easily leave it.” 

Best Conversation:
Rob Bell interviews Peter Enns 

“…The Bible isn’t a rulebook for Christian living. It is a narrative that has movement and a trajectory.” 

[Look for a review of Enns’ book on the blog this week!]

Best Reminder (nominated by April Fiet):
Micah Murray with “Into the Winter”

“Those words have haunted me this summer — sometimes hanging over me like a terrifying shadow, other times shining like a glimmer of hope. When I can’t breathe and I feel the anxiety rising in my chest and my heart screams “Please, make it stop hurting,” I hear it over and over again: ‘We dare not get rid of the pain before we have learned what it has to teach us.’”

Best Tweets:

In our religious lives, I often think we've forgotten how to marvel, how to not know, how to hold faith that is more true than it is right.

— Rachel Hackenberg (@RHackenberg) September 13, 2014

Eucharist is confrontation and reconciliation.

— Mihee Kim-Kort (@miheekimkort) September 7, 2014

On tonight's Keeping Up With the Kardashians: Has God's patience come to an end?

— KimKierkegaardashian (@KimKierkegaard) September 8, 2014

George, at the end of the day, you're going to be king. If that new infant doesn't obey you it's treason.

— Honest Toddler (@HonestToddler) September 8, 2014

Wisest (nominated by Dan Evans):  
Salman Khan with “The Learning Myth: Why I’ll Never Tell My Son He’s Smart”

“Recently, I put into practice research I had been reading about for the past few years: I decided to praise my son not when he succeeded at things he was already good at, but when he persevered with things that he found difficult. I stressed to him that by struggling, your brain grows. Between the deep body of research on the field of learning mindsets and this personal experience with my son, I am more convinced than ever that mindsets toward learning could matter more than anything else we teach.” 

Coolest (via Preston Yancey):  
Alexander McCall at NPR with “Feminism in a Run-Down Taffy Factory: The Women of ‘Bob’s Burgers’”

“Most animated sitcoms have ugly histories when it comes to female characters. Women are frequently there to be mocked or to represent men's sexual desires. But instead of using Tina as an arbitrary tool for cheap laughs, the writers of Bob's Burgers –– several of whom are women –– have given audiences the opportunity to see adolescence through the lens of a central female character. The show, in fact, embraces Tina's own sexuality for all its uncomfortable awkwardness.”

Funniest:
The Rabbi, the Shofar, and the Dog [If you’ve read “A Year of Biblical Womanhood” you’ll know exactly why this especially cracked me up. This rabbi and I have something in common.]

Most Practical: 
Austin Channing Brown with “What Now?”

“... Become an expert. Trace how these institutions, policies, and laws have changed over time, how they effect the lives of the people you serve. Its time to stop patting ourselves on the back for having these services; we need to start figuring out what injustice has occurred that makes them necessary in the first place.”

Most Eye-Opening: 
Neil Carter with “What I Learned about Atheists from God’s Not Dead”

“In the end the central injustice of this movie is its failure to fairly represent a class of people whom Christians purport to love.  But it’s not loving people well to misrepresent them this badly.  This movie caricatures, dehumanizes, and depersonalizes people like me, portraying us in the worst possible light…This is not love.  You cannot love people while ignoring everything they tell you about themselves.  You are not loving people when you refuse to listen to their stories.  You are not loving them well when you decide before hearing them that you already know all that you need to know about them, overruling their own self-descriptions and self-identifications because you are convinced you know better than they do what’s going on inside of them.” 

Most Relatable: 
Abby Norman with “Heartbreak: A Spiritual Discipline” 

“The worst break up I ever had wasn’t from a man. It wasn’t a romantic one. The break up that left me devastated, unable to breathe, wandering through the world broken and confused was a friend break up. A friend (ex-friend? former friend? what do we even call that?) is the one that got away, the one I still wonder about, the one I don’t look up on Facebook but kind of want to. I just hope she is happy. Even as I hope that she knows how much I miss her. Even as I know it is best that we have both moved on…”

Most Thought-Provoking (nominated by Drew Hart)
Rod at Political Jesus with “Be Ye Kind One to Another: Civility, Blogging, and Social Media”

“Kindness, in the biblical metanarratives of liberation and reconciliation, is inextricably linked to communal justice, freedom for the prisoner and the enslaved, dignity for the impoverished.” 

On my nightstand...

Forgive Us: Confessions of a Compromised Faith by Mae Elise Cannon, Lisa Sharon Harper, Troy Jackson, &  Soong-Chan Rah

On the blog…

Having finally finished edits for my next book, I’ll finally be able to get back to regular blogging. Don’t forget that this week begins our discussion around Matthew Vines’ book, God and the Gay Christian.We’ll be discussing Chapters 1-2 on Wednesday. 

On social Media…

This week on Facebook, we had several powerful conversations around Anne Graham Lotz’s words on gender equality and Boz Tchividjian’s article about churches that support spousal abuse. I was amazed by some of the stories you shared there. So if you haven’t already, check out the Facebook page. I’m often surprised by (and grateful fo)r the conversations we have in that space. 

***

So what caught your eye online this week? What’s happening on your blog? 

I’ve always been a Bible nerd. 

Growing up in an evangelical church, I memorized all the verses in my AWANA notebook and boasted enough badges and pins on my bright red Sparky vest to rival a five-star general. I was elected president of the Bible Club in high school, and in college I minored in biblical studies at a college famous for teaching students to analyze the world with a “biblical worldview.” The fat study Bible I carried under my arm bore the highlighter marks of a devoted reader, its pages wrinkled and worn. 

I’ve also always had questions about the Bible. 

Have I ever mentioned that I won the "Best Christian Attitude Award" four years in a row in elementary school? Or that my bangs accounted for about 40% of my body weight? 

Once, in Sunday school, I raised a slap-bracelet-bedecked hand to ask why God drowned all the world’s animals in the Great Flood—save those on the ark—when it was people who had sinned, not innocent penguins and kangaroos. (She told me to go home and ask my father.) 

In high school, in the midst of yet another noble attempt to read the Bible in a year, I remember drawing breath upon reaching the story of the Battle of Jericho and realizing that after the walls came a-tumblin’ down, the Israelites “destroyed with the sword ever living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys,” all on God’s orders. In any other context, this would be condemned as genocide. Why would a good and loving God call for the slaughter of little children? 

A tipping point occurred during a sleepy, 9-a.m. Introduction to World Literature class when my class read the Epic of Gilgamesh, an ancient Mesopotamian poem purportedly written before the book of Genesis, which tells the story of a worldwide flood, a favored family, and an ark full of animals, only with Sumerian gods and heroes at its center instead of the familiar Yahweh. The similarity in style and content between the stories I knew from the Bible and the myths of other Mesopotamian cultures suddenly made those strange tales of talking snakes and forbidden fruit and boats packed with animals seem colloquial, routine—nothing more than myths operating from the religious and literary conventions of the day. 

There were other issues too: The way the accounts of Israel’s monarchy contradicted one another, the way Jesus and Paul quoted Hebrew Scripture in ways that seemed to stretch the original meaning, the fact that women were considered property in Levitical Law, the way both science and archeology challenged the historicity of so many biblical texts, and the fact that it was nearly impossible for me to write a creative retelling of Resurrection Day because each of the gospel writers tell the story so differently, sometimes with contradictory details. 

The Bible just didn’t seem to want to behave the way I was told it was meant to behave—as a scientifically-provable, historically-accurate account of God’s actions in the world and a cohesive, inerrant rulebook for how to think and live as a Christian. 

Invariably, when I expressed concern over these issues, well-meaning apologists would refer me to Gleason Arche’s massive Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, a heavy volume that seeks to provide the reader with sound explanations for every conceivable puzzle found within the Bible—from whether God approved of Rahab’s lie, to where Cain got his wife. But encountering a 500-page book listing hundreds of apparent biblical contradictions, half of which I didn’t even know existed before, did not have the desired affect and in fact only made things worse. 

After about a decade of doubt, study, and frustration, I made a resolution: to pursue the truth about the Bible without compromising my intellectual integrity, regardless of whether that pursuit led me to affirm my long-held presuppositions or whether it forced me to change my mind. I wanted to accept the Bible on its own terms, without projecting my evangelical community’s expectations upon it. I wanted to let it out of the box. 

Truth be told, this is a somewhat futile endeavor, as no one can approach a text with complete objectivity, somehow setting their culture, experience, background, gender, and ethnicity aside. But the pursuit did start me on an exciting, surprising journey toward loving the Bible more for what it is, not what I want it to be. 

Life would never be the same. 

"The Bible Tells Me So"

As I’ve mentioned here on the blog before, one of my favorite guides on this journey has been Old Testament scholar (and friend) Peter Enns. Pete’s books, blogs and articles just make sense to me—as a skeptic, as a literature lover, and as a Christian. The guy speaks my language, and he consistently writes with unusual wit, clarity and honesty.  

This is especially true of his latest book, The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It, which released last week and which I highly recommend. 

I’m not sure how else to describe this book except to say that reading it is an experience. Never have I encountered a book on biblical interpretation that manages to be as simultaneously challenging and funny, uncomfortable and liberating, intellectually rigorous and accessible, culturally significant and deeply personal. It’s a book that invites the reader to really wrestle with Scripture, and it’s not for the faint of heart. 

Enns begins by observing that “when you read the Bible on its own terms, you discover that it doesn’t behave itself like a holy rulebook should.” There are contradictions, discrepancies, bizarre stories, ethically-troubling scenarios, and puzzles. But “the problem isn’t the Bible,” Enns contends. “The problem is coming to the Bible with expectations it’s not set up to bear.” 

“What if the Bible is just fine the way it is?” he asks. “What if it doesn’t need to be protected from itself? What if it doesn’t need to be bathed and perfumed before going out in public? And what if God is actually fine with the Bible just as it is without needing anyone to stand guard over it? Not the well-behaved-everything-is-in-order version we create, but the messy, troubling, weird, and ancient Bible we actually have?” 

Enns goes on to tell his own story of asking tough questions about the Bible as a devoted Christian and a scholar, often at great personal and professional cost. “My goal with this book,” he writes,“is to assure people of faith that they do not need to feel anxious, disloyal, unfaithful, dirty, scared, or outcast for engaging these questions of the Bible, interrogating it, not liking some of it, exploring what it really says, and discerning like adult readers what we can learn from it in our own journey of faith…We respect the Bible most when we let it be what it is and learn from it rather than combing out the tangles to make it presentable.” 

And then he dives right in, starting with what are perhaps the most troubling, problematic, and upsetting passages in Scripture: those that describe Israel’s conquest of Canaan and the supposedly God-ordained ethnic cleansing that conquest entailed. 

Enns skillfully dismantles some of the common responses to these passages—that the Canaanites were super-duper evil and therefore deserved to be exterminated, that war with the Canaanites was inevitable, that God’s bloodthirsty portrait in Joshua is balanced out by more flattering portraits elsewhere in Scripture, that questioning biblical accounts of God-ordained genocide is sinful because God can do whatever God wants to do, etc—before offering his own controversial, yet well-argued, conclusion: “God never told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. The Israelites believed that God told them to kill the Canaanites.” 

I told you this book is not for the faint of heart. 

Enns argues that as ancient tribal people, the Israelites saw their God in tribal ways. In describing their relationship with God and the world around them, they spoke their own cultural language. “The Bible,” writes Enns,“is the story of God told from the limited point of view of real people living at a certain place and time….The Bible looks the way it does because ‘God lets his children tell the story,’ so to speak.” 

This doesn’t mean that the Bible "lies," or that our ancient ancestors were barbarians to simply be dismissed. It just means that whenever God enters the human story, God speaks to (and through) people using their own language, their own view of the world. And we make an enormous mistake when we project our modern, Enlightenment-shaped presuppositions regarding history and storytelling onto writers who were addressing ancient, pre-modern questions through ancient, pre-modern literary genres. 

Furthermore, Enns argues, the ancient tribal description of God is not the last word.  

“These ancient writers had an adequate understanding of God for them in their time,” he writes, “but not for all of time—and if we take that to heart, we will actually be in a better position to respect these ancient voices and see what they have to say rather than whitewashing the details and making up ‘explanations’ to ease our stress. For Christians, the gospel has always been the lens through which Israel’s stories are read—which means, for Christians, Jesus, not the Bible, has the final word.” 

Enns goes on to explain how much of the Old Testament was written while the people of Israel were in exile and therefore seeks to respond to questions of Jewish identity. The stories of Genesis and Exodus, Joshua and Judges, and many others can be better understood as origin stories that helped the people of God make sense of their place in the world.  

“The biblical writers were storytellers,” says Enns. “Writing about the past was never simply about understanding the past for its own sake, but about shaping, molding, and creating the past to speak to the present. The Bible presents a variety of points of view about God and what it means to walk in his ways. This stands to reason, since the biblical writers and lived at different times, in different places, and wrote for different reasons.” 

This is not only true for the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures but also for Jesus and for the authors of the New Testament. Jesus, like other first-century Jews, read his Bible creatively, seeking deeper meaning that transcended the boundaries of the words of Scripture. “A crucified and resurrected messiah,” writes Enns, “was a surprise ending to Israel’s story. To spread the word of this messiah, the earliest Christian writers both respected Israel’s story while also going beyond that story. They transformed it from a story of Israel centered on Torah to a story of humanity centered on Jesus.” 

Citing multiple examples from Genesis to Revelation, Enns shows how the many writers of Scripture used stories, poems, letters, and accounts written in their own voice, with their own assumptions and agendas, to tell the story of God, which, in various and complex ways ultimately bears witness to Jesus Christ. 

“The Bible doesn’t say, ‘Look at me!’” writes Enns. “It says, ‘Look through me.” 

All of this leaves us with a Bible that includes fissures and tensions, contradictions and questions, a Bible that invites wrestling, conversation, and a variety of interpretations (which Enns is quick to note is a reality that has long been celebrated, rather than glossed over, in the Jewish community). 

It’s hard to do justice to The Bible Tells Me So with a summary, and already I’ve seen several bloggers misrepresent it, (most having not bothered to actually read it).  One does not have to agree with all of Enns’ conclusions to be challenged and inspired by this book, and one need only look to the list of sources in the back to dig deeper on one’s own time. 

What I appreciated most about The Bible Tells Me So was its tell-it-like-it-is approach. The book takes you from one reality check to the next—bringing science, history, archeology, and scholarship into the conversation without apology—but with gentle good humor and disarming honesty.  This is one of the only books I’ve ever read that addressed the conquest of Canaan without either glossing over the genocide or offering feeble, inadequate defenses of it. It looks Scripture straight in the eye, without flinching, and in so doing manages to be both unsettling and profoundly liberating. 

Enns concludes: 

“This is the Bible we have, the Bible where God meets us. Not a book kept at safe distance from the human drama. Not a fragile Bible that has to be handled with care lest it crumble in our hands. Not a book that has to be defended 24/7 to make sure our faith doesn’t dissolve. In other words, not an artificially well-behaved Bible that gives false comfort, but the Holy Bible, the Word of God, with wrinkles, complexities, unexpected maneuvers, and downright strangeness. This is the Bible God has given his people. This Bible is worth reading and paying attention to, because this is the Bible God uses, as he always has, to point his readers to deeper trust in him. We are free to walk away from this invitation, of course, but we are not free to make the Bible in our own image. What the Bible looks like is God’s call, not ours.” 

I’m beginning to think I will always be the sort of person who struggles to reconcile my love of Scripture with my questions about it. 

And thanks to this book, and others, I’m beginning to think maybe that’s okay. 

***

Check out The Bible Tells Me So by Peter Enns.  Note: Though I was provided with a complimentary copy of this book by the publisher, I was not compensated for this review or discussion. 

Over the next few weeks, on Wednesdays, we will be discussing Matthew Vines’ book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. 

I chose this particular book because I think it provides the most accessible and personal introduction to the biblical and historical arguments in support of same-sex relationships, and because Matthew is a theologically conservative Christian who affirms the authority of Scripture and who is also gay. His research is sound and his story is compelling. And he’s a friend—someone I like and respect and enjoy learning from. 

Today we look at the Introduction, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2.

“Reclaiming Our Light” 

Right from the start, Matthew shares with the reader two important elements of his identity: 1) that he is gay, and 2) that he is a theologically conservative Christian who holds a “high view” of the Bible. 

“That means I believe all of Scripture is inspired by God and authoritative for my life,” Matthew writes of the second. “While some parts of the Bible address cultural norms that do not directly apply to modern societies, all of Scripture is ‘useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.’ (2 Timothy 3:16-16).” 

Now for some, this may seem like a conflict. I remember being told by pastors and church leaders that “gay Christian” (or "bisexual Christian" or "transgender Christian") is an oxymoron and that no one who holds a high view of Scripture can support same-sex relationships.  But Matthew’s aim with God and the Gay Christian is to show that “Christians who affirm the full authority of Scripture can also affirm committed, monogamous same-sex relationships.” 

It’s an ambitious goal, and it’s one that Matthew tackles by bringing his story and insights alongside the research of dozens of scholars whose work on the topic he studied meticulously for four years, dropping out of Harvard so that he could devote himself to learning what it meant for him to be gay and Christian. 

“My prayer,” he writes, “is that [the book] opens up a conversation in the Christian community that is truly in the spirit of Jesus. The fiercest objections to LGBT equality—those based on religious belief—can begin to fall away. The tremendous pain endured by LGBT youth in many Christian homes can become a relic of the past. Christianity’s reputation in much of the Western world can begin to rebound. Together, we can reclaim our light.” 

A Tree and Its Fruit 

Matthew speaks highly of his Christian upbringing, his loving parents, and the conservative Presbyterian church “filled with kindhearted, caring Christians” in which he was raised. Like a lot of us, he asked Jesus into his heart when he was very little—just three years old. And like a lot of us he, “recommitted” a few times before middle school….just to be safe. 

Matthew loved God, loved his family, loved Scripture, and loved the Church. And yet, for years, he held on to a secret that he knew might very well jeopardize his relationship with them all: he knew he was gay. 

This reality generated a lot of anxiety in Matthew’s life. He had observed what happened to a friend of his who also attended his church, a young man who often shared his musical talents with the congregation on Sunday morning and was celebrated as bright, committed, and kind—a beloved member of the community…until he came out as gay. Matthew’s friend encountered stigma and shame regarding his “decision” and eventually gave up on church, Scripture, and his faith.  

But Matthew didn’t want to give up on his faith. 

Even Matthew’s father once told his son that he assumed that if God was against homosexuality, then God wouldn’t make anyone gay, so those who “struggle with same sex attraction” could develop heterosexual attractions over time with enough effort and prayer. 

But Matthew couldn’t change his sexual orientation. 

Finally, Matthew worked up the courage to come out to his family.  When I saw that Matthew had titled this section of his book “My Dad’s Worst Day,” tears gathered in my eyes. It breaks my heart that we have created a culture in which a son or daughter bravely telling the truth about his or her sexuality can bring such devastation to a family.

You have to read the story for yourself to catch the full impact, but I’m happy to report that, after many months of struggling, questions, and tears, Matthew’s parents came around to supporting their son, fully. The testimony of their love for him shines through the pages of this book in a way that makes me both hopeful and sad because not every gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender child is this fortunate. For many, simply telling the truth is the beginning of a nightmare. 

Along with his parents, Matthew began carefully studying the Bible’s few references to same-sex behavior (which will be examined, at length, throughout the rest of the book), and rethinking his position on the matter. 

Though he had always been taught by his church that homosexuality was a chosen and sinful “lifestyle,” this teaching did not match up with Matthew’s lived experience. 

“As I became more aware of same-sex relationships,” he wrote, “I could not understand why they were supposed to be sinful, or why the Bible apparently condemned them. With most sins, it wasn’t hard to pinpoint the damage they caused. Adultery violates a commitment to your spouse. Lust objectifies others. Gossip degrades people. But committed same-sex relationships did not easily fit this pattern. Not only were they not harmful to anyone, they seemed to be characterized by positive motives and traits instead, like faithfulness, commitment, mutual love, and self sacrifice. What other sin looked like that?” 

This led some in Matthew’s church (he had come out to a small group) to accuse him of “elevating his experience over Scripture.” But as Matthew points out, he wasn’t asking his friends to revise the Bible based on his experience, he was asking them to reconsider their interpretation of the Bible. 

Christians have often had to reconsider their interpretation of the Bible in light of new information, he argued, just as many did when they concluded slavery was immoral in spite of biblical instructions that seem to support it.  Furthermore, while Scripture tells us not to rely solely on our experiences, it cautions Christians against ignoring experience altogether. The early Church decided to include Gentiles without requiring them to undergo circumcised or obey kosher, a controversial conclusion based largely on Peter’s testimony and experience. In Matthew 7:15-20, Jesus says that believers will recognize false teachers by the fruit in their lives. If something bears bad fruit, it cannot be a good tree. And if something bears good fruit, it cannot be a bad tree. This assessment is typically made based on experience. 

“Neither Peter in his work to include Gentiles in the church nor the abolitionists in their campaign against slavery argued that their experience should take precedence over Scripture,” writes Matthew. “But they both made the case that their experience should cause Christians to reconsider long-held interpretations of Scripture. Today, we are just as responsible for testing our beliefs in light of their outcomes—a duty in line with Jesus’s teachings about trees and their fruit.” 

…Which raises a few questions. 

If same-sex relationships are really sinful, then why do they so often produce good fruit—loving families, open homes, self-sacrifice, commitment, faithfulness, joy? And if conservative Christians are really right in their response to same-sex relationships, then why does that response often produce bad fruit—secrets, shame, depression, loneliness, broken families, and fear? 

Eventually, after careful study and in light of new information, even Matthew’s father changed his mind.  Matthew writes: “Instead of taking the references to same-sex behavior as a sweeping statement about all same-sex relationships, my dad started to ask: is this verse about the kind of relationship Matthew wants, or is it about abusive or lustful behavior? Is this passage about the love and intimacy Matthew longs for, or does it refer to self-centered, fleeting desires instead? After much prayer, study, and contemplation, Dad changed his mind. Only six months before, he had never seriously questioned his views. But once he saw the fruit of his beliefs more clearly, he decided to dive deeper into the Bible. In that process, he came to what he now regards as a more accurate understanding…” 

Telescopes, Tradition, and Sexual Orientation 

Before getting into a more detailed analysis of the various biblical passages involved, Matthew takes Chapter 2 to argue that new information about sexuality ought to compel Christians to rethink their interpretation of Scripture. He reminds readers that Galileo was accused of heresy by the Church when he presented evidence that contradicted centuries of tradition and accepted biblical interpretation regarding the earth’s place in the universe. It would take Christians many years to change their minds, but eventually they did. 

“Christians did not change their minds about the solar system because they lost respect for their Christian forbearers or for the authority of Scripture,” he writes. “They changed their minds because they were confronted with evidence their predecessors had never considered. The traditional interpretation of Psalm 93:1, Joshua 10:12-14, and other passages made sense when it was first formulated. But the invention of the telescope offered a new lens to use in interpreting those verses, opening the door to a more accurate interpretation.” 

Similarly, in recent generations, our understanding of sexuality has radically changed. 

For example, for most of human history, homosexuality was not seen as a different sexual orientation but rather as a manifestation of normal sexual desire pursued to excess—a behavior anyone might engage in if they let their passions get out of hand. Matthew highlights multiple examples from history and literature to show that this was simply the assumption for many centuries. 

“I’m not saying gay people did not exist in ancient societies,” Matthew writes “I’m simply pointing out that ancient societies did not think in terms of exclusive sexual orientations. Their experience of same-sex behavior led them to think of it as something anyone might do….No ancient languages even had words that mean ‘gay’ or ‘straight.’” 

Of course now we are beginning to understand that, while human sexuality is complex and is perhaps best understood as existing along a continuum, many people report having fixed same-sex orientations that do not change. (Others experience sexual attraction to both men and women. Still others lack sexual attraction altogether.)  “Reparative therapy,” which seeks to change sexual orientation, has been shown to be ineffective and potentially dangerous, discouraged most notably by many of the very Christian leaders who once promoted it within the Church. 

In addition, in the ancient cultures from which the Bible emerged strict, patriarchal gender roles were the norm and where procreation was a matter of survival.  Because women were presumed to be inferior to men, nothing was more degrading for a man than to be seen as womanly. (Guess some things never change, huh?) So in Rome, it was considered acceptable for an adult male citizen to have sex with slaves, prostitutes, and concubines regardless of gender, but only if he took the active role in the encounter. A same-sex encounter that placed a man in a passive (considered “womanly”) role would be considered humiliating. (This explains why same-sex rape was—and is— sometimes used to humiliate an enemy after defeat.) 

All of these ancient understandings of sexuality affect how same-sex behavior discussed in Scripture, and all of them should call into question the notion that people—and the Church—have a held just one single “traditional” view of same-sex behavior. 

In light of new information and experience, maybe it’s time to reexamine some of our assumptions and interpretations. 

...Next week, we'll look at just a single chapter from God and the Gay Christian, which addresses celibacy. 

Questions for Discussion: 

1.    How have your experiences—or those of friends and family—shaped how you are approaching this conversation?  

2.    What do you think of Matthew’s response to the challenge that he is “elevating his experience over Scripture.” 

3.    Is it helpful or fair to compare evolving understandings of human sexuality to evolving understandings of, say, the solar system or slavery? 

I will be monitoring the comment section closely over the next 24 hours, after which the thread will be closed. Thanks for your participation! 

I'm blogging with the lectionary this year, and this week's reading comes from Matthew 20:1-16: 

For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. 

When he went out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace; and he said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went.  When he went out again about noon and about three o’clock, he did the same.  And about five o’clock he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, ‘Why are you standing here idle all day?’ They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard.’ 

When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, ‘Call the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.’ When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage. Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage. And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 

But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

In Matthew’s account, Jesus tells this story right after the apostle Peter demands, “We have left everything to follow you! What’s in it for us?” and just before the mother of James and John requests special privileges for her sons, who have “borne the burdens of the day” by joining Jesus in his ministry. So we may rightly understand this parable as a gentle rebuke to the disciples regarding their ongoing tangle over who will reap the most prestige in the Messiah’s new Kingdom, one they still imagined comes complete with money, glory, and power. 

This isn’t that sort of Kingdom, Jesus says with this parable. You don’t earn your way to the top. There is no top. 

But there’s even more at work in this story when we pay attention to the details.

Notice that the landowner finds his workers in the marketplace. This means that whether they arrived early in the morning or late in the afternoon, all were looking for work. All were tapped on the shoulder and recruited to the vineyards by a micromanaging landowner who just keeps on coming back...and back…and back to hire the people no one else wanted. Anyone who wants work will get work, even if they show up late, even if they stumble into the marketplace tired, hungover, uncertain, or sick, even if no one else wants them. This isn’t about being qualified; it’s about being called. It’s about being invited to join in the work, if just for a few dusky hours. 

Notice too that the landowner pays a fair day’s wages. No one in this story is deprived or shortchanged. What scandalizes the workers who arrived early to the vineyard isn’t that they are cheated by the landowner but that their coworkers benefit from his generosity without earning it. Funny how something good can suddenly seem like less simply because it is shared. It’s such a universal and familiar reaction it’s hard not to see ourselves in it, particularly those of us who operate within a culture that idolizes success and self-sufficiency, where even gifts are expected to be deserved. 

This isn’t that sort of Kingdom, Jesus is saying. It’s not about the pay; it’s about the work.You don’t pull yourself up by your boostraps; you simply take my hand. 

And here we get to the punchline of the parable: “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?” asks the landowner. “Or are you envious because I am generous?

Are you envious because I am generous? Let that question soak down to the marrow. 

Really, this parable isn’t about the workers. It’s about landowner.  This is God’s Vineyard, God’s table, God’s Kingdom and God’s world. We don’t make the invitation list and we don’t dole out the gifts. And it’s a good thing too because no doubt we would try to make it all fair. No doubt we’d make sure everyone got what they deserved. But God isn’t fair. God is irrationally and irresponsibly generous. His mercies are infinite, offensive, new every morning.

We think the miracle is that our coworkers get to share in the reward, but the miracle is that any of us get to share in the work. The miracle is that God comes to the marketplace, pulls us out, hands us shovels and baskets and clippers, and puts us to work. If  we want in on this Kingdom, if we want in on this work, we best set aside our small notions of what it means to deserve, what it means to be fair, and what it means to earn. Because what makes God’s grace offensive isn’t who it leaves out, but who it lets in…starting with you and me. Fair's got nothing to do with it. 

We serve at the pleasure of a generous master; there is plenty of good work to do. So let’s do it. 

In her marvelous book Pastrix, Nadia Bolz-Weber writes about preaching from this passage to a group of Luthern pastors at an event honoring those gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender clergy that had previously been denied ordination in the ELCA because of their sexuality. Not wanting her sermon to veer into progressive self-congratulations—“We’ve been last, but now we get to be first [fist pump]!”—Nadia focused too on the landowner: 

What makes this the kingdom of God is not the worthiness or piety or social justicey-ness or the hard work of the laborers…none of that matters. It’s the fact that the landowner couldn’t manage to keep out of the marketplace. He goes back and back and back, interrupting lives…coming to get his people. Grace tapping us on the shoulder…And so, I reminded those seven pastors specifically, including the man who introduced me to grace, that the kingdom of God was just like that exact moment in which sinners/saints are reconciled to God and to one another…In the end, their calling, and their value in the kingdom of God comes not from the approval of a denomination or of the other works, but in their having been come-and-gotten by God. It is the pure and unfathomable mercy of a God that defines them and that says, ‘pay attention, this is for you.” 

We have been come-and-gotten by God.  So let’s stop looking at one another to decide whether everything’s fair and in-control and safe. 

Because it’s not. Not even close. 

Instead, let’s get to work. 

***

P.S. Another great quote from Pastrix we've been discussing on the Facebook page is this one: "Grace isn't about God creating humans as flawed beings and then acting all hurt when we inevitably fail and then stepping in like the hero to grant us grace--like saying 'Oh, it's OK, I'll be a good guy and forgive you.' It's God saying, 'I love the world too much to let your sin define you and be the final word. I am a God who makes all things new.'" 

In response,  Kay wrote: "We visited a church recently where the pastor asked us to turn to each other and say, "I don't deserve God's love." Andy turned to me, saw my face, and said, "You're not going to say that, are you?" "Nope," I said. Not because it's not true, but because it's not The Truth. It's not the Gospel. Me being undeserving is just the set-up for the real Story, the Deeper Magic like CS Lewis said. There is this great redemption that has nothing to do with what I deserve and don't deserve. There's this Love that obliterates every sin. That's the Story. That's The Truth."

Around the Blogosphere…

Most Powerful: 
Zak Ebrahim at TED with “I am the son of a terrorist. Here’s how I chose peace.”

[See also NPR’s interview with Ebrahim about his book]

Most Profound: 
Cindy Brandt with “When Prayer Becomes Control”

“In Job, when God begins to respond out of the whirlwind, God shatters human explanations with stunning poetry. We are invited to meet God in a storm, a whirlwind beyond our control. We pray, not to explain, but to discover. We pray to find out how small we really are, to consider where we are in light of the vastness of the seas and the stars. We pray to bravely let all the overwhelming grief and emotion wash over us like waves threatening to pin us down, and we pray from that rock bottom. We pray with poetry and art. We imagine alternative situations not with dogmatic certainty, but with hopeful possibilities. We don’t pray against diseases, tragedies, and pain, we call forth new ways of living in spite of suffering. We pray not to explain the why, but to discover the how.”

Most Informative: 
Scot McKnight with “That Elect Lady”

“Not often observed in the conversation about women in ministry is 2 John, a letter addressed by John (according to traditional scholarship) to a woman who is the leader of a house church…”

Most Inspiring: 
John Blase with “Do One Thing” 

“Do one thing today
that smacks of love…”

Most Relatable: 
Carlos Bovall with “On Becoming 'a Mouthpiece of Satan'”

“So it misses the point to suggest that inerrantists are following Jesus while post-inerrantists follow the devil. We are all trying faithfully to follow Jesus—though we have serious disagreements about how best to do this.”

Most Thoughtful: 
Ragan Sutterfield with “A Lament for Martha: Passenger Pigeons and Psalm 78”

“Looking at Martha, the last of her kind, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of lament and rage, and yet I knew that I too was a part of the culture of craving that is the legacy of her demise and adding to the number of extinct species more rapidly than ever.  The only place I could find comfort was in returning to Psalm 78 and remembering my favorite line, verse 39 where God decides to be merciful to the wayward people: ‘For [God] remembered that they were but flesh, a wind that passes by and does not return.’”

Most Enlightening: 
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby opens up about doubt

Wisest: 
Linda Hargrove with “Christian Race Fatigue” 

“When we Christians get tired of race talk, we go straight to the ‘cumbayah’ platitudes and nothing ‘God’ happens…”

Bravest: 
Carol Howard Merritt at Christian Century  with “Lonely Pastors”

“I’m not saying that we can’t be friends with parishioners. I reject that notion. But we can’t always fall apart in front of them. We can’t complain to them that the Treasurer is acting like the church’s money is her money and is trying to block our cost of living increase. We can’t become emotionally dependent on them. So, we have to learn how to make friends outside of church, which is hard when church was always our social outlet.”

Best Response: 
Matt Morris at Deeper Story with “What’s it like to be a gay Christian?” 

“I was so caught off guard. I didn’t realize we were going to be having this talk. I thought we were talking about faith. About my faith. Not my “gay” faith, mind you. My faith-faith. The faith that was re-shaping the landscape of my life.”

Best Question: 
Katelyn Beaty at Christianity Today with “Study: Where Are the Women Leading Evangelical Organizations?”

“The reality is that the very low numbers of women leaders in these sectors—most dominated by women in their staff—suggests that institutional realities make leadership opportunities more available to men than they do to women. We want to help organizations encourage all people to use their gifts to build the kingdom. There are lots of organizations that want to see more women in leadership, and a primary goal of our work is to help them do that.”

Best Idea: 
“A Church Takes Adult Formation into the Community with Prayerbooks and Potables”

Best Analysis: 
Kristen Rosser with “Men Need Respect and Women Need Love – Really?” 

“Love and respect are not gender distinctions supporting male headship.  As used in Ephesians 5, they're not stand-alone concepts that can be lifted out of context and used to make blanket statements about men vs. women.”

Best List: 
Ben Irwin with “My New Reading List” 

Best Series: 
Christena Cleveland at 30 Seconds or Less with “In Remembrance of Me”  - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5
 

Best Critique: 
Emily C. Heath with “The ‘Next Big Thing’ for the Progressive Church: Putting the Horse Before the Cart” 

“I often worry that the progressive church has begun to define itself not by our affirmations, but by our repudiations. When compared with our more conservative brothers and sisters we are so quick to say “we aren’t like that”. We proclaim “not all Christians believe that way” with ease. But when it comes to talking about what we DO believe, we often find we lack the words.”

Best Interview: 
Carla Murphy at Colorlines interviews Tressie McMillan Cottom in “My Feminism Starts 300 Years Ago”

“So if I go and tell them something like, “You should Lean In” or, “I think Sheryl Sandberg reinvigorates the policy conversation around the work-life balance,” these women would laugh me out the room. What do you mean work-life balance?! It ain’t no work-life balance. It’s work. All of it is work! Their man is work. Their kids are work. Work is work. They’re not having it. But! Those are also the women whom I think are living feminism in ways that we don’t talk about.”

Best Reporting:
Craig Welch at The Seattle Times with “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill Church”

Best Call-to-Action: 
Nicole Baker Fulgham with “Cradle-to-Prison vs. Kindergarten-to-Graduation”

“It’s tough to ignore the glaring racial disparities at the center of America’s prison industrial complex. As an African-American woman, Christian, and mother, it breaks my heart and, at times, even tests the limits of my faith. But I also believe in a faith that can move mountains. When it comes to our nation’s criminal justice system, we’ve got mountains to move.” 

Best Perspective: 
Lillie Lainoff at The Washington Post with “I’m a teenager with an illness, and it’s not glamorous at all” 

“Life does not start when you go to a hospital. If you’re lucky enough to have a non-terminal illness, life continues, in a warped version that includes more pain and obstacles than any young person should have to experience.”

Best Photo Series: 
Alice Proujansky with “What Giving Birth Looks Like Around the World”

On the blog…

Most Popular Post: 
“God and the Gay Christian Discussion, Week 1” 

Most Popular Comment: 
In response to “God and the Gay Christian Discussion, Week 1”, Ready-to-Halt wrote: 

“Re: ‘Elevating your experience above Scripture.’ Ironically, for me and most other LGB Christians I've met, the profound disconnect between our beliefs and our experience drove us to a much deeper and more heartfelt engagement with the Scriptures. That's why most of us can't help rolling our eyes and tuning out when someone trots out one of the "clobber verses"… because we certainly don't need to be reminded what they say. Like Matthew, we've spent uncounted hours agonizing and praying over and studying every single one of them: the exact wording, the translation issues, the cultural and historic context, how they relate to broader biblical principles, how commentators on various sides of the issue read them. Of course we haven't all come to the same conclusions: there are Sides A and B and the whole spectrum of nuances of belief spanning and surrounding them. But I don't think any of us have come to those conclusions casually, as the "easy way out," without profound struggle and soul-searching. It's much easier to read something at face value and assume you understand exactly what's being said when it doesn't apply to you on such a deeply personal level.”

Miscellaneous…

Lately I’ve been appreciating just how much conversation springs up on the Facebook page. This week I asked for you input on how to handle certain types of speaking invitations and was blown away by your thoughtful, encouraging, and diverse responses. Thank you! (Join us if you haven’t already.) 

A Year of Biblical Womanhood ebooks remain just $3.99, which is a great deal. And Searching For Sunday (releases April 2015) is already available for preorder. 

I’ve done a few podcasts recently, including one with The Liturgists and one with Shaun Tabatt. So check those out. 

***

So, what caught your eye online this week? What’s happening on your blog? 

I’m not interested in rehashing the recent events and disclosures that led to the near-collapse of Mars Hill Church Seattle and the (temporary?) resignation of pastor Mark Driscoll.  The Seattle Times summed it up well with this article by Craig Welch and with this informative timeline. I’m also not interested in piling on as Driscoll faces the consequences of his actions.  I’ve spoken out against his bullying in the past, and though I stand by my critiques, I don’t feel the need to rehash them. I truly wish Driscoll well and hope this difficult time proves to be a refining fire that leads him down a healthier, grace-lit path. 

That said, to treat this as an isolated incident that no one saw coming and that will never happen again is misguided and dangerous.As Christians, we have to own up to the reality that we helped create a culture that enabled Driscoll’s behavior, (and sometimes rewarded it), and that this culture has to change. I don’t have all the answers on how to make such change happen, but I’ve got a few ideas: 

1.  We must educate Christians about abuse, bullying, and misuse of power in church settings. 

Paul David Tripp called Mars Hill Church, “the most abusive, coercive ministry culture I’ve ever been involved with” and person after person has come forward to say the same. Once held back by fear (and in some cases, nondisclosure agreements), these former pastors and church members are sharing stories of decades of pervasive bullying, shaming, abuse of power, and mismanagement of funds. Questions were routinely treated as threats and stomped out. Challenges to authority were met with public shaming. Disagreements were dismissed as “gossip” and a “threat to Christian unity.” 

To those educated in the dynamics of spiritual abuse, Mars Hill Church has been setting off alarm bells for years, and yet for the many good, godly people involved in the church, the problems went unaddressed until recently.  So why didn’t more people recognize these unhealthy, abusive dynamics? Why didn’t they address them sooner?   

Well, I think it’s because far too many Christians just don’t know how to spot and respond to the signs of abuse—be it spiritual abuse, abuse of authority, or even the physical/emotional/sexual abuse of women and children.  And I believe the impetus is on denominational leaders and on the media (religious and mainstream) to better educate the Christian public on these matters and to better hold church leaders accountable when they abuse. 

For those new to the topic, a really good place to start is The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen, a book I wish I could mail to every churchgoer in the world. Evangelicals may want to check out the fantastic organization G.R.A.C.E. (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) and Catholics, S.N.A.P. (Survivors Network of Those Abused By Priests). We did a series here on the blog on abuse in the Church called “Into the Light,” which also includes a long list of additional resources, and we will continue to address this important issue in the future.

2. We must value and preserve accountability. 

In 2007 Mars Hill changed its bylaws to limit power to a very small group, effectively giving Driscoll unfettered free reign over the church. When two pastors objected to this structure, they were fired and subjected to a church trial where members were encouraged to shun one of them. For many, this move marked “the beginning of the end” of Mars Hill Church as Driscoll faced little accountability in his decision-making. 

While churches associated with denominations often have structures in place to hold pastors accountable, non-denominational evangelical churches sometimes do not. Preserving some form of accountability is absolutely crucial to maintaining a healthy, non-abusive church, so I would urge all churchgoers to become familiar with how your church leadership is structured and to watch out for authoritarian leaders who seek to consolidate power to their office. If your pastor has little to no accountability, and if your questions about accountability are met with hostility, leave.   Groups that organize national pastor conferences should consider not inviting as speakers pastors who refuse accountability.  Christian media, too, must do a better job of reporting on the organization structure and finances of evangelical mega-churches. Christian reporters are not obligated to paint rosy pictures of churches; they’re obligated to paint accurate ones. (See also: “Why Mark Driscoll Needs A Bishop” by Erik Parker.) 

3.   We must take misogyny and homophobia seriously.

Throughout his 18 years in ministry, Mark Driscoll was well-known for making crude, demeaning comments about women and for mocking men he deemed effeminate or “pussies.” In online rants, he raged against feminism and the “pussification of culture” and referred to women as “penis homes.” From the pulpit, he taught that women owed their husbands oral sex. When evangelist Ted Haggard was caught with male prostitutes, Driscoll blamed Haggard’s wife for letting herself go. 

Driscoll routinely trashed advocates of nonviolence as “pansies,” the emerging church as “homo-evangelicals” who worship a “Richard Simmons hippie queer Christ,” and churches with women in leadership as “chickified,” warning that “if Christian males do not man up soon, the Episcopalians may vote a fluffy baby bunny rabbit as their next bishop to lead God’s men.” He often used the term “gay” pejoratively, and in 2011 issued a call on Facebook for his followers to share stories about and publicly ridicule what he deemed “effeminate anatomically male worship leaders.”  Recently unearthed online rants from Driscoll’s early days as a pastor give us a glimpse of the inner thoughts of a man who throughout his 18 years as a pastor routinely characterizes all the things he detested most in the world as feminine or gay. 

This is blatant, unapologetic misogyny and homophobia, and for more than a decade, the evangelical culture turned a blind eye, inviting Driscoll to headline conferences, publish books, and speak as an “expert” on marriage and gender roles.  Why? Because the evangelical culture doesn’t take misogyny and homophobia seriously.  

“Oh he’s a little rough around the edges,” people would often say to me. “But he’s doing so much good. He’s getting men to go to church! Don’t take it so personally. What are you, the PC police?”  

This is an enormous blind spot within the evangelical culture, one I also see reflected in its ongoing love affair with the Duck Dynasty cast, even after patriarch Phil Robertson has made, racist, homophobic, and (most recently) violently Islamaphobic remarks . Even after I invited several black and gay Christians to the blog to explain just how hurtful the “I Stand With Phil” movement was to them, many evangelical readers brushed it off as no big deal. 

But racism, misogyny and homophobia do not simply offend the “PC Police.” They offend the heart of God. They are sins that damage our relationships with our neighbors and our witness to the world. And if we are going to change the culture that enabled the bullying and abuses of Mark Driscoll, we have to start treating them as such.  As blogger Tyler Clark put it, “When you put out a call on Facebook for people verbally attack ‘effeminate anatomically male’ men, I find myself back in high school—shoved against a locker, with the bullies calling me a faggot.”

How can this possibly be the gospel? How can this possibly be good news if it makes someone feel like they’ve been shoved against a locker, bullied and demeaned?  How we treat our fellow human beings is not a peripheral issue, sidelined by supposedly “good theology.” It’s central. It’s everything. I don’t care whether you are Calvinist or Arminian, charismatic or Catholic, you can’t demean women or bully the marginalized and still have “good theology.”  Misogyny is bad theology. Bullying is bad theology.  And it's time we start identifying them as such. 

4.  We must measure “success” by fruit of the Spirit, not numbers. 

Whenever Driscoll’s bullying behavior was challenged, the response from many in the Christian culture was to say, “Yes, but he’s doing so much good! Look at how his church just keeps growing and growing! He’s even convinced MEN to go to church!” No doubt this results-based culture influenced Driscoll’s decision to use church funds to pay for a spot on the New York Times bestseller list and to vow to “destroy” other area churches “brick by brick.” 

When Christians measure a church’s “success” by numbers rather than the fruit of the Spirit, we create a culture that looks nothing like the Kingdom Jesus preached. But Scripture does not teach us that the fruit of the Spirit is satellite campuses, book sales, and market share. Scripture teaches us that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.  Jesus said that we identify false preachers, not by their position on obscure theological matters, but by the degree to which their lives exhibit this type fruit.  In other words, getting men to go to church is not the same as making disciples of Jesus, and we best not confuse the two. 

All across the world, there are thousands and thousands of pastors laboring faithfully to help grow and nurture the fruit of the Spirit within their congregations. Some of these congregations are growing and others are dwindling.  Perhaps we should do a better job of honoring such pastors—by thanking them, encouraging them, and  maybe listening to them for a change at our pastors conferences. When Christians measure church success by the standards of American culture—money, power, prestige, numbers—we set ourselves up for scandal, discouragement, and abuse of authority/funds/people. Jesus never promised us success by worldly standards. He only asked that we remain faithful. And far too many pastors are getting the message that faithfulness isn’t enough. 

Character matters.  Integrity matters. Kindness matters. How we do things in the Church matters. All of this is is part of our testimony and when it is compromised in the name of “success,” we loose the very saltiness that is supposed to set us apart. 

5.   We must protect people over reputations. 

Perhaps the most effective silencing technique in Christian culture is telling those who challenge abusive or bullying behavior among church leaders that their objections are “gossip” and “slander” contributing to  “disunity in the Church.” I’ve spoken with many, many victims of sexual abuse who say this was the very language church leaders used to urge them not to report their abuse in a church environment to the authorities. “You don’t want to damage Christ’s reputation in the world, do you?” they were asked.  And indeed, the public response to the Sovereign Grace Ministries child abuse scandal revealed that far too many Christian leaders seem more concerned with protecting the reputations of their denominations, ministries, and pastors than with protecting victims of abuse. 

In an interview on the bog, Boz Tchividjian of G.R.A.C.E., put it this way:

“The greatest failure of the church/Christian organizations when it comes to responding to abuse is institutional self-protection.   Too often Christian institutions have been willing to sacrifice the individual human soul in exchange for the protection of their own reputation.   What makes such responses even more heinous is that they are often justified in the name of ‘protecting the name of Christ.’   Such a justification is nothing but a pious attempt at self-protection.  It may come as a surprise to some but Jesus does not need us to protect His name!  In fact, it was Jesus who sacrificed Himself for the soul of the individual.  Tragically, in all of its attempts at self-protection, the Church too often completely misses this beautiful truth.  As a result, many abuse survivors in the Church are pushed away from the arms of Jesus and prevented from experiencing glorious Gospel love.”

Another common refrain is, “What will the world think if it sees Christians disagreeing with one another?” But when it comes to identifying and stopping abusive and bullying behavior, when it comes to naming racism, misogyny, and homophobia sins, my question is: what will the world think if it doesn’t see us addressing these things? How much more does our reputation suffer when we shrug off or cover up this sort of behavior? 

If we are to change the culture that far too often prioritizes the reputation of the bully/abuser over the health and safety of the bullied/abused, we have to stop shaming victims who come forward with their stories as “gossips” and dismissing Christians who call for accountability as “divisive.” We also have to ensure that our churches are prepared to respond to bullying and abuse when it happens. (For more on that, please check out G.R.A.C.E. and the list of resources from our “Into the Light” series.)
 

6.   We must treat our pastors and church leaders as human beings—flawed, complex, and beloved by God. 

I’m often asked what ought to be done about “celebrity culture” within American Christianity, and having benefitted a bit from that very culture myself, I honestly don’t know if I’m the best person to respond. However, I have noticed that there is a tendency within the culture to see Christian leaders (and writers and activists) as either wholly good—and worth defending at every turn—or wholly evil—and worth opposing at every turn. I am guilty of this myself. Tribal alliances built around shared theological distinctives have exacerbated the problem, and I often find myself succumbing to a “team” mentality wherein those who share my theological or political viewpoints always get the benefit of the doubt while those who do not are demonized.

 I wrote more about this in an article for Relevant entitled, “When Jesus meets TMZ,” but my main point is that our pastors are human. Glorifying them, demonizing them, and placing unrealistic expectations on them is bad not only for the pastors but for the whole Church. As much as I oppose Driscoll’s bullying behavior, I sincerely hope that this brother in Christ—who is beloved by God and with whom I would break the bread of communion in a heartbeat—will find his way. 

But first, we have to work together to create a culture that nurtures and celebrates healthy pastors and healthy people, and that holds unhealthy ones accountable. 

***

Some concrete, actionable steps: 

- Educate yourself about abuse in a church environment (see resources under #1) and share your findings with fellow Christians and on social media. Email your favorite religion reporter or Christian publication to request that they increase coverage of church abuse—not just after it happens, but before. Ask your church leaders about possibly taking advantage of training and resources offered by G.R.A.C.E. 

- Learn about the accountability structure and financial policies of your church. If your questions are met with hostility or shaming, leave. 

-If you help plan national conferences for pastors, please consider inviting, celebrating, and learning from pastors whose work produces the fruit of the Spirit rather than basing speaking invitations on attendance, books sales, and fame. Avoid featuring pastors whose churches do not include built-in accountability. And if you attend such conferences, urge organizers to think outside of the box so that presentations better reflect the reality of most pastors’ lives and experiences.  (For more on this, check out J.R. Briggs’ excellent book, Fail: Finding Hope and Grace in the Midst of Ministry Failure.)  

- Christians, don’t let racist, misogynistic, and homophobic comments “slide.” Stand up for the bullied, not the bullies. Advocate for the oppressed, not the oppressors. And don’t let anyone shame you as “divisive” when you do so. 

***

Other thoughts? Ideas? 

On the blog, we often talk about women in the Church, but obviously, religious views on gender affect both women and men. So when I had the opportunity to review Fight Church (created by the same team that made the thoughtful, well-produced documentary Holy Rollers about a group of card-counting Christians), I asked my friend Nate Pyle for his take on the topic. 

Nate is ordained in the Reformed church of America and is the lead pastor of Christ’s Community Church in Fishers, Indiana. He blogs at www.natepyle.com and is also a writer forA Deeper Story. Nate is also the author of the forthcoming book Man Enough: How Jesus Redefines Manhood, which is due out in the Fall of 2015. 

***

“Can you love your neighbor as yourself and then, at the same time, knee him in the face as hard as you can?”

This is the question that mixed martial arts (MMA) instructor Scott Sullivan asks during an interview featured in the new documentary, Fight Church.

Fight Church documents the growing number of churches, upwards of 700 by some accounts, that are incorporating mixed martial arts into their ministries. The documentary, which was produced by Daniel Junge and Bryan Storkel, follows a number of pastors (yes pastors) who not only promote MMA ministries at their church but are also fighters themselves. 

When I was asked to review the film, I’ll admit my left eyebrow went up. High. The idea of two grown men climbing into a caged ring in the name of Jesus seems absolutely ludicrous to me.

Throughout the movie you regularly hear some variation of the refrain, “I fight for the glory of God.” For these men, the idea that God has given them the ability to fight sanctifies their efforts to bloody the nose of the other guy. There seems to be little question as to whether they should fight or not, it is simply taken for granted that, because they are a fighter, God wants them to fight. Only now, rather than fighting for their own personal glory, they fight for God’s glory.

Listen, I get that the Bible says, “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him,” (Colossians 3:17) but I highly doubt putting someone in a choke hold and simultaneously punching them in the temple is what was intended when that was written - especially considering that the verse follows the commands to “let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.”

...My lack of objectivity is showing.

Thankfully, the directors were much more objective than I. They present both the opinions of those who are positive about MMA ministries and those who wrestle with it (pun intended)  in such a way that allows the story to tell itself. The viewer is not led to any conclusions, but is left to decide for himself or herself if MMA and following Jesus are compatible.  Should churches promote fighting? How does one reconcile fighting, even regulated fighting, with following Jesus? These are the questions raised by the film, but rather than answering them for us, Storkel and Junge skillfully tell the story and then seem to ask: What do you think?

So here’s what I think.

I think the incorporation of MMA into church ministries is part of a pile of evidence that suggests American Christianity has been impacted by American ideals more than we like to admit. Strength, success, courage, individualism, sticking up for yourself, and victory are deeply ingrained into the American psyche. These values are especially strong for American men. If we want to be perceived as men, then we have to prove ourselves and our manliness by embodying these values. Every man feels it whether they voice it or not. We must, as men, prove ourselves. And so we are cajoled to “man up,” “don’t be a girl,” or “be a real man.” Any sign of weakness--physical or emotional-- is evidence that one is less than a man.

There is a scene in the film where a young boy prepares himself to fight another boy. The boy, who is 12, thinks “fighting is fun” and confidently looks forward to the fight because the boy he is fighting is a year younger and weighs 90 pounds to his 110 pounds. As he looks at the person interviewing him he smiles and gleefully says, “I’m going to go in there and rip his head off.”

Any discerning person will begin to wonder about the message we are communicating to our kids when we teach them to fight. In church. With the blessing of God. 

With rampant bullying and violence in schools, is fighting really something the church should be teaching our kids? 

As troubling as that may be, it is what comes next that really troubles me.

The two kids get into the ring and the 12 year old loses. Badly. After the fight, he is with his trainers, in tears because he was just humiliated in the ring by a kid who was a year younger, a couple inches shorter, and 20 pounds lighter. My heart went out to this poor kid. His tears weren’t tears born out of physical pain, but out of shame. I know those tears. I’ve cried those tears. And despite the axiom, they didn’t build character in me, but left a gaping wound as I wondered about my masculinity. This young boy was being taught that real men fight and real men beat their opponents and now he just lost. What does that imply about him? 

He’s not a man.

Shame born out of an emasculating wound can result in an anxious masculinity where one constantly worries about whether or not people see him as a man. When this happens to you, you work diligently  to prove you are a man by engaging in hyper-masculine activity so that no one dares to question your manliness. You never back down from a fight, you don’t let any one disrespect you, and you see a fight where there is none all so you feel secure as a man.

I can’t help but wonder if putting kids into the cage sets them up to forever misunderstand masculinity, to always question if they are enough, and to embrace a definition of manhood that demands they be a shell of the human God is calling them to be.

In our culture, the combination of MMA and church happens because the warrior is valued and put on a pedestal. Real men prepare for battle. Real men don’t back down. Real men don’t tap. But all this talk of “real men” makes following Jesus look weak. Turn the other cheek? Do good to your enemies? Submit yourself, willingly, to another person? These are foreign ideas for an American male who is taught to fiercely compete against other men for their place in the world. In the case of MMA, the whole goal is to get the other person to submit to you, to tap out, so that you can be victorious. The last thing you want to do is submit to another person. And so we dismiss the words of Jesus and cherry pick the verses about Peter getting a sword and the Lord training our fingers for battle so that we don’t have to question our current understanding of masculinity.

Following Jesus just might make men appear less than manly in the eyes of the American culture. When people complain that the church is too feminine, I always want to ask, Compared to what? Compared to John Wayne? Yes.  Compared to the cheap seats at a NFL game? Duh. Of course the church is going to be more feminine than other areas of American society. Half the people in the church are female! The church better have a feminine and masculine feel because both genders are a part of the body of Christ and both genders are to be represented as the church lives out her mission to be salt and light.

For hundreds of years people, particularly men, have been bemoaning the overly feminized state of the church. Fight Church highlights the effort of so many to give Christianity a masculine feel, hoping to attract men to church. “Tough men need Jesus too,” says one pastor.

And, yes, they do. But they don’t need Jesus to make them tougher, or to sanctify their pre-existing aggressive disposition. They need Jesus to redeem their whole person, transforming them into a new creation.
 

***

Follow Nate on Twitter. And be sure to check out Fight Church. Looks like a good conversation-starter! 

Anyone else seen it? Thoughts? 

Over the next few weeks, on Wednesdays, we will be discussing Matthew Vines’ book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. (Read Part 1.) 

I chose this particular book because I think it provides the most accessible and personal introduction to the biblical and historical arguments in support of same-sex relationships, and because Matthew is a theologically conservative Christian who affirms the authority of Scripture and who is also gay. His research is sound and his story is compelling. And he’s a friend—someone I like and respect and enjoy learning from. 

Today we look at what is perhaps the most controversial and intriguing chapter in the book—Chapter 3, in which Matthew argues that Scripture does not support mandatory celibacy for gay and lesbian Christians. (Note: As a complement to today’s discussion, look for “Ask a (Celibate) Gay Christian…” next week. I want to make sure our brothers and sisters coming from that perspective get a fair hearing as well.)

***

Definition of Terms 

Before we get into today’s discussion, I want to backtrack just a bit to the section in Chapter 2 where Matthew defines his terms, as this is particularly important to today’s discussion. Acknowledging that labels like conservative and liberal, evangelical and progressive,pro-gay and anti-gay all fall short in these conversations, he suggests that identifying Christians as either affirming (supportive of same-sex relationships) or non-affirming (not supportive of same-sex relationships) can be helpful.  So, both Matthew and I are affirming, in the sense that we do no consider monogamous same-sex relationships to be inherently sinful (though, as you will see, we have slightly different reasons for arriving at that belief!). However, someone like Wesley Hill, a celibate gay Christian, or Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics &Religious Liberty Commission believe any same-sex relationship is inherently sinful and are therefore considered non-affirming.  Obviously, no labeling system is perfect, but for the purposes of this particular discussion, these may be (at least momentarily) helpful. Make sense? 

Celibacy 

There seems to be an increasing consensus, even among non-affirming Christians, that some people simply experience fixed attraction to members of the same sex. And thankfully, efforts to “correct” this orientation through “reparative therapy” are falling out of vogue, as they have been shown to ineffective and damaging. 

The predominant view among non-affirming Christians regarding gay and lesbian Christians is that if they wish to remain faithful to Scripture, they must pursue celibacy. “According to non-affirming Christians,” writes Matthew, “gay people’s sexuality is completely broken, so mandatory, lifelong celibacy is their only real option.”  (You see this position reflected in a recent Gospel Coalition post, where those with fixed, same-gender attraction are described as “having SSA”—same-sex attraction—and encouraged to pursue celibacy.) 

 “Celibacy has a long, honored history in the church,” writes Matthew. “We associated it with Jesus and Paul, with Mother Teresa, and with thousands of dedicated brothers and sisters serving Christ in far-flung corners of the world. But there’s a problem. Christians throughout history have affirmed that lifelong celibacy is a spiritual gift and calling, not a path that should be forced upon anyone. Yes, permanently forgoing marriage is a worthy choice for Christians who are gifted with celibacy. But it must be a choice. Jesus and Paul both taught this view, and the church has maintained it for nearly two thousand years.” 

Then Matthew unpacks this argument…

Creation

Non-affirming Christians generally argue that the creation of Adam and Eve reveals the limits of God’s blessing for sexual relationships: one man and one woman. As an opposite sex couple, Adam and Eve were best suited to fulfill God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” 

But Matthew argues that 1) the account of Eve’s creation does not emphasize Adam’s need to procreate; it emphasizes his need for relationship (“it is not good for the man to be alone”), 2) the concern for procreation with this particular couple is obvious, as they are the first couple and need to populate the planet! and 3)  the Genesis 2 text does not emphasize the gender differences between Adam and Eve but rather their similarity as human beings.

 (There will be more on the creation narrative in subsequent chapters.)

Jesus on Celibacy

In Matthew 19:11-12, when Jesus spoke about celibacy he said, “Not everyone can accept [the decision not to marry], but only those to whom it has been given. For there are  eunuchs who were born that way, and there were eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept this.” 

Writes Matthew: “Notice that none of the three categories Jesus mentions describes what we would call gay men. Instead he describes three types of men who do not marry: men who are sexually impotent, those who are castrated, and those who pursue a call to celibacy. In light of the stringent restrictions Jesus places on divorce, his disciples suggest they would prefer to be celibate. But Jesus says celibacy can only be accepted by ‘those to whom it has been given.’” 

Celibacy is a gift, Matthew argues, and those who do not have the gift should feel free to marry. 

Now, some will certainly notice that this teaching by Jesus is immediately followed by a reference to creation: “Haven’t you read,” Jesus said, “That at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?” 

But according to Matthew, this reference does not address, specifically, gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians.“When we study biblical writings about marriage and celibacy the question is not whether Jesus, Paul, or anyone else endorses same-sex marriage,” he writes, “or whether they instead enjoin gay people to lifelong celibacy. They don’t directly do either one…Our understanding of same-sex orientation is uniquely modern, so the question we face is how to apply the basic principles of the Bible’s teaching to this new situation. And what we do see in Jesus’ teaching is a basic principle: celibacy is a gift that not all have.” 

Paul on Celibacy 

The apostle Paul was a big, big fan of celibacy. He even said he wished all men could be like him—celibate and happy about it (I Corinthians 7:6-7). BUT, he says, “each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.” 

“It is better,” Paul writes, “to marry than to burn with passion.” 

(Boy was that verse a favorite one on my Christian college campus!) 

In his letter to Timothy, Paul (or whoever is writing as Paul…I know, I know) warns against false teachers who, among other things, mandate celibacy. “They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods,” said Paul, “which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth” (I Timothy 4:1-5). 

Once again, a New Testament writer speaks of celibacy in terms of a gift for those called to it, not a mandate. Even for a big fan of celibacy like Paul, celibacy does not appear to be mandated for any group. 

Church History

Matthew works in some solid research here, which suggests the tradition teaching on celibacy, for most of Christian history, is that it was a calling, not a mandate. 

Augustine wrote that “no one can be continent unless God give it,” Ambrose that “virginity cannot be commanded” but “is the gift of few only.” Calvin went so far as to say that Matthew 19 “plainly shows that [celibacy] was not given to all, so if anyone “has not the power of subduing his passion, let him understand that the Lord made it obligatory on him to marry.” Even Pope John Paul II in his landmark Theology of the Body argues that celibacy cannot legitimately be forced on anyone. In his view, even clerical celibacy is not forced, because Catholics who feel called to marriage are not obliged to pursue the priesthood. And Karl Barth, in the 20th century, wrote that “a suspicion of or discrimination against sexual life” is not a valid reason to avoid marriage. 

Sexuality is Good 

Here, drawing from the creation account, the incarnation and resurrection, and even church history and the rejection of Gnosticism, Matthew makes the case that— though broken and imperfect—“creation is good. The body is good. Sexuality, as a core part of the body, is also good.” Therefore, any doctrine that teaches Christians to detest their sexual desires is unorthodox, contrary to the most central teachings of the Church. 

The Meaning of Celibacy

Matthew concludes that “the purpose of celibacy is to affirm the basic goodness of sex and marriage by pointing to the relationship they prefigure: the union of Christ and the church. Mandatory celibacy for gay Christians does not fulfill that purpose. It undermines it, because it sends the message to gay Christians that their sexual selves are inherently shameful. It is not a fulfillment of sexuality for gay Christians, but a rejection of it.” 

Matthew will go on to address, in subsequent chapters,  the question of whether same-sex marriage can fulfill the meaning and purpose of Christian marriage, but his point in this chapter is rather straightforward: Throughout the New Testament and church history, celibacy is set apart as a special calling and never mandated for a specific group of people. 

Of course, let’s face it. There are also no examples in Scripture (or, to my knowledge church history) explicitly supporting same-sex relationships.  So it seems these are the two uncomfortable realities we hold simultaneously…at least for now. 

***

Note: Matthew sent me a message this morning pointing me to an article he recently wrote responding to a review that was critical of this particular chapter.   Writes Matthew:  “In short, the main misreading of my argument is that I'm saying that celibacy, for LGBT or straight people, necessarily involves a rejection and hatred of one's sexuality. As I explain in my blog post, I only think that celibacy requires a devaluing of one's sexuality when at least one of the reasons someone is celibate is because they believe all of their sexual attractions are temptations to sin. That's what non-affirming readings of Scripture require gay Christians to believe about their sexual orientation, but that's quite different from orthodox understandings of celibacy, and quite different from how celibate gay Christians can view their sexual orientation if they affirm at least some same-sex relationships.”  Read the whole post here. 

***

Also, if you want to learn more about the Bible and sexuality, check out the Reformation Project conference in Washington D.C., November 6-8. Speakers include David Gushee, Allyson Robinson, Gene Robinson, Justin Lee, Jane Clementi, Danny Cortez, Frank Schaefer, James Brownson, Kathy Baldock, Alexia Salvatierra, and Amy Butler.

***

Questions for Discussion: 

- I'd be interested to hear from those readers who, for whatever reason, have chosen a vocation that involves lifelong celibacy. How did you know that this was your calling? Why did you choose it? 

- I'd also welcome the stories of those gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians who have chosen to pursue relationships. Did you struggle at all to feel free to follow that path? 

- Finally, what do you think of Matthew's argument here. Do biblical and historical prohibitions against mandated celibacy apply to those gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians trying to decide what their sexuality means for their faith? 

I will be monitoring the comment section closely over the next 24 hours, after which the thread will be closed. Thanks for your participation! 

Since our conversation yesterday looked at Matthew Vines’ argument that lifelong celibacy is not biblically mandated for gay and lesbian Christians, I wanted to make space here for another perspective. Thankfully, my new friend Julie Rodgers was quick to graciously agree to join us for another installment of our “Ask a….” series: “Ask a (Celibate) Gay Christian…” 

Julie writes about the angst of growing up gay in the church and the hope she finds in Christ's story of restoration. She blogs about all things sexuality, celibacy, community, and (mostly) flourishing on her personal blog and with friends on the Spiritual Friendship blog. Julie earned a Masters in English for the sheer pleasure of stories (nerd alert), served urban youth the past four years through a ministry in West Dallas, and recently joined the chaplain's office at Wheaton College as the Ministry Associate for Spiritual Care. She's known to laugh loud and hard at all the wrong times. Julie loves Jesus. She says she “loves that He entered into the human experience and alleviated suffering in those around Him, and that He absorbed the pain of the world with His life, death, and resurrection.” 

You know the drill. If you have a question for Julie, leave it in the comment section.(Note: We’re only considering questions from the comment section here on the blog, not from Facebook or Twitter.) At the end of the day, I’ll choose 6-7 of the most popular or interesting questions to send to Julie for response.Be sure to take advantage of the “like” feature so we can get a sense of which questions are of most interest to readers.Look for Julie’s responses next week. 

You might also be interested in "Ask a gay Christian..." with Justin Lee, or with this important (and somewhat contrary to all of this) perspective from Matthew David Morris: "What's It Like to Be a Gay Christian?" And you can check out the rest of our "Ask a..." series here. 

Alight, ask away!

Look for a lectionary post later today. In the meantime, over on Facebook, I'm responding to challenges I've received for inviting Julie Rodgers, a gay Christian who has chosen to pursue celibacy, to be part of our “Ask a…” interview series. Seems like an important conversation, so if you're interested in that, join us. 

(If you have been liberated from the tyranny of Facebook, check out the first comment below for my response.) :-) 

I'm blogging with the lectionary this year, and this week's reading comes from Matthew 21:23-32: 

When he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” Jesus said to them, “I will also ask you one question; if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” And they argued with one another, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ we are afraid of the crowd; for all regard John as a prophet.” So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

“What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir’; but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him.

You can always pick out John the Baptist from a lineup of saints.

Among the dour, robed patriarchs, he’s the one with wild eyes and tangled hair, ribs protruding through sun-browned skin, hands cradling a staff or a scroll that reads, "‘Repent! The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand!” Or sometimes he is depicted munching serenely on locusts and honey, wearing a shaggy vest of camel’s hair. Sometimes it’s just his disembodied head on a platter. 

I’m not sure I’d have believed the guy either. 

The miracle child of Elizabeth and Zechariah, John was probably expected to follow in the footsteps of his father and become a Temple priest. There, he might have assisted faithful Jews as they washed in ceremonial baths to cleanse themselves of impurities. 

But John didn’t stay at the Temple among the baths. John went out to the rivers. 

Calling people to a single, dramatic baptism to symbolize a totally reoriented heart, John declared that “every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” 

“Prepare the way of the Lord,” he told the people,“make his paths straight.” 

In other words:  God’s on the move. Get out of the way.  For no mountain or hill—no ideology or ritual or requirement or law—can obstruct Him any longer. Temples cannot contain a God who flattens mountains, ceremonial baths a God who flows through rivers. Repentance means leaving the old ways of obstruction behind and joining in the great paving-of-the-path, the making-of-the-way, the demolishing of every man-made impediment between God and God’s people so the whole earth can celebrate God’ uninhibited presence within it and welcome the arrival of the Messiah. 

Not everyone liked this sermon. 

Needless to say, John the Baptist was what you might call a polarizing figure, popular among those who had traditionally been excluded from the faith community and not so popular among those whose reputations and careers depended upon protective walls. 

So when the religious leaders question Jesus’ authority, Jesus made a political statement by reminding them that it was John who had first recognized his authority. Jesus was building a coalition—of tax collectors and prostitutes, of women and Samaritans, of wilderness preachers and leprosy patients, of the poor, the sick, the hungry, and the left-out—and nearly everyone could see that it was prophetic;  it "wasn’t of human origin." 

….Except for those whose power depended on maintaining the status quo. 

…Except for those who expected God to color within the lines. 

This Jesus movement just didn’t sit right with them. 

It’s easy to judge those guys in hindsight. I’d love to believe that, had I lived in first century Palestine, I’d have dropped my fishing nets or water jars and followed Jesus the moment he reached out his hand to me. But on those days when I fold my arms and turn up my nose and declare with total confidence that “this cannot be God here,” and “this cannot be God there”…well, I’m not so sure. We tend to look for God where we expect to find Him, even while God is tapping us on the shoulder and shouting, “Hey! I’m right here! Pay attention!”  I don’t like the idea of God using people and methods I don’t approve of and yet that seems to be God’s favorite way of working in the world—outside my expectations, right where I’m prejudiced, against all my rules.

You would think that after all this time I’d have given up on expecting this river-wild God to fit safely in my categories. 

You know how Jesus said to Thomas, “blessed are those who haven’t seen and still believe”? There are days when I wonder if it’s actually easier to believe from this distance, without seeing, than it would have been to believe up-close, among all those questionable people and amidst all those radical teachings. We’ve sanitized the gospel so well in this culture, we’ve made it more accessible to the powerful than the powerless, more appealing to the cautious than to the troublemakers. 

I am too cautious. I have seen God work beyond my expectations and, like the religious leaders, refused to change my mind. 

God, forgive me. Open my eyes. Tear down the mountains I’ve built of my theology and flatten the walls I’ve constructed of my prejudices. 

Make a straight path right through my stubborn, hardened heart. 

Around the Blogosphere…

Most Awe-Inspiring: 
The American Museum of Natural History with “The Known Universe” 

Most Powerful:
Austin Channing with “Justice, Then Reconciliation”

“Reconciliation requires more than a rainbow of skin-tones at the 11:00 o'clock service. Diversity without justice is assimilation. And assimilation makes clear whose culture is the favored one, the good one, the right one, the holy one. If your culture is the standard for rightness, you have found the Imago Dei in others to be insufficient. It is the definition of racism- the assumed superiority of your race, your culture, your way of being. We can discuss who is assimilating into what, how and why, but a pound of diversity without an ounce of justice, is not reconciliation.” 

[If Austin’s blog is not in your reader, you’re missing out. This lady’s been on a roll.]

Most Beautiful: 
Brain Pickings with “Mary Oliver Reads ‘Wild Geese’” 

Most Thoughtful: 
Richard Beck with “Barbara, Stanley and Andrea: Thoughts on Love, Training and Social Psychology at ACU's Summit”

“All told, then, this is how I made sense of the first two days of Summit. Barbara gave me that big-hearted loving vision of Jesus. And Stanley reminded me that this vision is prone to superficiality and sentimentality. Which is extraordinarily dangerous given the social psychological dynamics at work in how we instinctively dehumanize each other. Love is no easy thing in light of the psychological obstacles at work in every human heart. Every human heart. Love takes discipline, training and community.”

Most Heartbreaking: 
Candice Czubernat with “The Church Is Responsible for This” 

“I hold the church personally responsible for any LGBTQ person who walks away from God and Christianity. Every week, I get emails from individuals all across the country who are full of desire to be a part of a church. They want to go on the church-wide mission trip, join the choir, serve in the youth group and attend a small group. These are people who long to serve God, connect with other Christians and be a part of a wider community. Sounds pretty good, right? Here’s the heartbreaking part: they write me because the church won’t let them do those things and they don’t know what to do.”

Most Encouraging:
PBS features Rev. Amy Butler of Riverside Church in Manhattan 

Most Superlative of All Superlatives:
Mr. Bean Digitally Painted Into Historical Portraits 

Wisest:
Glennon Melton with“This is What Brave Means”

“We have to teach our children (and ourselves) that caution is often a sign of courage. That often NO is as brave an answer as YES. Because the little girl who says no in the face of pressure to pierce her ears or jump off a cliff might become a bigger girl who says no in the face of pressure to bong a beer or bully a peer.  Whether her answer is YES OR NO- give me a little girl who goes against the grain, who pleases her own internal voice before pleasing others. Give me that girl so I can call her BRAVE loudly and proudly in front of the whole world. Give me a girl who has the wisdom to listen to her OWN voice and the courage to SPEAK IT OUT LOUD. Even if it disappoints others. Especially then.”

Funniest:
Ellen crashes Matthew McConaughey's Lincoln Commercial

Best Interview: 
Micky Jones interviews Walter Brueggemann at Theology of Ferguson

“The Gospel is a very dangerous idea. We have to see how much of that dangerous idea we can perform in our own lives. There is nothing innocuous or safe about the Gospel. Jesus did not get crucified because he was a nice man.”

Best Feature 
Elizabeth Weil at The New York Times with “The Woman Who Walked 10,000 Miles in Three Years”

“To prepare for the expedition, Marquis spent two years walking or snowshoeing 20 miles a day, wearing 75 pounds. On the trip itself, she carried, among other things, five pairs of underwear, a large pocketknife, wide-spectrum antibiotics, tea-tree oil for massaging her feet, a solar-powered charger, a beacon, a BlackBerry, a satellite phone, Crocs, a compass, a tiny emergency stash of amphetamines (‘that’s the backup backup backup of the backup; in case you lose a foot and you need to get out and not feel a thing’) and pink merino-wool pajamas (‘you put them on and you feel good, you feel gorgeous’).”

Best Point (and Best Use of Cats-With-Bibles Pictures): 
Rob Grayson at iMonk with “The Bible Clearly Says” 

“When we read any text, be it a novel, a newspaper, a blog post or the Bible, there’s a very small amount of information that is known and understood with absolute certainty. On the other hand, there’s a very large amount of information that is open to interpretation. It follows that our understanding of a text is based largely on our personal interpretation of that text.” 

Best Perspective: 
Micha Boyett at Deeper Story with “How Benedictine Spirituality Changed the Way I Mother”

“What has Benedictine spirituality done for my mothering life? It released me from the burden of striving. Somehow in the process of praying with monks, and reciting the Psalms in the morning, and learning to believe that God loved me and my unimpressive, everyday life, I recognized that following Jesus is not about spinning my wheels in place. It’s about living this moment, and all the moments of my life, with love.”

Best Response (nominated by Interfaith Ramadan)
Hind Makki with "7 Questions to Ask Before Asking if Muslims Condemn Terrorism"

Many Muslim leaders, activists, public intellectuals and lay people have condemned ISIS or expressed disgust, fear and dismay over them, since they first arose in Syria, killing and attacking the Muslims with whom they disagree. We’ve continued to express our horror at their actions as they unleashed their terror in Syria, then in Iraq, and now as they try to make inroads in Lebanon. Just because you found out about them only after they started to attack Iraqi Christians this summer, doesn’t mean we weren’t horrified and speaking out about the situation when they first became prominent in Syria years ago. 

Best Analysis:
Zack Hunt with “Let’s Talk Publicly About Matthew 18”

“I know it may sound strange to hear, but Jesus was a critic. That’s what prophets do. They speak out against injustice and sin. I think our problem today, along with a profound uncomfortableness with confrontation, is that we conflate cynicism with criticism. They are not the same. Cynicism stems from a place of bitterness and contempt for others. It has little if any interest in things becoming better. Criticism, at least the sort of prophetic criticisms Jesus made, is born from a desire to see things change and a hope that the world and the people in it can be better.”

On Social Media…

On Facebook, we discussed my struggles with pacifism and why we invite a variety of perspectives here on the blog. 
 

I wonder if we will ever stop trying to create unity by identifying and then casting out the bad guys.

— Nadia Bolz-Weber (@Sarcasticluther) September 27, 2014

Hermione would totally own Simon Peter in a teacher's pet contest and answer all of Jesus's questions better #herbivores#HPbiblestories

— Aric Clark (@aricclark) September 27, 2014

Hello, World!

You know you've been on Christian internet too long when you see a "Switch to Progressive" ad and think it's about leaving fundamentalism.

— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) September 26, 2014

IRL…

On Tuesday I had the pleasure of taking a film production crew from the Trinity Institute of Trinity Wall Street in New York around my hometown of Dayton, TN to introduce them to people in this community who are doing amazing work among the economically disadvantaged. I learned so much from this experience, and am humbled and challenged by how little I knew about the unique challenges facing families just down the road from me. It’s funny how introducing new people to a familiar place, familiar people, and a familiar organization can suddenly help you see it all from a brand new angle.  A big thanks to the folks of WeCare, Dayton, TN for working so tirelessly on behalf of our neighbors and for taking the time to talk. And check out the Trinity Institute 2015 Conference, Creating Common Good, where the film will be shown. 

On the blog…

Most Popular Post:
“Changing the Culture that Enabled Mark Driscoll: 6 Ways Forward”
 

Most Popular Comment: 
Karen’s, after “God and the Gay Christian Discussion, Week 2,” which you can read as a “featured comment” at the top of the thread here. 

***

So, what caught your eye online this week? What’s happening on your blog?

"You are loved, someone said. Take that
and eat it."

-Mary Karr 

I am folding laundry, its starched, orderly scent a sort of incense, as the hymn rises to my lips. 

“Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory…” 

I can’t remember the rest of the words exactly, and the tune meanders a bit, so I improvise, prompting Dan to shout from the other room, “Hon?  You okay? You crying about something?” which happens just about every time I burst into spontaneous song because, apparently, my version of a joyful noise remains indistinguishable from a sob. 
    
Still, I sing on. 

“….For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are da da da da la la la la.” 

It is a season of new songs. 

It is a season of new people, new prayers, new questions. 

At first, the liturgy of the Episcopal Church captured me with its novelty. The chants and collects, calls and responses were a refreshing departure from the contemporary evangelical worship I’d come to associate with all my evangelical baggage.  I liked confessing and receiving communion each week. I liked reciting the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostle’s Creed together in community. I liked the smells and bells. Each Sunday I’d stuff the sandy-colored bulletin in my purse so I could go home and study the rhythm of this worship, imbibing the poetry of those holy words. 

We didn’t know many people then. I kept my eyes on the floor as I walked away from the Table on Sundays, afraid of exchanging too many warm smiles, afraid of becoming too familiar to these kind, religious people who, like all kind, religious people will inevitable disappoint and be disappointed. The melodies of the hymns remained largely inscrutable to my untrained ears, except for when the director of music, (raised Pentecostal),  threw in an “Amazing Grace” or “Rock of Ages” and I sang loud and badly just to hear my voice grip those solid words again.

But we’ve been showing up for nearly six months now, and so it is a different sort of beauty I encounter on Sunday mornings these days—the beauty of familiarity, of sweet routine.

 I know the order of service now. I know it well enough to have favorite parts, to skim ahead when I’m hungry or restless, to get the songs stuck in my head. And we know the people too, not merely as strange faces gathered around the Table but as the Alabama fan, the new mom, the student who loves talking theology, the quilting club, the recovering fundamentalists, the friends. Yesterday, my eyes clouded with tears as the choir sang “I Shall See,” somehow pulling every frantic, disparate prayer from the week into a single sweet plea. The music director told me  the song made her think of me. 

It is a season of new songs.

It is a season of receiving, of being loved just for showing up. 

I am holding all these gifts gingerly, like fragile blue eggs I’m afraid to break. I am holding them the way I hold that white wafer in my cupped, open hands—grateful, relieved, and still just a little bit frightened of what will happen when I take it and eat. 

Despite facing some recent (and valid) criticism, the spiritual memoir remains beloved among many people of faith, as it has been since St. Augustine first invented the genre. And while I’ve certainly encountered my fair share of mediocre memoirs through the years, when I think of the books that most influenced my faith, many are shelved in the spiritual memoir section of my library: Take This Bread by Sara Miles, Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller, Pastrix by Nadia Bolz-Weber, Lit by Mary Karr. What makes a memoir worth reading isn’t so much the story the author tells, but how she tells it. Like good poetry, a good spiritual memoir excavates everyday life for beauty and truth, grabs the reader by the shoulders and says, “Pay attention! This is for you!” 

To this genre, my friend Preston Yancey has added a delightful entry with Tables in the Wilderness, which releases today. At just 25, Preston really shouldn’t be allowed to write this wisely or skillfully, and yet over and over again he surprised me with his insight, talent, and brilliant integration of literary classics into his own story.  (The “Suggested Reading” list at the end is worth the price of the book.) Tables in the Wilderness follows Preston through his college experience at Baylor University, so fans of Donald Miller’s early work will especially resonate as much of the story deals with school, relationships, and all the beauty and angst of finding one’s way in the Church these days.

To mark today’s release, Preston has shared with us an excerpt, as well as the opportunity for one reader to win an original painting made by Preston himself. (See details below.) I specifically asked Preston for this excerpt because it was these paragraphs—the first six of the book—what pulled me into the story. Enjoy! 

***
Silence 

by Preston Yancey
(excerpted from Tables in the Wilderness) 

When you grow up evangelical in the South, you hear God speak all the time.

Over the mashed potatoes, under the watch of the calligraphic Scriptures on the walls, in Carl Kasell’s voice over the radio on your way to school. You invite God to coffee to study the Bible with you, and God sits beside you on the bus to church camp and laughs at all your jokes. You hear God that night on the jungle gym and that time you stood at the corner downtown with a sandwich in your hand wondering why you got up in the middle of the Ash Wednesday service and fled. And you keep hearing, years on end, even on thatSunday you sit in the parking lot of the small Episcopal church after the Baptist-based ministry you felt God call you to do has crumbled, and you are so vacant and so wavering that you tell God you’re done, you’re empty, and God tells you to walk into church.

But one September morning, when you least expect it, you’re sitting in a friend’s apartment after a belated celebration of your twenty-second birthday the night before — in which you read aloud a short story you wrote about lighthouses and champagne, after which your friend tells you you’re still in love with the girl you broke up with a year ago and you should call her, find out where things stand — and you’re reading the Gospel of Luke when you feel suddenly, keenly, that Christ the Lord is sitting beside you on the couch as you’re reading, his voice almost tangible.

“It’s going to be about trust with you.”

Eight words. Ten syllables.

Then he’s gone. And you stop hearing God speak altogether. It’s just you, the King James, and the Silence. And you think it might be the middle of something, or the end. Eventually, nearly a year later, you see it as a beginning. But the seeing takes time. For a little while, it’s just going to be you and the Silence… 

***

Makes you want to read more, right? 

The original painting Preston is giving away is entitled “Martha of Bethany” and is pictured below.  (I have a companion piece entitled “Mary of Bethany” and it’s just beautiful.) 

Here’s how you can enter to win:  Leave a comment in the comment section that 1) names your favorite spiritual memoir, or 2) tells us what the first line of YOUR spiritual memoir would be, and I’ll randomly choose a winner from the entries. (Be sure to sign into DISQUS in such a way that I have access to your email address so I can contact you if you win and get your mailing address so Preston can send you the painting.) One comment per person, please! 

Note: While I did receive a complimentary copy of this book for review, I was not paid by the publisher or author to review and feature it. 

Over the next few weeks, on Wednesdays, we will be discussing Matthew Vines’ book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. (See Part 1& Part 2.)

I chose this particular book because I think it provides the most accessible and personal introduction to the biblical and historical arguments in support of same-sex relationships, and because Matthew is a theologically conservative Christian who affirms the authority of Scripture and who is also gay. His research is sound and his story compelling, and he’s a friend—someone I like and respect and enjoy learning from. 

Today we finally begin our discussion of those biblical texts often used to condemn same-sex relationships. These six passages (a remarkably small percentage of Scripture as a whole) are sometimes referred to as “clobber passages.” Drawing from the work of biblical scholars, most notably James Brownson, Matthew looks at the context, language, and historical background of these passages to conclude that the Bible does not directly address the issue of same-sex orientation or the expression of that orientation. “While is six references to same-sex behavior are negative,” writes Matthew, “the concept of same-sex behavior in the Bible is sexual excess, not sexual orientation” and so these passages do not apply to gay, lesbian, or bisexual Christians in committed same-sex relationships.  Our focus for this discussion is on the Old Testament texts. Next week we will move on to the New Testament texts. 

The Real Sin of Sodom 

Given the vast and obvious disparity between the gang rape scene of Genesis 19 and those gay, lesbian, and bisexual people seeking to enter into committed, sacrificial relationships with one another, it still surprises me that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is used to condemn same-sex orientation and relationships. And yet it remains a favorite among those who protest against “Sodomites” outside courthouses and even churches these days. 

If you are unfamiliar with the story, check out Genesis 18 and Genesis 19 (and prepare for a potential faith crisis—there’s a very weird bit about a pillar of salt which, as a child, left me frightened to look out the back window of our car lest I share the fate of Lot’s wife). Matthew wisely includes Genesis 18 in his analysis because the story of Abraham and Sarah welcoming the mysterious strangers into their home is meant to stand in contrast to the actions of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, who rather than welcoming the mysterious strangers, threatened to gang rape them. The author of Hebrews makes the connection, writing “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing, some people have entertained angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2). 

“The sin of Sodom,” writes Matthew, “had far more to do with a lack of hospitality and a bent toward violence than with any sexual designs the men had on Lot’s visitors.”  

Throughout Hebrew Scripture, and particularly in the prophets, the evils of Sodom are referenced as a way of reminding the people of Israel to avoid falling into the same ways. (If you’re reading Enns’ The Bible Tells Me So right now, you’re probably making some fun connections here.) The prophet Ezekiel offers the most detailed description of the city’s sins, declaring, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me…” (Ezekiel 16:49-50, emphasis mine). 

When was the last time you heard the “Sodomite” slur hurled at someone for overeating, indulgence, arrogance, and disregard for the poor? Hits a bit too close to home for most Christians, I guess. 

Sexuality goes unmentioned, both in the Ezekiel passage and in every other Old Testament reference to Sodom following Genesis 19.“If Sodom’s sin had indeed been homosexuality,” writes Matthew, “it is highly unlikely that every written discussion of the city for centuries following its destruction would fail to mention that fact.”  This is true for other ancient Jewish literature as well, he argues, where Sodom’s sins are identified as arrogance, indulgence, and lack of hospitality. 

So what about the men of Sodom’s threats to gang rape Lot’s guests? 

As Matthew points out, this has nothing to do with sexual orientation or an expression of sexual desire. In the ancient world, for a man to be raped was considered the ultimate degradation, a sign of total defeat. Warriors who wanted to shame their conquered foes often raped them in order to humiliate them.“Aggression and dominance were the motives in these situations,” writes Matthew, “not sexual attraction.” 

Here Matthew compares this passage to Judges 19, where we find the gruesome and troubling story of the raped and dismembered concubine, who served as a substitute for the men of Gibeah who wanted to rape an old man’s houseguests. In both stories, hosts wishing to protect the male guests offer women—essentially considered property at the time—to the mob instead, which goes to show that this was not about sexual preference, but about violence and domination. It also goes to show how badly women suffered in this patriarchal culture. Notes Matthew: “Neither Lot nor the old man of Gibeah said, ‘Don’t do anything to these men, because that would be a same-sex act.’ Instead, they both expressed concern that the visitors had come under the protection of their homes. The men were their guests and the ‘sacred duty’ of hospitality…was paramount.” 

[Pause here to consider the wisdom of appealing to any of these stories for our sexual ethics…Sorry. Couldn’t help it. Carry on. ]

But what about New Testament references to Sodom in Matthew 10:15, Luke 10:10-12, 2 Peter 2:7, and Jude 7? 

Only the latter two passages make reference to Sodom’s sexual sins. Jude 7 says the people of Sodom and Gomorrah “indulged in gross immorality and went after stranger flesh.” But rather than referring to same-sex relationships, the phrase “strange flesh” seems to refer to the attempts to rape angels instead of humans. Jude 6 supports this connection by comparing Sodom’s transgressions with the unusual sins described in Genesis 6 where angels mate with human women. 

It was the Jewish philosopher Philo who first explicitly linked Sodom’s sins to same-sex behavior, and his idea caught on. But Philo was operating from ancient assumptions regarding same-sex behavior, Matthew argues, and therefore condemning the actions of the men of Sodom as the excessive pleasure-seeking of men who could also be satisfied with women. “He was not taking a position on the issue we are facing today,” writes Matthew, “gay people and their committed relationships.” 

The Abominations of Leviticus 

Even though it was decided in the Council of Jerusalem that Gentile Christians are not bound to Scripture’s Levitical law, discussions continue to this day regarding how those texts apply to followers of Jesus. Often cited in the discussion regarding same-sex relationships are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which describe same-sex behavior between males as an “abomination” punishable by death.  

It’s easy to forget just how many of these laws are disregarded by Christians without much thought. Leviticus 3 and 11, for example, forbid eating animal fat or blood, shellfish, and animals that walk on all fours and have paws—all of which are denounced as “abominations,” along with having sexual relations during a woman’s period, and charging interest on loans. 

As Matthew points out, in the vast majority of cases, the word “abomination” (typically the Hebrew, toevah, which is used in Leviticus 18 and 20) refers to what the Israelites associated with the idolatrous practices of the Gentiles, leading Old Testament scholar Phyllis Bird to conclude that “it is not an ethical term, but a term for boundary making,” with “a basic sense of taboo.” Many other biblical scholars share this view, which helps make sense out of why eating shellfish and charing interest on loans might have been considered taboo to the ancient Israelites, but not Christians today. “So while ‘abomination’ is a negative word,” Matthew says, “it doesn’t necessarily correspond to Christian views of sin.” 

Furthermore, you can’t get very far in reading Leviticus or Deuteronomy before you notice laws regarding rape, marriage, menstruation, and women-as-property make it very hard to argue that while Old Testament laws related to diet no longer apply, Old Testament laws regarding sexuality do.  In addition, there are no condemnations of either polygamy or concubinage, which are in fact assumed within the text. 

Another argument that falls short is the argument that the severe punishment for male same sex behavior—the death penalty—suggests it was and is a more serious sin. We can’t forget that disobedient children were also to be stoned, along with a people who used the Lord’s name in vain and those who violated the Sabbath. Daughters of priests who fell into prostitution were to be burned alive, and in Exekiel 18:13, the death penalty is applied to anyone who charges interest on a loan.

Gender Complementarity 

But the most important point Matthew makes in these two chapter isn’t about Old Testament law and its many abominations. His most important point concerns gender complementarity: 

“Non-affirming Christians who want to make the most persuasive arguments ground their case in the idea that Leviticus banned male same-sex relations because same-sex unions violate gender complementarity…So as we read these ancient texts, we need to keep this question in mind: Do these writings suggest that same-sex unions are wrong because of the anatomical ‘sameness’ of the partners involved? Or is the primary concern a different issue?"

Here Matthew points again to the work of Philo, whose views on sexuality reflect how it was understood in his time. According to Philo, the great crime of male same-sex behavior—pederasty, specifically—was that males would “suffer the affliction of being treated like a women” which Philo referred to as “the greatest of evils, unmanliness and effeminacy.” This posture is reflected widely in many of the writings from the world from which Scripture emerged. 

In the ancient world, deeply misogynistic attitudes were the norm. Same-sex behavior between males was rejected because women were considered inferior to men and it was considered degrading for a man to be “treated” like a woman.  In addition, it was believed that men who engaged in same-sex behavior did so out of an abundance of out-of-control passions, not because of fixed sexual orientation. 

This understanding sheds light on why Leviticus contains no parallel prohibition of female same-sex relations.“If the issue were anatomical complementarity,” Matthew argues, “female same-sex relations should be condemned on an equal basis. And yet, the text is silent on this matter…The entire question of how bodies fit together doesn’t seem to be on the radar. The concern we see is centered around the proper ordering of gender roles in a patriarchal society.” 

In light of this reality regarding patriarchy, Matthew advocates what some might call a “redemptive movement hermeneutic” regarding gender, suggesting that while Scripture reflects a patriarchal culture, it still grants women more honor and value than many of Israel’s counterparts and ultimately points to gender mutuality through the redemptive work of Christ.  In other words, we can accept Scripture as authoritative and true without accepting the patriarchal assumptions of the culture from which the Bible emerged. 

Frankly, I’ve never found arguments against same-sex relationships from these Old Testament texts particularly persuasive, and I suspect that if these were the only passages in question, there might be more unity of thought within the Christian community. What seems to trip most people up are references to same-sex behavior in the New Testament, to which we will turn our conversation next week.

***

Also, if you want to learn more about the Bible and sexuality, check out the Reformation Project conference in Washington D.C., November 6-8. Speakers include David Gushee, Allyson Robinson, Gene Robinson, Justin Lee, Jane Clementi, Danny Cortez, Frank Schaefer, James Brownson, Kathy Baldock, Alexia Salvatierra, and Amy Butler.

***

Questions for Discussion 

1.    How have these texts—the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the laws of Leviticus—affected your understanding of the Bible and same-sex relationships? Do they factor in to your understanding or are the New Testament texts your focus? What do you think of Matthew’s argument? 

2. Throughout God and the Gay Christian we see how patriarchy and ancient understandings of gender roles affected how same-sex behavior is referenced in Scripture. How does this affect your overall view of Scripture and how it should be interpreted regarding gender and sexuality?

I will be monitoring the comment section closely over the next 24 hours, after which the thread will be closed. Thanks for your participation!  

I'm blogging with the lectionary this year, and this week's reading comes from Matthew 21:33-46: 

“Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. When the harvest time had come, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his produce. But the tenants seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other slaves, more than the first; and they treated them in the same way. Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.” So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death, and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time.” 

Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom. The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.” 

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them. They wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet.

So Jesus has been busy making what we Southerners like to call a “big-ole-scene” in Jerusalem.

First, he rode into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, a dramatic statement with clear Messianic overtones that Matthew says put “the whole city into turmoil.” Then he went and overturned a bunch of tables in the temple, before welcoming streams of poor and sick people to replace the moneychangers that had been dismissed. Later, he cursed an unsuspecting fig tree, meant to represent the fruitlessness of those who rejected his message, before returning to the temple to engage in a heated debate with the religious leaders there. 

It had been a very weird 24 hours. 

Turns out the religious leaders do not share Jesus’ flair for the dramatic, and so they challenge him, asking who gave him the authority to do these things.  Jesus cites John the Baptist and his ragamuffin coalition of tax collectors and prostitutes, the poor and the uneducated, leprosy patients, foreigners, women and slaves—not exactly a prestigious endorsement, but a popular one among the people. Then Jesus tells them this parable about a landowner and his vineyard, one these experts in Scripture would have immediately recognized as an allusion to Isaiah 5—the Song of the Vineyard. 

I will sing for the one I love
    a song about his vineyard:
My loved one had a vineyard
    on a fertile hillside.
He dug it up and cleared it of stones
    and planted it with the choicest vines.
He built a watchtower in it
    and cut out a winepress as well.
Then he looked for a crop of good grapes,
    but it yielded only bad fruit…

Last week we talked about how easy it is to miss God when God defies our preferred categories. But the parable for this week invites us to take it a step further and confront the fact that sometimes we don’t simply miss God; sometimes we outright reject God. Sometimes we cast God out. 

The first slaves to arrive at the vineyard in Jesus’ story likely represent the prophets of old who were rejected, sometimes violently, by the people of Israel. The second round may represent a prophet like John the Baptist, who also met a grisly fate.  The son of the vineyard owner represents Jesus of course, who himself is about to be crucified—the ultimate reject.  But according to Jesus, “the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone…The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruit of the kingdom.” 

Jesus is building an entire kingdom out of rejects. It’s a kingdom of prophets, outcasts and misfits, a kingdom of table-tuners and donkey-riders. He himself is the cornerstone, the foundation, because he himself was rejected. 

Now, we can look to this passage as comfort for all the times we’ve felt rejected—by our community, by our loved ones, by our church—but I can’t get through this one without a deep, uncomfortable sense of conviction. Sometimes a better question than, how have I been rejected? is, who am I rejecting? 

And let’s face it. We tend to reject our prophets. 

Huss. Hutchinson. MLK.*

These days the word “prophetic” gets tossed around a lot, and while it’s nice to see the meaning recovered from the realm of fortune-telling back to the realm of truth-telling, we have to be careful about assigning the “prophetic” label to every blog post, sermon, or Facebook status we agree with. As Parker Palmer so eloquently reminded us in a “memo to himself” this week: 

"Avoid the bad habit of domesticating the prophet of your choice, turning him into a cheerleader for your way of thinking and way of life. Remember that all the great prophets were courageous and outrageous folks who railed against the powers-that-be, challenged self-satisfied piosity, threatened the prevailing social order, and would find you falling short in some significant ways."

When people tell me my work is “prophetic,” I can’t help but think to myself: Nope. I’m WAY too comfortable to be a prophet. 

Prophets disrupt. Prophets offend. Prophets make “big-ole-scenes” and push the edge of the envelope. Prophets are almost always rejected—by conservatives and liberals, by the pious and the rebellious, by their faithful critics and by the ones who once followed them. Prophets get themselves killed.  

So when you’re wondering to yourself who the modern-day prophets might be, the question isn’t, Who am I following? the question is, Who am I rejecting? 

I don’t know about you, but I've made a habit out of rejecting the people who challenge my privilege, the people who strike me as over-the-top or too theatric, the people who don't share my theological or political convictions but nevertheless produce the fruit of the spirit in their lives, the people whose Kingdom work is quiet and slow and a walking indictment of my own impatient lust for gratification, popularity, and power. 

Might God be working through these folks? Might they be critical stones in this Kingdom of rejects God is building? Might I be wise to shut up and listen before I attempt to cast them out of the vineyard? 

These are uncomfortable questions posed by an uncomfortable Messiah. 

…Which I suppose means they are a start. 

***

*As Tavis Smiley reports in his new book on Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil rights leader faced a major decline in popularity during his last few years, as many thought his social justice agenda too radical.  

Yesterday was the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi. Many churches mark this event with a blessing of the animals or a special outdoor event commemorating the saint’s love for God’s creation. Here are three poems to celebrate him this week.

Around the Blogosphere…

Wisest: 
John Walton at BioLogos with “On Being Right or Wrong”

“It is too easy for an individual, a local church or a denomination to decide that they have a corner on the market of interpretation and truth and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. This attitude exists despite the fact that the New Testament shows us a number of situations when people in the early church had disagreements about issues that were decided by allowing a range of possibilities (e.g., the Jerusalem Council)… We should be slow to accuse another of discarding the authority of Scripture, and therefore denouncing them, just because they interpret Scripture differently than we do.”

Funniest: 
Jenny Lawson with “Nancy Pelosi is extremely disappointed in me for destroying the democratic party…” 

“If we don’t get the photo of James Carville holding some sort of frozen dessert the Republicans will have already won. As you said to me a few hours ago, if we don’t have your cooperation ‘We. Will. Fail.’”

Coolest: 
First International Drone Photography Competition

Boldest: 
Yabome Gilpin-Jackson with “Ebola is more than a news story to me”

“So, in spite of my sinking heart, and in spite of the fog, this is not a sob story. This is a call to action–because Sierra Leoneans, Liberians, Guineans and Nigerians need hope, not pity and more than sympathetic bystanders. They need reassurance that the world cares about theirs and our collective health.”

Cleverest:
XKCD with "Correlation"

Best Conversation-Starter: 
Christena Cleveland with “Social Justice for Single People”

“It seems that so many of us (myself included) have bought into the lie that deep, mutually supportive relationships are God’s gift to married people alone. This lie is insidious on its own, but in the context of social justice work, it is even more destructive. Social justice advocates need mutually supportive relationships as much as, if not more than, any other group!”

Best Feature: 
Helen Lee with (in the cover story at Christianity Today) with “Asian Americans: Silent No More” 

Best Advice: 
Parker Palmer with “Memo To Myself: Avoid Domesticating Our Prophets” 

"Avoid the bad habit of domesticating the prophet of your choice, turning him into a cheerleader for your way of thinking and way of life. Remember that all the great prophets were courageous and outrageous folks who railed against the powers-that-be, challenged self-satisfied piosity, threatened the prevailing social order, and would find you falling short in some significant ways."

Best Storytelling: 
Amy R. Buckley at She Loves with “Lipstick in Seminary” 

“For a couple years in seminary, I didn’t wear lipstick. I twisted my long hair up tightly, wore dark turtlenecks and covered my eyes with glasses. I didn’t speak much in class unless I knew it counted toward my grade. In that case, I carefully planned what I’d say before opening my mouth. I didn’t want to call attention to myself in a room full of men. I hoped to fly beneath the proverbial radar, as a woman, and gain tools for teaching, writing, and ministry with as few conflicts possible…” 

Best Idea: 
Ben Irwin with “What Art Can Teach Us About Theology and Faith Formation”

“Art becomes meaningful, transformative, and captivating when we’re able to participate in it—when we’re invited to contribute to it, rather than being forced to just stand back and observe in silence.”

Best Perspective: 
Mariam Youssef at The Junia Project with “Chanting for Change in the Coptic Church”

“At first glance, Copts in  the California suburbs may not appear to have much in common with Black and Latino youth in South Central. But I have seen that they are more alike than one may think. These two communities are in desperate need of healing from the injustices that they have suffered, both from outside forces and from internal structural flaws. I decided a long time ago that even though I feel marginalized as a woman in my community, I have to be solution-oriented. As long as I can work for change, I can stay and I must stay.”

Best Response: 
Sarah Bessey with “Accusations and Accolades”

“God is at work despite me and through me and in me – all at the same time.”

Most Insightful  (nominated by Kevin Shoop): 
Joshua Rothman at The New Yorker with “In Facebook’s Courtroom”

“As you scroll, you wonder, what’s next on the docket? Which outrages and exemplars will confront me today, and how will I react to them? On the one hand, you’re criminally uninterested in a controversy about sexism amongst hedge-fund managers; on the other, at least you’re not one of the ‘ten celebs who have killed people.’ The social-media stream puts moral life on shuffle—and expresses the fact that, while being a good person matters perhaps more than anything, it’s also very unclear how one might go about being good.”

Most Provocative: 
Peter Enns with “3 Ways Jesus Read the Bible that Evangelicals are Told Not to Do” 

“Evangelicals are told to respect the Bible by ‘sticking to the text’ and not go beyond it. Jesus did the opposite…”

Most Informative:
NPR with "No, Seriously, How Contagious is Ebola?"

Most Powerful: 
Ben Moberg with “Three Things I’d Tell Ben Three Years Ago, Before He Came Out”

“It sounds strange, but when you leave the faith, God’s going to shuffle along behind you. Not that you’ll notice Him. You’ll be too busy averting your eyes from all things religious, plugging up your ears in every conversation about the faith…”

Most Convicting: 
Nadia Bolz-Weber with “Sermon on Us and Them”

“Jesus still calls the tax collectors and prostitutes and housewives and social workers and Pharisees into the very heart of God. So come and join me at his table, at this holy of holies, not because you have made it past the velvet ropes, but because the ground at the foot of the cross is level and there is room for all of us.”

Most Inspiring: 
Kelle Hampton with “Saving the Balloons” 

“Raising a child with special needs—although we aren’t defined by it—does take seriousness and proactive thinking and a mission to both equip our children with the tools they’ll need to face the world and prepare the world to accept our children. They’ll need a hell of a lot more than balloons—both our kids and the world. But I still keep a little cluster of them—especially the yellow ones—because life is hard, and I’ll always need balloons. They’re less about Down syndrome and more about me.”

On social media…

On Facebook, we talked about how Christian unity might mean redeeming conflict rather than avoiding it (some really fantastic comments there) and we also discussed an interesting C.S. Lewis quote. 

On the blog…

Most Popular Post:
“New Songs” 

“It is a season of new songs. It is a season of receiving, of being loved just for showing up.  I am holding all these gifts gingerly, like fragile blue eggs I’m afraid to break. I am holding them the way I hold that white wafer in my cupped, open hands—grateful, relieved, and still just a little bit frightened of what will happen when I take it and eat.” 

Most Popular Comment:
Rachel McGlone Hedlin’s comment after “God and the Gay Christian, Discussion 3,” which you can read as a featured comment at the top of the thread here. 

Out and About…

Over the next couple weeks, I'll be speaking at these events: 

Tuesday, October 14 – Wednesday, October 15
West Virginia Annual Conference (UMC) Clergy School 
Charleston, West Virginia 
More Info 

Thursday, October 16
Good Earth Village Launch Project 
Spring Valley, Minnesota 
More Info 

Friday, October 17
Barefoot Tribe Gathering 
Phoenix, Arizona
More Info

***

So, what caught your eye online this week? What’s happening on your blog? 

Over the next few weeks, on Wednesdays, we will be discussing Matthew Vines’ book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. (See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)

I chose this particular book because I think it provides the most accessible and personal introduction to the biblical and historical arguments in support of same-sex relationships, and because Matthew is a theologically conservative Christian who affirms the authority of Scripture and who is also gay. His research is sound and his story compelling, and he’s a friend—someone I like and respect and enjoy learning from. 

(Scheduling note: Our next installment in this series will be on October 22. I’ll be on the road speaking next week and unable to moderate and participate in the conversation.) 

Today we reach a critical chapter in Matthew’s book, for it deals with one of the two New Testament texts commonly cited to oppose same-sex relationships. 

Romans 1

Perhaps the most significant passage in the debate regarding the Bible and same-sex relationships is Romans 1: 26-27, which opponents to same sex relationships often point to as a “clear” statement on the matter. 

The passage is part of the apostle Paul’s message at the opening of Romans about how “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Romans 1 focuses on how Gentiles have fallen short, and Romans 2 focuses on how Jews like himself have fallen short. (This sets up Paul’s argument that redemption for both is offered through Jesus Christ.)

According to Paul, the sins of the Gentiles are rooted in their worship of idols, which led them to indulge in vices like envy, slander, gossip, murder, arrogance, and “shameful lusts.” Here he notes: “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones” and the men “abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.”  

“Pau’s depiction of same-sex behavior in this passage in indisputably negative,” acknowledges Matthew. “But he also explicitly describes the behavior he condemns as lustful. He makes no mention of love, fidelity, monogamy, or commitment. So should we understand Paul’s words to apply to all same-sex relationships, or only to lustful, fleeting ones?” 

To get to the bottom if this question, we have to discern why Paul wrote what he did—the principle behind his statements. 

[Here, almost as an aside, Matthew makes a very important point: “Focusing on the reason behind biblical statements is not a new principle. Christians of all stripes ask not only what but why when we study Scripture.” He cites slavery as an example. The New Testament authors often tell slaves to submit to their masters (Titus 2:9-10, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Colossians 3:22-25, Ephesians 6:5-9, 1 Peter 2:18-24), a point not lost on those Christians who advocated for the preservation of slavery during the Civil war. To make a case for abolition, Christians had to look beyond what appears on the surface to be an endorsement of slavery to examine why the New Testament authors wrote what they did. While Matthew doesn’t spend much time on this particular issue, this is what ultimately changed my mind about LGBT people and the Bible. The moment I realized I couldn’t win a “proof text” war with a slave-owner was the moment I realized that in discussions like these, we can’t rely on a few Bible verses pulled from their context—not when lives are at stake. But more on that at a later date…] 

So what did Paul mean when he wrote Romans 1? 

As has already been shown, same-sex relations in the first century were not thought to be the expression of an exclusive sexual orientation but were widely understood to be the product of excessive sexual desire wherein the one engaging in same-sex behavior did so out of an excess of lust that could not be satisfied. The most common forms of same-sex behavior in the Greco-Roman world, Matthew notes, were pederasty and sex between masters and their slaves, and the majority of men who indulged in those practices also engaged in heterosexual behavior with their wives. So we’re not talking about committed, monogamous, sacrificial relationships here. Not by a long shot. 

Citing the writings of Philo, Plato, and Dio Chyrysostom, Matthew notes that same-sex relations were not considered objectionable to these writers because partners shared the same anatomy, but “because they stemmed from hedonistic self-indulgence.” 

Matthew provides multiple examples of this reality (both in this chapter and others). Particularly relevant in this case is Dio Chyrysostom’s argument that some men had such insatiable sexual appetites they abandoned the “easy conquest” of women for more challenging sex with males, and John Chrysostom’s commentary on Romans 1 in which the father of the Church states: “[Paul] does not say that they were enamored of one another but that they were consumed by lust for one another! You see that the whole of desire comes from an excess which cannot be contained itself within proper limits.” 

The concept of same-sex orientation and the notion of committed same-sex relationships was simply not part of Pauls’—or these other writers’— worldview. “In Paul’s day, same-sex relations were a potent symbol of sexual excess,” writes Matthew, and so “they offered an effective illustration of Paul’s argument: We lose control when we are left to our own devices.” 

“But while that principle remains true today,” he says, “the specific example Paul drew from his culture does not carry the same resonance for us. This is not because Paul was wrong—he wasn’t addressing what we think of today as homosexuality. The context in which Paul discussed same-sex relations differs so much from our own that it cannot reasonably be called the same issue. Homosexuality condemned as excess does not translate to homosexuality condemned as an orientation—or as a loving expression of that orientation.” 

I don’t know about you, but I don't know any gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians today who pursue same-sex relationships because they have grown tired of heterosexuality and want to try something new. The gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians I know tell me they have experienced same-sex attractions for many years, often since childhood, and simply want to be in a committed, sacrificial relationship with someone to whom they are attracted. And Matthew's analysis of this passage, which is shared by many other biblical scholars, gives me reason to believe Romans 1 isn't speaking about them.

Unnatural – like long hair 

So what about the words “natural” and “unnatural”? Wouldn’t they suggest that Paul, like so many who crudely argue the case today, condemned same-sex behavior because the “parts don't fit?” 

Matthew again returns to what no good biblical scholar would dispute: that many of the gender roles alluded to in Scripture are rooted in patriarchy. In the ancient world, if a man took the active role in a sexual encounter, his behavior wad generally deemed “natural.” If he took the passive role, he was derided for engaging in “unnatural” sex for supposedly playing the role of a woman. The opposite was true for women: sexual passivity was deemed “natural,” while dominance was “unnatural.” 

Once again, Matthew cites multiple ancient authors, including Philo, Plato, and Josephus, to show how the terms “natural” and “unnatural” were used in ancient writings. “They were not synonyms for ‘straight’ and ‘gay,’” he concludes.  “They were boundary markers between what did and did not conform to customary gender roles within a patriarchal context…In societies that viewed women as inferior, sexual relationships between equal-status partners could not be accepted. Same-sex unions in particular disrupted a social order that required strict hierarchy between the sexes. We see this hierarchy reflected in Romans 1 by the use of the phrase ‘their women’ in verse 26, which points to the subordinate role of women in ancient times.” 

This doesn’t mean Paul himself was sexist, Matthew argues, particularly given his high praise of women throughout his epistles. But it could mean he simply invoked the terms “natural” and “unnatural” as a shorthand reference to what the ancient world would have understood as a violation of accepted cultural norms regarding gender roles, motivated by excessive, unctrolled lust. 

Here is where Matthew makes one of his best points of the book, one that I particularly resonated with given my own experience with head coverings during my year of biblical womanhood. 

The apostle Paul makes the very same appeal to “natural” and “unnatural,” in the context of gender roles, when he argues that women should wear head coverings: “Judge for yourself,” he writes, “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory?” (I Corinthians 11:13-15)

“Nature” and “disgrace”—these are the very same words Paul uses when discussing same sex behavior in Romans 1:26-27! And yet most Christians today do not read 1 Corinthians 11 as a universal dictum regarding God’s design for hairstyles and head coverings. 

Citing Jim Brownson’s scholarship on the topic, Matthew notes that these norms regarding hair length, head coverings, and hierarchal gender roles were rooted in the honor-shame cultures of the Mediterranean, where violating them could do serious harm to the spreading of the Gospel. 

Concludes Matthew:“For Paul, same-sex desire did not characterize a small minority of people who were subject to special classification—and condemnation—on that basis. Rather, it represented an innate potential for excess within all of fall humanity.” 

He cites fifth century Christian bishop Julian of Eclanum who interpreted Romans 1 as a contrast of those who make “right use” of sexual desire with those who “indulge in the excess of it.” For Julian, the moral of Romans 1 is that “he who observes moderation in natural [desire] uses a good thing well; but he who does not observe moderation abuses a good thing.” 

This is a takeaway that applies to all readers of the text—gay or straight.

***

Also, if you want to learn more about the Bible and sexuality, check out the Reformation Project conference in Washington D.C., November 6-8. Speakers include David Gushee, Allyson Robinson, Gene Robinson, Justin Lee, Jane Clementi, Danny Cortez, Frank Schaefer, James Brownson, Kathy Baldock, Alexia Salvatierra, and Amy Butler.

***

Questions for Discussion: 

1. What do you think of this interpretation of Romans 1? If it is not a condemnation of people who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, what might be the message? What can we learn from it? 

2. This study has shown the degree to which patriarchal assumptions affected so much of what was considered "shameful" and "unnatural" in the ancient world. How do we continue to relate to Scripture as inspired and authoritative, even when it reflects these (and other) cultural norms that no longer apply today? 

I will be monitoring the comment section closely over the next 24 hours, after which the thread will be closed. Thanks for your participation!  

Since our ongoing discussion around Matthew Vines’ book, God and the Gay Christian, has highlighted an affirming view of same-sex relationships, I wanted to make space here for another perspective. Thankfully, my new friend Julie Rodgers was quick to graciously agree to join us for another installment of our “Ask a….” series: “Ask a (Celibate) Gay Christian…” 

Julie writes about the angst of growing up gay in the church and the hope she finds in Christ's story of restoration. She blogs about all things sexuality, celibacy, community, and (mostly) flourishing on her personal blog and with friends on the Spiritual Friendship blog. Julie earned a Masters in English for the sheer pleasure of stories (nerd alert), served urban youth the past four years through a ministry in West Dallas, and recently joined the chaplain's office at Wheaton College as the Ministry Associate for Spiritual Care. She's known to laugh loud and hard at all the wrong times. Julie loves Jesus. She says she “loves that He entered into the human experience and alleviated suffering in those around Him, and that He absorbed the pain of the world with His life, death, and resurrection.” 

You asked Julie some fantastic questions.  Here are Julie's responses: 

***

Thank you, Rachel, for creating the space for me to share on your blog. Thank you also to those of you who asked thoughtful questions with a gracious spirit. Not only are your charitable spirits encouraging to me personally, but I also imagine that kind of posture calms the anxiety of silent observers who wonder if they can be honest about their sexual orientation and religious convictions, and also treated with tenderness and respect. We offer a gift to them when we’re gracious toward others in this conversation, assuring them they’ll be valued as human beings made in the image of God no matter what. 

From bperickson: Should a gay Christian committed to celibacy still come out publicly as gay? Why? What do you feel you have gained from doing so yourself?

One benefit is that the church needs more celibate gay Christian role models. They need to see gay Christians leading vibrant lives filled with intimacy, passion, and adventure. I know when I first envisioned a life of celibacy, I got an image of the future version of myself as a lonely old woman knitting in a cold cabin with famished cats everywhere. Part of the reason the future looked so bleak was because I couldn’t look to many others who were living into compelling stories as celibate men and women, and the future story the church imagined for me hinged on marriage. We need more celibate gay Christians to help the church imagine a robust life for single men and women, with an expectation that God will surprise us with His faithfulness.  

I can’t speak to what everyone should do since one’s sexuality is so personal and each situation so unique, but I would at least encourage people to open up to their inner circle. I felt strangled by shame during every stage of coming to terms with my sexuality (when I first acknowledged my orientation and then again after extensive involvement with Exodus International). “Coming out” simply meant I invited others into a corner of my heart that whispered lies that no one would love me if they really knew me. When they embraced me in that place I felt like I could finally breathe. I went from feeling isolated and unknown to believing intimate relationships were a real possibility for me. 

There are still countless misconceptions about gay people in the church. Many still don’t realize this group of people they perceive as “those people out there” are actually in here, in the church, seeking to love the Lord with all our hearts, minds, souls, and strength. When I was a teenager, I felt like I had to either lie about my sexuality or leave the church altogether. Encountering other gay Christians gave me hope that I could work out my questions about sexuality inside the church—in the context of a loving Christian community—instead of lying or leaving. Also, I’m not sure we can know or feel God’s love if we don’t experience His love through His people. When I shared more of myself with other Christians and was embraced in that place, I thought: “If they know all about me and still love me, maybe God still loves me, too.”

From Guest: Like most churches in America, my church is generally made up of families. How can a church be sensitive to the needs of a person who has embraced celibacy?

The short answer: Consider inviting a celibate person to live with you (short term or long), have single people over for dinner on a regular basis (while your house is still messy and your dishes still dirty), and establish normal rhythms together like running errands or ordering takeout or watching Breaking Bad again. 

The longer answer: It seems like most of us tend to roll with people in similar life stages, and all of us would benefit from breaking out of those categories to build relationships that cross common barriers: age, race, sex, or marital status, among others. As a celibate woman observing families from the outside, it often seems like folks are solely focused on their own nuclear families. The relationships they do have outside of that are those they encounter in their natural circles: other soccer families or church families or PTA friends. While we all miss out when we lack diversity in our relationships, single people—particularly older single people—feel the blow badly. Let’s be real: celibacy isn’t considered a super sexy lifestyle. Few people choose it because the misconceptions cause people to feel they’ll be destined for a life devoid of love. This means there comes a time when only a small number of people share their life situation, so they actually WILL end up alone if we don’t intentionally step outside of our homogeneous circles.  

When we settle into our separate pockets of society, our relational lives start to look like scheduling an event a week or two out, where we meet up and tell others about the life we’ve lived over the weeks that have passed. What we long for, though, is everyday intimacy where we can put on our fat clothes and think out loud with one another without editing ourselves. In order for that to happen, we need to spend time together in the common routines of life. Both families and single people would benefit from this.

One example: I’m new here to Wheaton and I’ve developed a friendship with a young family that welcomed me when I first arrived, providing a room for me in their home while I searched for a permanent place to land. Just this past week, the mom was sick and the dad stayed home from work in hopes of keeping the kids alive for another day. As I was getting off work, they shot me a text asking if I could do something—anything!—to help them make it through the day, and it was no problem for me to show up at their house with frozen pizzas, ice cream, and wine. Then I helped the kids with their nightly routine and we all decompressed together: everyday intimacy. 

From Christina: How do you feel that your decision to be celibate affects your relationship with gay friends who have not made the same decision?

Each relationship is unique so it varies from person to person, but my friends and I tend to see a whole human being when we look at each other rather than just a “GAY” or a “SIDE A GAY” or a “SIDE B GAY”. I also tend to be drawn to those who seek to be gracious and humble, so whenever differences arise we’re able to acknowledge the tension of our different beliefs without feeling personally threatened by one another. Most gay Christians have been deeply scarred by the culture war, and most of us barely held onto our faith (many barely remained alive), so we’re pretty understanding of one another’s need for a lot of space and grace as we grow in our understanding of what it means to honor the Lord with the whole of our lives (including our sexuality). 

From Danner: I believe a person's sexuality is an integral aspect of who he or she is as a human being. Unlike my preference for black coffee vs. lattes, my sexual identity (and sexual relationship with my wife) is a very significant aspect of who I am as a person… Do you disagree with the assertion that sexuality is integral to the identity, and what are your thoughts on why God created you as a gay woman while forbidding you to ever live that out in a relationship with another woman?

I don’t know how integral one’s sexuality is to his or her identity (perhaps it varies from person to person, depending on the weight each person gives it). I believe my sexuality matters in the same way I believe it matters that I’m a woman or that I’m an introvert: they affect how I exist in the world and how I relate to other people. What’s most important to me with regard to my identity though—what I choose to give the most weight—is my faith. The deepest part of who I am is a follower of Christ who’s been rescued by Him, and the Bible informs my understanding of why I’m here and what I’m to be about. I might see through a slightly different lens because of my orientation, but it seems the Lord uses all the different parts of me—including my sexuality—to write a unique story of restoration that creates a little more beauty in the world. 

I don’t have a strong opinion about why some people are gay: research implies both biology and the developmental process likely influence a person’s orientation, and the extent to which one is more influential than the other probably differs from person to person, as sexuality is so layered and complex. I’m more comfortable saying, “God allowed me to have a gay orientation.” 

Regardless, I do not believe He wants me to be alone. We’re wired for intimacy, and while we can live without sex, we cannot live without intimacy. The more we celebrate sustained, non-sexual, sacrificial relationships in our society, the less people will feel like the only way to experience love and intimacy is in the context of a marriage or a sexual relationship. It would also be helpful if Christians would resist the urge to hit the “panic” button whenever gay people experience deep affection for those of the same sex. As a young person, I was so concerned about the “risk” of relationships turning sexual that I erred on the side of suppression and isolation (which leads to destructive explosions). It was so life-giving to exhale and move away from a fear-based approach, choosing instead to be more concerned about the risks of isolation. That has enabled me to actually remain chaste for years because my needs for intimacy are met through rich relationships with both men and women, which didn’t happen when I was disconnected out of fear. We were made for relationships, and we can work out what it means to be healthy, whole, Christ-honoring men and women in the context of relationship.  

From Rachel P.:  have you ever been in love? How did it go? And supposing that your views on celibacy will not change, is being with someone romantically (perhaps someone else committed to celibacy) a viable option for your future?

While I’ve certainly felt the butterflies for a few women, I’m not sure I can say I’ve experienced the sustained and mutual affection that’s necessary for love to really take root. It seems like true love is discovered over time with another person, and since my relationships with women are directed toward friendship, perhaps my experience of love is shaped and informed by that end. There’s much more to explore there, but if I ever do experience a sustained and mutual intensity of attraction that feels overwhelming, I hope I’ll find a way to express it through intimate friendship. 

Sharing life with other people is important to me. I would love to end up in a communal living situation with solid folks who are married, single, gay, straight, and devoted to living into the New Testament’s vision of community and hospitality. I’m also entirely committed to having an extra room for down-and-out little hooligans to crash when they need a safe space to land (read: potential foster care or at least a place for hurting teens to belong). 

From Joshua: Do you ever feel like your personal struggles and decisions are being used as a tool by those on one side or the other in the debates concerning same sex relationships, and if so, what would you want those people using your decisions to advance their causes to know or consider?

Yes, and I’m very uncomfortable with that, particularly when it’s used to shame those who, for one reason or another, are in a different place. I see this as less of a Gay Debate Problem and more of a Human Problem though: we play the comparison game in almost every area of life and it inflates egos, breeds feelings of inferiority, or causes jealousy (among other terrible ways of internalizing the comparison culture). 

If it’s not in the context of the comparison game though, I do think it can be encouraging for people to connect with others who share their experience. I know it’s been life-giving for me to connect with celibate gay Christians because I felt so alone for so long. Even beyond the sexuality conversation, it’s encouraging for me to observe those who lead faithful lives—to learn from their examples, both positive and negative. I think we need role models, but a role model is very different than a story that’s used to shame or coerce someone else. 

Ultimately, I hope Christians will simply point people to Christ as our example. It’s been my experience that the more I’m captured by the beauty of the Gospel, the less I’m concerned about what will or won’t happen in every area of my life, including my sexuality and future relationships. I didn’t choose this path because of someone else’s story and I certainly didn’t choose it because others shamed me into it: I chose it because I fell in love with Jesus and this has been my response to His rescue. While these conversations are important, they’re simply not as important as people encountering the beauty of Christ’s sacrifice and experiencing His love in the deepest parts of their hearts. 

***

A big thanks to Julie for taking time out of a busy life to talk with us. Be sure to check out our series on God and the Gay Christian (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) as well as the other entries in our "Ask a..." series.

See also "Why I Invite Guests With Whom I Disagree" and "The Danger of a Single Story"

Cutest:
The New York Times treats second graders to fine dining 

Wisest: 
Charles Blow (in an interview with Jason Parham) on masculinity

“I believe that we have drawn masculinity in this incredibly narrow, rigid, dangerous way. We think of it as a peak, and I think of it as an ocean…Boys are constantly confronting this notion of failure because they cannot live up to idea of people saying to them, Man up! Be a man! And they don't know what that is because they're just trying to be human. And being human is sometimes fragile. I believe we have to redraw our collective concept of what masculinity is so that it includes the possibility of difference and variation. And once we do that we free these kids up to be kids, and to be human beings.”

Bravest: 
Sarah Schwartz at Deeper Story with“Antidepressants as a Means of Grace” 

“On Wednesday mornings, the high school ministry team I was a part of met for breakfast at a local diner. As we swapped prayer requests over bad coffee and scrambled eggs, I shared that I had started taking medicine to help combat my depression, to which the leader of the team, a senior boy I admired, turned and forcefully informed me, ‘You know, that would go away if you just trusted God enough.’”

Coolest:
“Undulatus Asperatus: A New Cloud Type” 

Most Powerful: 
Amena Brown at MOMcan with “Be You Bravely” 

Most Inspiring (nominated by Ryan Kenji Kuramitsu):  
Christy Wade with “How a Transgender Lady Helped Me Not Walk Away Fom My Christian Faith” 

“For an hour, I listened as she shared her story of coming to terms with her faith and gender identity. I was amazed she went to seminary at Baylor and had served as a Baptist preacher. She listened as I shared my journey and how I was struggling. I learned we shared the same belief that the Bible was more than a book of literature. She told me I didn’t have to disregard Scripture. It was obvious she was a woman of vibrant, deep Christian faith. Hope entered my life again. I was overwhelmed with God’s presence and tangibly felt His love wash over me. My life changed that day, and I began my journey of reconciling my faith and sexual orientation, whatever that would look like.” 

Most Informative: 
Marg Mowczko with “Paul and Women in a Nutshell” and “The First Century Church and the Ministry of Women” 

“Paul was not a misogynist: he did not hate or mistrust women. Paul valued Priscilla, Euodia and Syntyche as his co-workers in gospel ministry. He refers to Junia as his relative (or compatriot), his fellow prisoner, and as outstanding among the apostles. He commends Phoebe to the church at Rome as “our sister”, a patroness of many, a minister of the church at Cenchrea, and he probably sent his letter to the Romans with her. He acknowledges the ministry labours of Mary of Rome, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis…”

Most Insightful: 
Richard Beck with “Be Holy to Love Each Other” 

“We are called to be holy as God is holy. We are to purify ourselves. But what is the goal of holiness? For what purpose is purity? The purpose and the goal of holiness and purity is that we will have sincere, genuine, deep and mutual love for each other. Holiness and purity are not the opposite of love. Holiness and purity are the cultivation of love.  The holy person is the loving person. The pure person is the loving person.”

Best Headline:
Andy Borowitz at The New Yorker with “Man infected with Ebola misinformation through causal contact with cable news” 

Best Profile: 
Wyatt Mason at New York Times Magazine with “The Revelations of Marilynne Robinson” 

“…And it was here that Robinson brought up fear: How it has come to keep us at bay from our best selves, the selves that could and should “do something.” In her case, that “something” has been writing. For Robinson, writing is not a craft; it is “testimony,” a bearing witness: an act that demands much of its maker, not least of which is the courage to reveal what one loves.”

Best Series: 
Rebecca Lujan Loveless with “An Uneven Scale: Blog Series on Western Evangelical Justice Work” 

Best Op-Ed:
Nicholas Kristof with “The Diversity of Islam” 

“Beware of generalizations about any faith because they sometimes amount to the religious equivalent of racial profiling. Hinduism contained both Gandhi and the fanatic who assassinated him. The Dalai Lama today is an extraordinary humanitarian, but the fifth Dalai Lama in 1660 ordered children massacred ‘like eggs smashed against rocks.’ Christianity encompassed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and also the 13th century papal legate who in France ordered the massacre of 20,000 Cathar men, women and children for heresy, reportedly saying: ‘Kill them all; God will know his own.’”

Best Reflection:
Ruthie Johnson at Missio Alliance with "Restoring Unity: The Invitation of the Banquet of Heaven"

“In order to move towards unity as the Church, we must first practice the incarnational Kingdom in small, meaningful and routine places, such as meals. Our daily actions and interactions with those who are different—seeking to build bridges across, gender, theology, socioeconomics and race build skills to help us move toward unity as a whole.”

Best Advice:
James Hamblin at The Atlantic with “Buy Experiences, Not Things” 

Best List: 
Peter Enns with “10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew About the Bible” 

“An extremely important lesson for Christians to learn from Judaism is that the Bible invites debate. In fact, it can’t avoid it, given how open it is to multiple interpretations. Winning Bible feuds with others, getting to the right answer, isn’t the end goal. The back-and forth with the Bible, and with God, is where deeper faith is found.”

Best Perspective:  
Jim Wallis with “Ebola is an Inequality Crisis” 

“The knowledge and infrastructure to treat the sick and contain the virus exists in high- and middle-income counties. However, over many years, we have failed to make these things accessible to low-income people in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. So now thousands of people in these countries are dying because, in the lottery of birth, they were born in the wrong place.”

On Twitter...

Healthy churches look more like AA than country clubs.

— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) October 9, 2014

Lord, I am ready to go wherever you call me, and endure whatever you might EWW!! This banana has a brown spot! I'm not eating it.

— Peter W. Chin (@peterwchin) October 11, 2014

A women shows up at the tomb first to see that Christ is not there and then goes to tell the men. And some don't believe women can preach?

— Efrem Smith (@efremsmith) October 10, 2014

According to scientists, the #bloodmoon doesn't make you irrationally emotional, and if I see those scientists I will set them on fire.

— TheBloggess (@TheBloggess) October 9, 2014

May I see the humanity of the oppressor as readily as I see the humanity of the oppressed.

— Christena Cleveland (@CSCleve) October 7, 2014

As Christians, our politics are not Left or Right, but centered on Jesus. Our allegiance is not to a donkey or an elephant -- but to a Lamb

— Shane Claiborne (@ShaneClaiborne) October 7, 2014

"To reach something good, it is useful to have gone astray." — Teresa of Ávila

— Tara M. Owens (@AnamCaraTO) October 6, 2014

Love this black cami dress. It says: I wander the world without joy, without hope, without pain; I am but the remains of despair

— KimKierkegaardashian (@KimKierkegaard) October 9, 2014

***

So, what caught your eye online this week? What's happening on your blog?