Sorting
Out the Gay Marriage Controversy
by Rev. Paul J. Bern
This
past week's Supreme Court decision in favor of legalizing gay
marriage has by no means settled this controversy. Growing up in the
Catholic church and recalling my years in Catholic school, I learned
the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is clear-cut. God condemns it,
I was taught, and those who disagree will wind up in hell for
eternity. You might say that my childhood church community’s
approach to the taboo topic of homosexuality was riddled with
self-serving double standards and condemnation. Although I
offer no argument that the sins of the city-state of Sodom and
Gomorrah cried to heaven for justice, I do question whether the sin
that cried to heaven was simply homosexuality. A reading of the
biblical text shows the sin of Sodom was not its permission of
homosexuality but its inhospitality to Lot’s visitors, who in
reality were Angels of the Lord. Genesis states that the crowd wished
to have its way with Lot’s visitors. One does not demand the
“right” to rape God's servants and expect to come away unscathed.
Rape was the sin of Sodom, and I firmly agree that this does cry to
heaven for justice.I don’t doubt that the one New Testament
author who wrote on the subject of male-male relations thought it to
be a sin. In Romans chapter 1 the apostle Paul called it “unnatural.”
Problem is, Paul’s only other moral argument from nature is the
following: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears
long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it
is her glory?” (1st Corinthians 11:14-15). Few modern Christians
would answer that question with a “yes.”
In
short, Paul objects to two things as unnatural: one is same-sex
marriage and the other is long hair on men and short hair on women.
The community opposed to gay marriage takes one condemnation as
timeless and universal and the other as culturally relative. I also
don’t doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a
revision of the Christian tradition. But the community opposed to gay
marriage has itself revised the Christian tradition in many ways. For
the first 1500 years of Christianity, for example, marriage was
deemed morally inferior to celibacy. When a theologian named Jovinian
challenged that hierarchy in 390 A.D. — merely by suggesting that
marriage and celibacy might be equally worthwhile endeavors — he
was deemed a heretic and excommunicated from the Roman church. How
does that sit with so-called “family values” activism today?
Yale
New Testament professor Dale B. Martin once noted that today’s
"pro-family" activism, despite its pretense to be
representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered
heretical for most of the church’s history. The community opposed
to gay marriage has also departed from the Christian tradition on
another issue at the heart of its social agenda: abortion.
Unbeknownst to most lay Christians, the vast majority of Christian
theologians and saints throughout history have not believed life
begins at conception. Although he admitted some uncertainty on the
matter, the hugely influential 4th and 5th century Christian thinker
Saint Augustine wrote, “it could not be said that there was a
living soul in [a] body” if it is “not yet endowed with senses.”
Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic saint and a giant of medieval theology,
argued, “Before the body has organs in any way whatever, it cannot
be receptive of the soul.”
American
evangelicals, meanwhile, widely opposed the idea that life begins at
conception until the 1970s, with some even advocating looser abortion
laws based on their reading of the Bible before then. The point right
here is that it won’t do to oppose gay marriage because it’s not
traditional while advocating other positions that are not
traditional. And then there’s the topic of divorce. Although there
is only one uncontested reference to same-sex relations in the New
Testament, divorce is condemned throughout, both by Jesus and Paul.
To quote Jesus from the Gospel of Mark: “Whoever divorces his wife
and marries another commits adultery.” A possible exception is made
only for unfaithfulness. The right-wing conservative community most
opposed to gay marriage usually reads these condemnations very
leniently. A 2007 issue of Christianity Today, for example, featured
a story on its cover about divorce that concluded that Christians
should permit divorce for “adultery,” “emotional and physical
neglect” and “abandonment and abuse.” The author emphasizes how
impractical it would be to apply a strict interpretation of Jesus on
this matter: “It is difficult to believe the Bible can be as
impractical as this interpretation implies.” Actually, it sure is.
Christianity Today really goofed on that point.
On
the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of
Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual
men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a
historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong –
homosexuals. Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life
begins, or divorce, time and time again the leaders most opposed to
gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider
nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are
at stake.
I
have been a born-again Christian since October of 1992, and I
received my baptism of the Holy Spirit in 2008. And so I no longer
identify with the Catholic church of my youth. The community gave me
many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the
very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God. So
let’s stop the charade and be honest. Opponents of gay marriage
aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to
defend their own. They are also forgetting that the Bible repeatedly
warns us about judging other people. Judgment isn't our job, it's
God's job, and I will give you several examples. In the Old Testament
it says, “I
will deal with them according to their conduct, and by their own
standards I will judge them. Then they will know that I am the Lord”
(Ezekiel 7, verse 27, NIV). And in the New Testament Jesus said, “Do
not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge
others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be
measured to you”
(Matthew 7, verses 1-2, NIV).
And the apostle James wrote, “Brothers,
do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or
judges him speaks against the Law and judges it. When you judge the
Law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is
only one Lawgiver and judge, the one who is able to save and destroy.
But you – who are you to judge your neighbor?”
(James 4, verses 11-12, NIV)
The
final objection is that many find homosexual sex personally
disgusting. While this is an argument for not engaging in homosexual
relations personally it is not strong enough to prohibit it to others
who do not find it so. Sorry, all you Christian conservatives, but
personal preferences and prejudices do not determine public policy
choices. So, before we rush to judgment or jump to conclusions about
homosexuality, gay marriage or abortion, we all need to back away
from our judge's podiums and get down off our high horses and quit
doing the very thing that could get someone sent to hell when they
die. “Work out your own salvation”, Paul wrote, “with fear and
trembling before the Lord”. And that right there, everybody, should
be “job 1” for Christians everywhere. If it's not, or if we hold
certain others in contempt, anyone doing so is missing the mark,
falling short in their walk with the Lord, and inviting judgment upon
themselves. Or, to explain it another way, I don't usually associate
with gay people. I don't know any, and I personally don't approve of
their so-called “lifestyle”. But at no time does that give me the
right or the privilege to hate or bully gay people. Christians who
do such things are really not Christian at all because, instead of
being motivated by the love of Christ, they are driven by hate,
intolerance, bigotry and prejudice – the same bigotry and prejudice
that the confederate battle flag represents. You know, the ones they
are taking down all across the country?
No comments:
Post a Comment