What Is the Essence of Following Christ?

Since her original post generated so many comments, Ms. Chellew-Hodge authored another post elaborating on her reasons for speaking out against Warren. I commented again, and though Candace did not respond, other readers engaged me in fruitful conversation.

Diversity

Posted by reuster on January 10, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Thank you for this post. I now understand your viewpoint and criticism of Warren much more clearly, and I respect and embrace your desire to reform corrupt and oppressive institutions. Your beef with Warren is that he is not radical enough. Further, you argue that all Christians should challenge the established system and tear down oppressive social structures, particularly through political activism. This is certainly a worthy activity and a key component of God's kingdom, but I would argue that it is not the only vocation open to Christians, nor does the kingdom of God consist only in social justice.

Jesus told us that his Father's house has many rooms, and Paul asserts that the body of Christ has many diverse members. Surely there is room in the church for people who help the poor directly, for people who strengthen others' hope by deepening their understanding of God, and for people who use their talents to express the beauty of God through various media, in addition to those who bring about social justice through political activism. Each of these vocations involves challenging some form of status quo or some lie that the world tells, but not all of them are in the political sphere. In short, the church ought to embrace those Christians who are called to political activism and amplify their voice as they speak against the world; however, not every Christian, and not every Christian leader, is particularly called by God to be a political activist.

I want to be clear that I'm not trying to defend Warren here: he may or may not be a good leader, but the absence of political activism does not, by itself, make him a bad leader.

Maybe I'm misrepresenting you? Do you really believe that every Christian must embody the kind of politically-oriented activism that you describe? One thing Jesus and his followers truly valued was the unity of the church. How can we ever be united in love until we learn to respect each other's diverse, God-given callings and support each other in our work?

RE: Diversity

Posted by sapphire on January 10, 2010 at 10:51 AM

I'm not sure how Candace would reply to this but I have my own thoughts.
Political activism isn't the only calling on a Christian and not the only way to upend the power systems that not only maintain the gap between rich and poor but widen it year by year.
The problem with most of the high profile religious leaders of your country is that they do nothing at all to remedy the situation. Many of them seem to actively support it and not a few make a fabulous living for themselves out of it. Giving a few dollars to a charity does not help the poor. It simply makes them more and more dependant on the rich and widens the gap not only in material possessions but also in the ability to make everyday choices in their lives. It takes away the last of their power.
A very few Christians have taken Christ at his word and given their entire lifestyles. I can think of examples of businessmen who have changed the pay structure of their companies so that a worker with a family to support actually earns more than the CEO. That's not political activism but it is sacrificial. And it upends the system.
My reading of Candace's criticism of Warren is that he has built a veneer of Christian charity. His giving doesn't really involve sacrifice since he leads an enviably comfortable lifestyle but he expects his followers to give sacrificially in order to shore up the budget for his church. Nowhere in what I have read of his work does he ever suggest the kind of role reversal that Jesus was preaching. If he did wash anyone's feet it would only be symbolic.
Warren is by no means the worst of the American superchurch leaders - he may even be the best of them, which is why Candace's criticism comes in for so much flak - but if he is then he is merely the best of a bad bunch.

RE: Diversity

Posted by reuster on January 10, 2010 at 6:50 PM

I think I can accept this criticism of Warren. What you are saying is that Christians in leadership need to be servant-leaders, humbling themselves and bearing their followers' burdens (financial and otherwise), rather than making their followers bear their burdens. Furthermore, Warren did not exercise this type of servant leadership when he called on his followers to finance a deficit that he could have covered himself. I think it is reasonable to question his actions on this basis.

While I totally agree with the servant-leadership model, I admit that it must be very difficult to implement. For instance, in my church there are frequently homeless people in attendance. As a church, we try to help meet their needs, but does the presence of a homeless person in the congregation mean that, in order to follow Jesus's model of servant-leadership, the pastor/elders of my church must give up their homes? Most of them have families; is Christ asking them to put their families on the street? I'm not trying to be rhetorical or sarcastic; I honestly want to know what you think about this challenging question.

(For the record, my pastor and his family do live modestly, and they devote an incredible amount of time and energy to serving the church with their various gifts, but they still have an apartment).

RE: Diversity

Posted by sapphire on January 11, 2010 at 4:12 AM

Facing that kind of situation is always a challenge and as I see it there are no "either/or" type answers.
You mention homeless people. Should the pastor give up his apartment in order to house them? What good would that do in the end? You simply exchange one set of people without homes for another. The problem isn't solved.
Yes the church and the leadership should look very carefully at the resources they have. The leaders should be the first to do so but I don't think Christ asks to give what we don't have but we have to look at what we do have and how we can use it.
A few years ago when I lived in a different town the church I attended sold off its prestige building and bought more modest land where it built what we call "social housing" - property let for non profit rents to families on low incomes or on welfare benefits.
Again I'm not sure how Candace sees it and I'm not in the United States so I can only comment on what I read and hear of the situation there but your question does bring us back to Candace's political and social action call.
Why are these people homeless? From what I see of the US mega churches, including Saddleback, they aren't asking the right questions -or any questions - and so they never come up with a lasting solution. Why are some people poor? Jesus implied that it was because some others were rich. Judaism, early Christianity and the beginnings of Islam all held a special place for the poor and all looked with suspicion on those who amassed large personal fortunes - going so far as to describe it as sin. All of them lost this imperative to an extent and became comfortable, regarding riches as God's blessing (instead of a responsibility) and poverty as God's curse. In part, Jesus' message was to upend that.
I think Jesus would want the whole body of his followers to give what they could to help individual poor people but he stood in a tradition that would also call upon them to tackle the root causes of their poverty.
If your pastor has a home for his family I don't think Jesus would expect him to put them on the streets but I think he would expect him to challenge in any way he could a system and a national psyche that says it's acceptable for some individuals to have multiple homes they seldom use while others die of exposure on the streets.
Perhaps your pastor does this - all power to him.
My criticism of Pastor Warren and the others (and I think this is what Candace is getting at) is that this kind of challenge is absent from their action and their rhetoric.
Even if they aren't specifically called to such action they have a responsibility as leaders to preach the whole of Christ's message and not just the part which says you'll go to heaven if you believe.
The Gospel is hard - extremely hard - I'm in no position to criticise individuals for what they do but I think we all have a duty to criticise leaders where they so signally fail to make the attempt.

RE: Diversity

Posted by Lindy on January 12, 2010 at 3:32 AM

Well, Jesus didn't have a praise band. But, he did feed a lot of hungry people and generally disrupt the political order whenever he got the chance.

I do believe that every Christian is called to follow Jesus. I enjoy a pretty church service as much as the next one. But I don't think for one minute that anything that goes on in church is following Jesus. Oh, it's pretty. It's a lovely way to spend an hour and to feel all holy and stuff. But, it's not following Jesus.

Jesus is where the poor are, the marginalized, criminals, the insane, and the mildly different. You hardly ever see him with the popular kids, unless he's turning their temple tables over.

Sure, there are lots of different kinds of gifts. But no gift negates the mandate to follow Jesus. So, sing if you must. Even write bestselling books if it's your thing. You still have to fight the culture wars, because Jesus did.

RE: Diversity

Posted by reuster on January 12, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Your description of following Jesus is appealing, but incomplete, and it leads you to some false conclusions.

In order to follow Jesus, you have to first have a pretty thorough and accurate idea of what was Jesus was all about. Most people today focus on one aspect or another of Jesus's ministry. Such focus is necessary for one person; however, when this focus is adopted by entire groups to the exclusion of other facets of Jesus's ministry, it becomes a dangerous idolatry. Conservatives think that Jesus was all about personal salvation and righteousness. Liberals claim he was all about social justice. In reality, his work encompassed and superseded both.

If you look at Jesus through the lens of the Old Testament (which is the only proper way to see him), you will see that everything he did was coupled to his identity as the Messiah, and the Messiah's job was to inaugurate the Kingdom of God. The OT anticipated that the Kingdom of God would transform and renew four key aspects of life. i) The OT prophesied of a new king who would sit on David's throne and give justice to the poor and needy. ii) It proclaimed that God would write a new law on the hearts of his people, causing them to be righteous and show love to one another. iii) The OT hinted that God would establish a new temple that would allow his people to directly experience the presence of God. And iv) it promised that God would renew creation (including both nature and humanity) and restore it to its pristine, pre-fallen state. There are many examples in the Gospels of Jesus's concern for all four of these aspects of God's kingdom.

Following Jesus includes advancing all four aspects of his kingdom. While each person will necessarily focus their life's work on one or two areas, the church as a whole must pursue all four. It is wrong for the church to promote one over the other. The Sunday worship service you talked about is primarily about (iii), so it is wrong for a church to have great music but neglect service to the poor (i). It is also wrong for a church to have a great ministry of social justice (i) but de-emphasize sanctification and righteousness (ii).

Thine is the kingdom (it belongs to You, not us), and the power (it comes by Your hand, not ours), and the glory (it is for Your benefit, not ours), forever. Amen.

My Attempt to Lovingly Confront a Christian... About Confronting Another Christian

A couple weeks ago, I responded to a post on Religion Dispatches by Candace Chellew-Hodge. Her post criticized Rick Warren's last minute appeal to his flock to bolster Saddleback's sagging finances, and the amazing $2.4M surplus it generated. In what I thought was a stretch, she speculated that Saddleback's financial troubles in the first place were the result of congregants' disillusionment over Warren's foot-dragging response to the anti-gay legislation being debated in Uganda. Ms. Chellew-Hodge did make it quite clear in her post that her theory was merely conjecture with no evidence to support it. Read her post first, then the discussion below.

Disappointment

Posted by reuster on January 6, 2010 at 2:45 PM

It is convenient to cast someone's entire life in an evil light when that person disagrees with you on an important issue.

But Candace, if Warren hadn't done or said anything about homosexuality, would you care about his income or his church's finances? Would you claim to know the motives behind his giving and charity work, declaring that he does good "accidentally" and "in spite of himself" [from the comments]?

Let's compare Warren to Bishop John Spong. Spong, like Warren, will probably live in material comfort this coming year, perhaps more so than some of his former parishioners. If he didn't happen to take a certain stance on a certain doctrine, would you be actively criticizing his finances too? Would you be equally suspicious of his motives for charitable giving and service?

Or has the issue of one's opinion on sexuality risen to become the only relevant criterion in deciding whether someone is good or evil? Do you have the ability to genuinely look for the good in someone who disagrees with you on this issue? Or has the issue of sexuality become your god - the lens through which you see and judge the world?

I used to admire the way you responded to people like whodat?, and I rejoiced at the patience and love you showed to your enemies. I would love for you to convince me that I didn't get the wrong impression.

RE: Disappointment

Posted by candace_chellew-hodge on January 6, 2010 at 3:01 PM

No, my disgust with Warren has nothing to do with his stand on homosexuality. Comparing him to Bishop Spong is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, in my opinion. Bishop Spong isn't sending out emails letting us know that his budget is short this year and asking his supporters to dig deeper so he'll be comfortable this coming year.

Warren, on the other hand, is a businessman, running a business that just happens to be a mega church. He doesn't take a salary and lives in a modest house, drives a beat up truck, all lovely and admirable, but he and others like him purvey a cheap grace where God is reduced to a vending machine - or a business transaction where our prayers and good works go in and God's good blessings come out.

I don't have to agree with Warren on homosexuality but he's said some fairly disgusting stuff about gays and lesbians, comparing us to pedophiles and incestuous relationships. He has no understanding of gays and lesbians and worse yet, wants no understanding of us.

I just get the feeling that Warren is a con-man. Again, complete conjecture (which apparently everyone missed), but I sense that he's not everything he puts himself forward to be. I could be wrong, but I have a right to voice my opinion, even if it's pure speculation.

RE: Disappointment

Posted by candace_chellew-hodge on January 6, 2010 at 3:03 PM

And another thing, I never called Warren evil. I don't think he's evil.

RE: Disappointment

Posted by reuster on January 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Fair enough. I don't know enough about Warren's ministry to say whether you're right or not (I haven't read any of his books or heard him preach). I too loathe the prosperity gospel, and if that's what he preaches, then I neither support nor defend his message. But we're not just talking about Warren's message, we're also talking about Warren the Christian.

I understand that you have clearly acknowledged your words to be conjecture - nothing more - and I don't dispute your right to post them. However, the question we, as Christians, need to ask is not "do I have a right to say/do this?", but rather "is it good for me to say/do this?". Is it good to post negative conjecture about a brother in Christ (wayward or not), in the absence of knowledge about his motives, addressed not to him directly but to the general public? Is that loving? Does it honor Christ?

Have you tried writing a letter to Warren directly and asking him, in a non-accusatory tone, about his motives, actions, theology, etc.? Even if he is unlikely to respond, at least you could say that you followed biblical protocol by confronting him individually before taking the matter to a wider audience. I mean, isn't there a right way and a wrong way for Christians to confront each other, with love?

I'm sorry for carelessly insinuating that you said/thought Warren was evil. I'm glad you don't think that, and it was wrong of me to imply that you did.

RE: Disappointment

Posted by candace_chellew-hodge on January 7, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Thanks for your reply. Funny thing this morning, my daily horoscope echoes what you said:

"However strongly you may feel, some opinions are best kept to yourself."

I suppose that's wise counsel, and should have been my horoscope days ago! :)

I have tried to correspond with Warren in the past but had gotten nowhere. He's even blocked me from following him on Twitter. (!) So, my entreaties (hopefully they were not accusatory) have gone unanswered. I would love to hear from him one way or the other.

RE: Disappointment

Posted by reuster on January 7, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Haha, that's interesting about the horoscope. If only the stars could keep up with what the Holy Spirit has to say... :)

Wow, he he blocked you on twitter? What a strange thing to do. Well, I commend you for trying to start a conversation with him. Let us know, in the unlikely event that he ever responds (unless it's in confidence, of course).

It All Comes Back to the Resurrection

It's interesting to see how conversations develop organically, often within an unexpected context. This conversation between Jim Reed and me (aka reuster) originally happened in the comment thread of an article on Religion Dispatches about Pat Robertson's statements on the Haitian earthquake.

RD Reader: ...Understanding isn't about "who is persecuting whom". It's about loving people, regardless... Jesus did that, didn't he? So what's [Robertson and his followers'] excuse?

Jesus did that what's their excuse?
Posted by Jim Reed on January 14, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Religion evolves like all other life on earth. That which can propagate to the next generation and in larger numbers will survive, and might eventually dominate. Jesus was teaching something more like a humanistic philosophy. His methods could never compete with the more traditional forms of religion that have evolved over time by being able to out-influence the others. Jesus never really stood a chance in the long run. All that is left is a name.

RE: Jesus did that what's their excuse?.
Posted by reuster on January 14, 2010 at 3:00 PM

How does Jesus's teaching qualify as a "humanistic philosophy"?

Why do you say that his methods failed to compete with other religions? Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire within decades of Jesus's death and resurrection, to the extent that the Romans started to get anxious and violent about it.

RE: a humanistic philosophy
Posted by Jim Reed on January 14, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Jesus was about an approach to life, love others, treat them well, help them. It was not about a system of judging people according to how deeply they profess belief. Christianity is just a religion, and it works like other religions. It teaches belief in the name of Jesus, and belief in the scriptures. The scriptures are not there so that people will believe them. They are stories that you might find can help you see something about how to live. It doesn't matter if you believe them. God is not going to judge you by whether you have the proper system of beliefs.

RE: a humanistic philosophy
Posted by reuster on January 14, 2010 at 5:54 PM

"Jesus was about an approach to life, love others, treat them well, help them."

Jesus did not come to earth simply to tell us to love each other. Such a message would have been redundant, since God had repeatedly told his people in the Law of Moses to "love your neighbor", in so many words. In fact, Jesus went out of his way to emphasize that his teaching was the exact same as the Torah. But Jesus did not come primarily to teach, even by example. He understood that the people's problem was not that they didn't know how to love others, but that they didn't have the power to do so. Instead of simply telling them for the 100th time to "love their neighbor", Jesus came to do something about the root of the problem.

Jesus saw his execution and resurrection as central to his mission. He predicted his death several times, calling it necessary and moving towards it of his own free will. When his death finally came, Jesus was not executed for reminding people of what they already knew; he was executed for blasphemy. He was executed because he claimed to be God, and claimed to offer direct access to God through himself (thus circumventing the power of the religious authorities, and upsetting them). That's why he told his followers that they needed to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life. That's why, whenever someone came to him for healing, he praised them for their faith in him. Nothing excited Jesus like faith, and nothing disappointed him like a lack of faith. Jesus wanted people to trust him, to follow him to his death and resurrection, and to gain access to God through him. Only then would they be able to love others.

So no, Jesus's message was not primarily "love others" but rather "I am God; have faith in me, ingest me, come to the Father through me, die with me, rise with me! Only then will you have the power to love as I love." Jim, Jesus was the polar opposite of a humanist because he knew that humans could do nothing on their own.

I agree that God does not judge by belief, if belief simply means intellectual assent. But God does judge us by our faith, because trusting in him is a prerequisite for loving him, and for truly loving others as well.

RE: a humanistic philosophy
Posted by Jim Reed on January 15, 2010 at 4:39 AM

Bill, that sounds overly complicated. Jesus was born when he was born because that was when he was born. He was born where he was born by the luck of the draw. He dealt with the people of the area where he lived, who are much like the people of the world today. Americans might be a little different because we might be more like the people of Rome. Jesus' life was recorded in many gospels that were written in the several decades after he died. They were selected and rejected and collected by the church over the course of a few centuries. The story evolved along with the church, and in fact a primary purpose of the story was to meet the needs of the church. Don't try to read more into this than is actually there.

History begs to differ
Posted by reuster on January 15, 2010 at 6:54 AM

On the contrary, when you take the gospels and strip away everything that contradicts your preconceived notions about Jesus, you're not talking about Jesus anymore, but rather a figment of your own imagination. You're not looking at what is actually there; you're looking at what you want to be there. And you don't want to find a dying and rising God who will change your life; you want to find an ordinary guy who preached exactly what you already believe.

A point of fact: you claim that there were many gospels written in the decades after Jesus's death and that some were selected and others rejected from the final canon. This is misleading. The only gospels that scholars and historians have reliably dated to the 1st century AD are the four canonical gospels. Other gospels like the those of Thomas, Mary, Judas, Philip, Truth, etc. were written no earlier than the 3rd century, 200 years or more after the events they describe. Many gospels do not even claim to be eyewitness accounts of Jesus's teaching and ministry. These two criteria: early authorship and Apostolic (eyewitness) authority, single out Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the only trustworthy sources on Jesus. They were not simply selected because they happened to support some theological agenda of the church.

A more interesting question is: why was there even a church in the first place? The century before and after Jesus was rife with charismatic individuals who opposed the political order and attracted groups of followers. These failed Messiahs would be imprisoned or executed, and their movement would fizzle out as their followers dispersed and fled, for fear of a similar fate. The same thing should have happened to Jesus's followers. He opposed the authorities and hinted at his Messianic identity, attracting large crowds of followers. Then he was executed, and his Messianic movement should have fizzled out like all the others. In fact, in the days after Jesus's death, the gospels report that his disciples were in hiding, probably out of fear of being similarly executed.

However, history (even secular sources) tells us that these same disciples went on to spread the message of their failed Messiah throughout Palestine and the larger Roman world. Especially interesting is that they established a vibrant church in Jerusalem by preaching boldly in the backyard of the same authorities they had earlier feared. Indeed, all the disciples except John paid for their boldness with martyrdom. Against all odds of history, the cult of yet another failed Messiah exploded into a major religion overnight (Nero was persecuting Christians on the other side of the known world just 30 years later). In the disciples' own explanation, this phenomenon was entirely the result of Jesus appearing to them - in bodily form: eating, talking, walking, and touching his wounds - 3 days after his execution.

Other interesting facts of history: i)in the Jewish authorities' polemical attacks on early Christians, the emptiness of Jesus's tomb and the disappearance of his body are taken for granted. ii) Saul, the zealous persecutor of early Christians, became Paul, the Apostle of Christ, after claiming to have seen and talked with the resurrected Jesus. iii) James, the begrudging brother of Jesus who wanted nothing to do with Jesus's ministry, became one of the leaders of the Jerusalem church after claiming to have seen his brother risen from the dead, in the flesh.

Whether you believe in the resurrection or not (and if not, I challenge you to offer a consistent explanation of all of the above), Jesus was anything but ordinary in the effect he had on people, and his mission cannot be understood in ordinary terms, as you would like. His life doesn't fit into an overly simplistic paradigm; he shatters everybody's ideas about who he should be. For my own part, he has surprised me many times over.

Working Out Truth and Love in the Context of the Church, Homosexuals, and Marriage (3rd post)

A Check on Motives

For the rest of this post I will assume the authority of the Bible, in the above sense that the general principles and messages, when correctly extracted and interpreted, indicate not just human ideas about God, but God’s actual paradigm for humanity. The previous post was largely about how a theologically holistic approach to the Bible is necessary for discovering the truth, but using the right methods does not guarantee the correct application of biblical truth. If truth is to have its God-intended effect, it must be pursued with the right motives. The mistake that both apologists of slavery and some opponents of homosexuals make in the arena of motives is that they use the Bible to justify their own position without regard for the best interests of others. To be sure, the Bible in a certain context functions like a weapon (the sword of the Spirit), but it is only to be used this way against temptation, forces of evil, “powers and principalities”, etc. rather than against our fellow humans. We do well to remember that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood” (Eph. 6:12). At the same time, this reminder is not a prohibition against using the Bible to lovingly confront a fellow Christian (Cf. 2 Tim. 3:16 “All Scripture... is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness”). What is the right way to do this? When God says the Bible is useful for rebuking others, he intends the Bible to function more like a scalpel than a sword: a scalpel inflicts pain to heal (it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart; Heb. 4:12) while a sword wounds to kill. God offers us many joys in the Bible – a blanket to those in need of comfort, water to the thirsty, freedom for those in bondage – but most importantly, he offers to heal us, through an effective but painful process, by means of the Holy Spirit and his word. But if I (or anyone) feel called to correct someone else using the Bible, I must first check my motives and make sure that I always have the good of the other person in mind. To paraphrase Paul, the most eloquent argument amounts to nothing if it is not aimed at building up the hearer.

I wanted to say all of this before even beginning to talk about my own perspective on marriage, for the reason that this subject is complex enough and personal enough to provoke irrationality in even the most level-headed of people. Thus, it is not wise to simply jump right in without introduction. It can sometimes feel like a titanic struggle to actually engage with truth and love on this issue and avoid the twin mistakes of walking away from the table and shouting down an opponent. I call this a complex issue because the world - and too often the church - confuses two important concepts: how we treat people and how we discern the goodness of ideas, practices, and behaviors. It is so easy for a religious person (such as myself) to start by arguing that a certain behavior does not conform to God’s standard and then fallaciously use that argument to justify mistreatment of those who participate in such behavior. The Pharisees were a prime example of people who had a few correct notions about right and wrong (though they missed the boat on the broader messages) but used those notions to judge and discriminate against their fellow broken humans instead of help them along. By contrast, Jesus loved, ministered to, identified with, and suffered for the sinners he met. Yet he still called them to come out of their sin - and to conform to a higher standard than even the Pharisees set for themselves (Cf. Matt. 5:20). Jesus did not manufacture this standard out of thin air; rather, he drew it out of the principles and messages derived from his holistic understanding of his Bible (the Old Testament), which he considered authoritative enough to quote from regularly. In short, Jesus was the most successful person ever at combining love and truth, to the increased effectiveness of both.

Part III: The Church, Homosexuals, and Marriage

To follow the example of Jesus, the church must be ready to come alongside homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals – to advocate for them, comfort them, and suffer for them. We ought to fight for gays to have equal protection under the law in matters of employment, taxes, jobs, and all other areas regulated by the government. Even with respect to civil marriage, I would argue that the church should allow the government to recognize homosexual and heterosexual unions under the same heading because the government regulates a secular, social institution while the church upholds a holy covenant sanctified by God. In fact, the church should strive to make such a distinction between these two that the entire world recognizes and starts to long for God's standard. But, I digress (I will try to argue for my legal position in another post). Beyond ensuring that gays are free to live, work, and play in freedom from fear and injustice, we as Christians should also welcome them into our churches and remember that nobody is required to put their lives in order before seeking a relationship with Christ (rather, it is the other way around). However, to follow the example of Jesus we must also faithfully discern, preach, and practice God’s desires and purposes for our lives, including in the areas of marriage and sexuality.

So here we come to the heart of the matter: I believe i) that God has a very specific ideal for human sexuality that excludes both sexual acts and erotic desire with someone of the same gender, and ii) that relationships between two people of the same gender are commanded by God and serve an important role in the church but cannot satisfy God’s purpose for marriage. As I have said before, I agree with you that one cannot draw a universal condemnation for homosexual acts from the biblical passages that explicitly mention homosexuality. My belief stems not from a few passages, but from a holistic biblical view of sex and marriage.

The Function of Sex in Marriage

First of all, the Bible makes it clear that sex and marriage belong together. In general, when the Bible speaks of sexual acts, it either praises them, denounces them, or makes no comment on them. For actions that are reported without a moral judgment, we cannot extract a moral principle one way or the other, but where there is affirmation or condemnation across the board, the principle is clear. Every sexual act praised by the Bible happens within a marital relationship between two people. By contrast, every sexual act denounced by the Bible either violates or occurs outside of such a relationship. This evidence does not say that every sexual act within marriage is good, but it does indicate that every sexual act outside of or in violation of marriage is wrong. Thus, in order for sex to be good, it is necessary but not sufficient for it to occur within a marital relationship.

So then, what exactly is marriage and why is sex so closely associated with it? For Christians, marriage is a covenant: a joining together of two people by God for a specific purpose. The imagery of union, including the powerful phrase "one flesh", runs throughout the Bible, and Jesus himself highlights this idea of union by saying “Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Mark 10:9). Also, he firmly upheld the sexual exclusivity of this covenant, holding spouses accountable not only for their actions but for their thoughts, by saying “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). Furthermore, from Moses to Paul, biblical authors assert that one function of sex is to join two people, making them one flesh, and thus sealing the covenant of marriage. Paul notes that sex retains this power even when used improperly. For example, the man who has sex with a prostitute not only breaks an existing covenant (if married), but establishes a new (and unhealthy) covenant with the prostitute, becoming “one body” with her in the same way that two married people become one flesh (1 Cor. 6:16). Marriage is a covenant in which the joining of two people is accomplished at least partly through a physical act that should not be taken lightly.

The Purpose of Marriage: Sacred Symbolism

Using this central idea of union, God designed marriage for the purpose of powerfully symbolizing two things: the completion of humanity and the union of God with his people. The Old Testament introduces marriage with the first purpose, and the New Testament fulfills it with the second. In Genesis, the first pronouncement of the marital covenant follows immediately in response to the creation of the two genders. Adam by himself was incomplete (the only "not good" thing in all of God's good creation was Adam's solitude, Gen. 2:18), and since he was the only representative of humanity at the time, humanity was incomplete by extension. Because God contains within his nature both masculinity and femininity, and because Adam only had the masculine half, he could not function alone as a complete image of God, though he was made for that purpose. However, once God created Eve, the feminine half had arrived at last. The declaration of the marital covenant follows right on the heels of the introduction of Eve (Gen. 2:24, literally the verse after Adam and Eve meet) because it signifies that both components of humanity, the masculine and the feminine, are now finally present. Humanity can now function as God's image. Union in marriage symbolizes this completion of humanity, and so the genders male and female, representing the natures masculine and feminine, must both be components of marriage for the symbol to fulfill its purpose.

But the symbolism does not end there. God chose to create this most powerful example of unity from two very different components because he wanted a symbol that could hint at his stunning intent to unite us to himself, despite the infinite difference between his nature and ours. For this reason, the New Testament appropriates marriage as a metaphor and calls the church "the bride of Christ". I assert that the symbol of marriage does not work here unless it includes the two genders to represent the two vastly different natures of humanity and Christ. The Word became flesh, and made his dwelling among us. Jesus left his place of effortless, unbroken communion with the Father in order to live in human meat and expose himself to the temptations and struggles that practically define fallen humanity, just so that he could identify with us and rescue us if only we would trust him. This relationship between Christ and us is made so incredible because of the gulf he had to cross over in order to take on flesh and become one of us.

Though the divide between men and women pales in comparison to the chasm of sin that separates God and man, still it is remarkably constant in human history. Every culture and era has witnessed - often tragically - this divide between genders, whether in the form of outright hostility and oppression or in an undercurrent of misunderstanding, battle-of-the-sexes style. I find that with my male friends, even those from other cultures, I can usually understand their reasoning and know how they will respond to certain actions. However, though I have spent far more time with my wife than all of my male friends combined, I am still surprised by her thoughts and actions, by what seemingly inconsequential things bother her or delight her. For me to truly know and love her, and for her to understand and respect me, will be my life's work and hers. It is a powerful testimony to Christ's striving, inexhaustible love when husbands and wives daily bridge the gap that separates the two genders, and it is on this basis that the church should hold up the glorious, symbolic ideal of marriage as the indivisible union of a man and a woman built on self-sacrificial love.

Clarifications and Objections

For the sake of completeness and to avoid misunderstanding, I must add two corollaries and two disclaimers to the last statement. First, we as Christians cannot expect the world to understand the proper use of sex or the spiritual symbolism of marriage. As such, we should still allow the government to recognize the spectrum of relationships present in our society independent of their spiritual significance; it is not through legislation that we show the world God's ideals, but through faithful example. As a second corollary, I believe that the high divorce rate in the church is a much larger threat to the symbolic power of marriage than the church’s recognition of same-sex marriage; it is much worse for a marriage to declare the opposite of its intended symbolism than to simply stand as incomplete. We the church really need to put our house in order on the issue of divorce. For the disclaimers, we must remember that i) the analogy of marriage to the union between God and man is not perfect in that, though the nature of God is superior to the nature of man, the nature of the two genders are equal before God (Gal. 3:28) and ii) not everyone is called to participate in marriage itself, but everyone is invited to enter into what marriage symbolizes – union with God.

Objection 1: Is Marriage Only a Symbol?

A symbol? Is that all? Should we really ask homosexuals to put aside their marital aspirations for the sake of mere symbolism? If we were speaking in human terms, I would say no; however, for God there is no such thing as mere symbolism. God’s entire purpose in creating the universe out of nothing was to represent the totality of his character – what we call his glory: his love, power, wisdom, justice, mercy, etc. – and communicate it with beings who could at least partially experience, comprehend, and act out these attributes. Whereas humans accomplish the act of communication using words to symbolize ideas, God orders the natural world, organizes the course of human history, and directs our individual lives, all as symbols to communicate his divine ideas. Hence he created the grain of wheat, which falls to the ground and dies, only to rise again more glorious than before, in order to point to Christ and the death and resurrection we must all experience in him. Hence God chose Israel out of all the nations without regard for the human criteria of power or population, freed them from Egypt, disciplined them through the desert, set them apart by his laws, and conditioned them for the promised land. He ordered the history of Israel as a symbol, so that everyone would see what he planned to do eventually with all humanity. Hence Jesus commanded us each to ingest bread and wine in order that we might remember that his broken body and shed blood were real, and that we might realize that his presence, both within us and in the community, is more essential than food and drink. As images of God, the highest possible aspiration for our lives is to be a living symbol of God to others.

Applying this idea to marriage reverses our usual way of thinking. We are accustomed viewing the symbolism of marriage as a nice garnish, with the real purpose of marriage directed towards the two people in it: for their mutual benefit in companionship or to teach them how to love each other or something like that. Anyone who pursues marriage for these or related ends will not only fall disappointingly short of the intended purpose of marriage, but they will also fail to really achieve the end they set out for. Marriage only works at all when it is ordered towards its intended purpose, which is not to please or even to refine the couple, but to relationally communicate the unfathomable depth of God’s love to both the couple and the world. Put this purpose first, and companionship, refinement, and a host of other treasures will follow.

Another important point about symbols is that 'what they are not' is as important as 'what they are'. God did not choose plants to symbolize death and resurrection because plants are better than animals, but because animals do not fit the purpose of the symbol since they don’t have to die to reproduce. God did not ordain Israel because they were better or more righteous than other nations; he chose them because their condition was representative of humanity. Jesus did not select bread because it was the gourmet option, but because it was a daily staple. When God conceived of a vessel to receive the symbolic gifts of sex and marriage, he chose a male-female relationship rather than a same-gender relationship, not to imply that heterosexuals are better than homosexuals, and not even to imply that male-female relationships are better than same-gender relationships. He simply used the relationship that best embodies the twin spiritual realities that he designed marriage to symbolize: the completion of humanity and Christ’s relationship to the church.

Objection 2: What about Love?

Is not marriage a covenant of love, and is not sex an expression of love? Does not God command us to love our fellow humans, and should we not thus encourage two people who love each other to marry? Indeed, if there was anything Jesus did, it was to command our love for one another, including brother for brother and sister for sister. However, as noted above, marriage has a specific purpose and is not designed as the means to fulfill the general command to love one another. Instead, fellowship is the relationship that carries out this command. Though marriage and fellowship have similarities, there are two important differences: marriage is exclusive and temporal while fellowship is inclusive and eternal.

Again, the symbolism of marriage is important here because it highlights the requirement of exclusivity in marriage. If marriage were not exclusive, it would fail to symbolize the completion of humanity. The act of stepping outside of the marital covenant and multiplying it with others would convey the message that God failed to complete humanity in his creative act and that we must search elsewhere for the missing ingredient. In representing Christ and the church, exclusivity is even more important. If a spouse breaks that exclusivity, he or she simultaneously slanders Christ’s worthiness and his faithfulness, the former by implying that Christ is not enough to meet the needs of the church the latter by insinuating that Christ is prone to forsake the church he died for. The exclusivity of the marital covenant, which is between two people and is sealed by sex, contrasts with the inclusivity of the new covenant, which encompasses all believers and is sealed and symbolized by the blood of Christ. Unlike in marriage, the general injunction to love our brothers and sisters through fellowship forbids us from focusing on one person or group at the exclusion of others. Indeed, this love is meant especially for the excluded and the marginalized. Jesus is insistent that we are not exempt from showing love to anyone, so if he saw marriage and sex simply as expressions of love, he would have commanded us to pursue marriage and sexual intimacy with all people, just as he calls us to give to whoever has need, comfort whoever we meet in distress, and pray for even our enemies. Clearly, these latter acts of love are a necessary part of fellowship, but marriage and sex are not. To be sure, marriage is also founded on love, and a certain type of love finds its fulfillment there, but the purpose of marriage is more specific than simply the expression of love in general.

Another difference between the covenants of fellowship and marriage is that the former is eternal while the latter is temporary. The Bible speaks of people in heaven worshipping and fellowshipping together, but Jesus makes it known that “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage” (Matt. 22:30). God commands us to express love in fellowship with all other believers because those relationships will last forever, and we will worship God through them for eternity. God intentionally structured these two relationships to serve different purposes: fellowship is the inclusive, eternal embodiment of relational love while marriage is a symbolic expression of a specific type of love, and as a symbol it is exclusive and temporal (though still powerful).

Objection 3: What about Jesus?

If a holistic reading of the Bible implies that the covenant of marriage must be between a man and a woman, why does Jesus leave the possibility of same-gender covenants open by never addressing the issue? It’s true: there is no clear verse in the Bible that universally allows or disallows a same-gender, exclusive covenant, nor did Jesus ever mention homosexual relationships, though this fact can be interpreted in different ways. On the one hand, some say that because Jesus never mentioned the subject and because the rest of the Bible contains no literal prohibition on exclusive, same-gender, covenantal relationships, the believer is free to enter into such a relationship. Clearly, so the argument goes, Jesus and the Bible never had the goal of micromanaging people through endless rules and regulations, and in fact, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees precisely for holding others to a narrow moral framework and not applying the general principles found in the Spirit of God’s law. For this reason, Jesus had a penchant for overturning conventional morality wherever he found that it restricted the expression of God’s love towards others. Thus, we should do the same and overturn our narrow definition of marriage that restricts homosexuals from showing God’s love to each other. Those who see marriage as simply an expression of love between two people would expect Jesus to tear down our limiting concept of marriage requiring one man and one woman.

But because Jesus spoke clearly and authoritatively on marriage, he had ample opportunity to shatter the conventional limitation of the marriage covenant to one man and one woman, just as he demolished entrenched opinions on the Sabbath, disabilities, religious piety, and so forth. He chose not to do so with marriage, instead restricting himself to the language of a husband and wife in all his discourse on the matter. If Jesus believed that same-sex marriage was a laudable form of the covenant, it is unlikely that he would have passed up such a golden opportunity to extend and enhance the definition of God’s love to a neglected and outcast group by speaking to this issue, as was his constant ministry. Not that Jesus intended to hold back comfort and hope from people with homosexual orientation – far from it! – but he saw that marriage was intended for a different purpose and he didn’t want people to seek false fulfillment in it without understanding its purpose. For homosexuals and heterosexuals alike who desire to show God’s love for each other, there is the covenantal relationship of fellowship. For those who are called to symbolize the relationship between Christ and the church, there is the heterosexual covenant of marriage. Jesus knew that using the latter relationship for the former purpose is dangerous, despite the good intentions of those involved.

Objection 4: Does God Unfairly Single Out Homosexuals?

The idea that some are not called to participate in marriage due to the specificity of its purpose is an issue I have wrestled with while witnessing the struggle of a dear Christian friend with his same-sex attraction. If God only calls some heterosexuals to participate in marriage, isn’t he unfairly denying love and happiness to people with homosexual orientation? This is indeed difficult. When God asks us to give up the things that we cherish, though, he always does it with our best interests in mind, and I believe it is the same with homosexuality. Jesus responds with tender compassion to the concerns of his followers when he says “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age… and in the age to come, eternal life.” (Mark 10:29). In this case, we might add “sexual desire” to the list of good and cherished things that Jesus sometimes calls us to relinquish. Jesus understands that he asks a lot of each of us, including those with homosexual orientation, but he promises that it is worth it - not just in heaven, but in this life also. Jesus knows it is worth it because he knows that our fulfillment lies not in those things, not even in human relationships as wonderful as they are, but in a right relationship with him. Furthermore, Jesus knows that we are broken and that not only will pursuing these things leave us unfulfilled, it will actively lead us further away from our true fulfillment in him, if we make them our goal. Finally, Jesus knows that we are incapable of holding onto both him and our treasures in this life.

For this reason, he calls attention to our brokenness. For this reason, he urges us to take up our cross, die to ourselves, and sacrifice even the good things in our lives. For this reason, he wants to come inside our hearts and change us from within: because he knows that temporary, finite happiness can be the worst enemy of eternal, infinite happiness.

By the way, it is not only same-sex attraction that can lead us away from Christ; heterosexual desire has just as much power to do so. Thus, for the church it cannot be a matter of denouncing homosexual orientation while exalting the many perversions of heterosexual orientation; the church must preach that everyone’s sexuality is in need of repair, and that the only way to fix it is to give it to God. He may still let us use it in this life (in the specific context of marriage, and there only with selfless concern for spouse) even as he is fixing it, or he may hold onto it in order to reveal its transformative fulfillment at the resurrection, but we must believe that whatever he chooses to do with our sexuality is better than what we would choose to do with it.

Objection 5: Would a Loving God Really Change the Ones He Loves?

Do we find it offensive that God wants to change us all and fix our broken sexuality? If so, it is the true offense of the Gospel, for the good news of Christ is not only that God loves us and embraces us despite our brokenness, but also that God is not satisfied with who we are and will not stop working in us until we become like his Son. In other words, he loves us not only for who we are now, but for who we will be when he is done refining us. The wisdom of the world states that in order to truly love someone, you must be satisfied with them as they are. You can recognize that they make mistakes, but you have to realize that mistakes are still part of who they are. If you want them to change, you are not loving the actual person, but a false idea of that person. However, when God wants to change us, he does not look “into the future” and see a false idea of who we could be. God sees the past, present, and future all together as the eternal Now, and when he looks at us he sees not only who we think we are, in our perceived present, but also who we Are, in our perceived future, at the point when we finally fulfill our individuality and become our truest selves in Him. So when God through his love tries to change us, he is not loving a false image of us but the truest possible image of us.

A classic car enthusiast “loves” an old, broken-down car, not by leaving it as it is, but by restoring it to its prime running condition, which is closer to the true essence of the car than its current state of disrepair. Similarly, an artist’s love for her work is based on the true idea of the finished painting in her mind, and we do not keep her from adding brush strokes by saying that she should love the painting as it is. The first analogy highlights love’s act of fixing what is broken (i.e. restoring a present object to its truer, past identity) while the second points out that a thing’s true identity can lie in the future and that, even if the present thing is not broken but only incomplete, love is not satisfied until the object reaches perfection.

I might add that this is what God has done and is doing in my own life: taking my lust, purifying it, and turning it into an instrument of his loving will. The process is far from easy and has, at times, been very painful, but he is faithful and has already greatly transformed my sexuality. Though my sexuality still belongs to the broader category of heterosexual, its object is very different, and it now looks nothing like what it did in high school and college. So when I speak of God's healing, and of his redemptive power, these are not mere words: I have experienced them.

We are fine with recognizing our failures and mistakes, asking God to overlook them, and promising to do better next time. But when confronted with God’s desire to change not just our behavior but our very nature, we easily and understandably feel resentment. I can’t help the way I am, God, so why are you accusing me of doing something wrong?! What do you want from me?! But he is not accusing us. If he were, he would wait with arms crossed until we came groveling on our knees to him and would only grudgingly acknowledge our most earnest pleas. Rather, like the father of the prodigal son, he sees the pig slop that our lives have become and aches for us to join him again at his table. He has no interest in punishing us, for he realizes that our very nature is punishment enough. Quite the contrary, he wants to heal us, and so he runs to meet us while we are still a long way off. Our heavenly Father loves us so much that he does not leave us as we are; he both restores us to the image in which we were created and transforms us into the substance of his Son.

Objection 6: What Does God's "Healing" Really Look Like?

Also, God’s object is not to destroy our nature, but to redeem it. I love the picture C. S. Lewis gives of this transformation in The Great Divorce, a story about ghosts (souls living in hell) who take a day trip to heaven to see the “solid people” (saved souls) journeying towards God. One of the characters is a ghost who struggles with his broken sexuality in the form of lust. His lust manifests as a lizard perched on the ghost’s shoulder, whispering erotic suggestions into his ear. Though the ghost hates this lizard and what it makes him think and do, he believes he cannot live without it... until he is confronted by an awe-inspiring angel who offers to kill the lizard for him. After many shrieks of protest, the ghost eventually concedes to let the angel dispatch his lust. The angel strikes; the ghost seems wounded; the lizard appears dead. But then, both begin to transform: the ghost becomes a solid man while the lizard grows into a remarkably different animal - a majestic, white stallion, prancing and snorting with strength. Thanking the angel profusely, the man mounts his stallion and rides off at a gallop to the mountains where God dwells, which is the goal of the solid people’s journey through heaven. God does not just destroy the man’s lust, he transforms it into a powerful help that greatly aids him in his journey towards God!

This is the meaning of redemption: that God takes our fallen nature from us, sets it free from the corruption that thwarts its purpose, and presents it to us as a gleaming instrument of worship. Can anyone reduce the nuances and complexities of being gay or lesbian to a mere sexual desire for someone of the same gender? Before I met this friend I mentioned earlier, I thought that what we call “being gay” was all about sex, but this man shattered that idea. I remember talking to him and being confused about what exactly he wanted from a relationship with another man, until I realized that he didn’t care so much about sex. Rather, all he wanted was companionship. At that moment, something clicked, and I finally understood God’s redemptive purpose. He was taking the heart of this man’s orientation - a profound desire to know and be known that signals the relationship God wants with us and wants us to have with others - and freeing it from the corruption of inflamed sexual desire, so that it would become a sure guide and a strong aid to him as he drew closer to God and others. In fact, God was doing in this man nearly the exact same thing as he did for me! Such is God’s glorious purpose for gay and lesbian orientations: not to destroy them, nor to force them into a heterosexual mold (as same-sex marriage would attempt to do), but to transform them into uniquely meaningful expressions of God’s purpose. But to do so, he must separate the entanglement of homosexuality and sex, setting them both free.

Conclusion

Why Is This Issue So Important?

This is why the church must gently but firmly oppose same-sex marriage within the body of Christ: not only to uphold the living symbol of God’s ideal for humanity and Christ’s love for the church, but also to protect and minister to homosexuals. If God has closed the door to the fulfillment of homosexual desires through marriage, he has done so because that door leads away from him. If the church were to open such a door to our homosexually-oriented brothers and sisters, however well-intentioned we might be, we would be committing an unspeakable sin against them by turning them away from God. To paraphrase Jesus: “Things that lead people away from finding fulfillment in God are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck!” (paraphrase of Luke 17:1-2) The church must exercise this shepherding over heterosexuals too, for many of us enter into marriage simply to pursue sexual fulfillment. In so doing, we choose a door that leads away from God, and the church is guilty for not guarding that door. This is why, though I would love to be able to say to my Christian friends who are gay “Go for it! Find happiness in marriage!”, I simply can’t because I know I would be pointing them away from God.

What Should We the Church Do?

However, Paul reminds us that even while disagreeing we must be united in love. Straight Christians must welcome gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Christians as full brothers and sisters, without requiring them to change their behavior before following Christ (as if that were possible for any of us). We must also encourage them to contribute to the church through their unique spiritual gifts, just as we embrace and value those who struggle with heterosexual lust, alcoholism, materialism, pride, and so forth. The fact that we are all too willing to confront a homosexual but would rather politely overlook a proud, angry bigot is a shame and a disgrace to the reputation of God, who demands we show love and truth to both.

Also, though I have argued that biblical principles preclude homosexual acts and that God wants to redeem people’s orientations from inappropriate sexual attraction, I believe there is much good that the church has yet to discover within the spectrum of orientations. For example, in the American church, there is an awkwardness about close, (non-sexually) intimate relationships between people of the same gender, especially men. This aversion to same-gender relationships positively cripples our fellowship and eviscerates our message about God’s love to each other and the outside world. If only the church would embrace, and allow God to work through, homosexuals, maybe we would learn something about what it means to pursue deep relationships with our fellow Christians. By God’s grace, we may one day be able to cultivate within the church deep fellowship like David and Jonathan or Naomi and Ruth, without reducing these relationships to a caricature through inappropriate sexual intimacy.

Sexuality is a great gift, but the Bible, and especially Jesus, make it clear that sex and marriage have a very specific and glorious purpose as living symbols. Because of the power and meaning of God’s symbols, sex and marriage can be powerful images when used properly, or they can become a terrible distortion when used outside of their intended purpose. However, regardless of what one discerns from the Bible about the rightness or wrongness of certain actions, there can be no justification for discrimination, hate, or vengeful acts against our fellow children of God. We the church should be the first to come alongside and show love to the victims of such actions; I mourn bitterly whenever we smear God’s reputation by standing amidst the crowd and condemning lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals.

Final Word: Respect and Open Dialogue

So, Candace, even as I hope you will ponder these issues with a soft heart and an open mind (as I will do with anyone's response, should they choose to give one), I want you to know that you are my sister in Christ. I pray that God would bless you and your ministry, as you reach out to those whom the church has alienated and neglected, and as you face the attacks of those who fail to understand the love of Jesus. To you, or anyone else out there, I welcome you to write a respectful response to my arguments above. I know that my own knowledge of God's truth is fallible; I have revised my opinions many times before, and I will carefully consider anyone's reasoned argument. But whatever side you are on, please remember our duty to discern the truth together and apply it with love, and so uphold the unity of the body.

In Christ,

Bill Reus

Working Out Truth and Love in the Context of the Church, Homosexuals, and Marriage (2nd post)

Part II: Sources of Truth

As Christians, we must be careful where we get our ideas about what is true and right. We are easily embarrassed by the contrast between biblical pronouncements on morality, which appear so foolish and backward, and the seemingly self-evident moral statements of our culture. However, we have been warned: "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise" (1 Cor. 1:27). With this in mind, I must warn you that, in your article, you appear to court two attractive but ultimately disastrous strategies: i) taking the inexorable progress of history towards a certain belief as justification for the truth of that belief and ii) citing past misuse of the Bible as a disqualification for its use as an authority on right and wrong in a particular arena. While your underlying point may be important and even justified, these types of arguments represent a troubling approach to truth and the Bible that we should not encourage fellow Christians to take, no matter what else is at stake.

Getting Truth from Progress?

Though you never explicitly spell out the first argument, your article gives the sense that because our society has proceeded from wrong beliefs to right beliefs on a number of issues in the past couple centuries, and because homosexual practice is one of those things that our society is coming to accept, that means that homosexual practice is good. But perhaps I have constructed a straw man. If instead you believe that homosexuality in the proper context is good based on the authority of God and his word, and if you are simply celebrating the widespread realization of an unchanging truth, then that is a valid way of making your case. However, if you really are using this idea of inevitable progress to say that the ever-increasing acceptance of homosexual practice proves that it is good, then I must object. True, at certain times in history, the vector of evolving social opinion has indeed pointed towards what is right, but many other times it has swung in the opposite direction. For instance, the moral "progress" of Roman society at the height of its power involved more and more violent forms of public entertainment, demonstrating gradual acceptance of a wrong practice. More recently, the global intellectual community in the late 19^th and 20^th centuries increasingly bought into the idea that the struggle between nations and cultures should be encouraged in order to promote survival of the fittest. Decent and well-meaning people accepted this philosophy as an effective means of improving and strengthening humanity; that is, until it found its ultimate expression in Hitler’s paradigm of the “strong” Aryans exterminating the “weak” Jews. In this case, people found out the hard way that extrapolation from a snapshot of social “progress” does not necessarily lead to what is right.

Society does not move in a uniform, automatic fashion from wrong to right, nor should we be content to wait for such progress, even if it does occur. As Christians who have been given insight into the underlying structure of God’s moral universe, we must be leaders. We need to guide society’s understanding of morality: separating the good from the bad, correcting our culture where it goes astray and affirming it where it remains true. In the issue at hand, we the church need to be leaders in fighting discrimination against homosexuals and welcoming them into our communities as children of God, even as we wrestle with the moral status of homosexual practice and articulate a coherent ethic of sexuality for our distorted and confused culture.

Reliable Truth from the Bible?

With respect to the second tactic I mentioned, though again you make no specific claim in your article, the reader comes away with the implication that the Bible, since it has been the source of supposedly convincing support for bigotry in the past, cannot be fully trusted as a guide to moral truth. I would argue that the historical abuses of the Bible for the sake of tyranny and discrimination are anything but convincing to one who reads the Bible with diligence, humility, and insight. I know that in at least one respect I am preaching to the choir now, since you make this same point yourself on your website with regard to the biblical passages commonly used to attack homosexuals. Someone who reads these “clobber passages” with a casual eye (perhaps blinded by a prior agenda) may come to the conclusion that God calls for us to judge and punish homosexual behavior; however, a careful reading of these verses in their historical, textual, and theological context shows that they do not explicitly or universally condemn homosexual acts between committed partners and that they certainly do not authorize violence or ostracism against homosexuals. Failing to read the Bible the right way can lead to disastrous results, but the lesson here is not that the Bible is not to be trusted, but rather that superficial readings of the Bible are not to be trusted. The Bible warns readers that it is sharper than any two-edged sword: casual wielders of such an instrument are a danger to themselves and others, but in skilled hands, the Bible is useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16).

However, the careful development and articulation of a holistic biblical viewpoint will never fail to reveal the truth, and this truth can always be recognized by the hallmark of power and love, for those with eyes to see. Perhaps this is what you mean when you say that you accept the Bible’s authority “as mythos, as story, as a book that gives our lives meaning and deepens our relationship with God.” (from the comment pages of your RD article). As long as you don’t mean that the Bible is mere mythos and mere story – if you recognize that God’s word is meant to effect profound and dramatic changes in our attitudes and behaviors and that even the parts we find challenging must never be dismissed as outdated or irrelevant – then I agree with you. The same goes for the other side: the Bible is not merely literal, not merely a straightforward list of commands to be fired from the hip. It is a complete record of God’s creative and redemptive activity and must be read as a whole, with an eye for overall messages, not succinct formulas. Discerning truth from Scripture requires hard work -- relentless pursuit of a faithful interpretation that gives God the maximum credit for his words by neither dismissing them nor distorting them.

Slavery: a Case Study

Take slavery, for instance: a casual reading of the explicit biblical references to slavery suggests that God possibly condones, and at least does not condemn, the institution of slavery. These superficial readings were propagated and used to support the type of slavery practiced in the antebellum South. But if the passages on slavery are seen in their proper theological and historical context, then the Bible, without using the term slavery, clearly denounces and forbids the essence of slavery and what makes it evil. The correct theological framework for looking at slavery involves the concept of authority and its application to human relationships. Broadly, authority was originally set up by God to serve a good purpose (that of providing order and direction) but has since been corrupted by the Fall and human sin. Authority was meant to be limited and shared in the context of a hierarchy with God as the ultimate authority, and it was to be used by the one in authority for the good of the one under authority. In our fallen world, authority is somewhat of a dirty word because humans routinely take advantage of their authority, expanding it inappropriately and using it to impose their will on others without regard to their interests. As described in the Old Testament, slavery was one instance in which humans would abuse their authority over others if left unchecked, so the Old Testament sought to regulate it by reminding the master that his authority was not absolute and by spelling out protections for the slave in the law against abuse.

However, if one only reads the passages that mention slavery by name, the protections are woefully inadequate from a humanitarian perspective, and God, by his silence, seems to leave the door open for justification of slavery. But slavery falls under the broader umbrella of relationships of authority, about which God has a great deal to say. Both the Old and New Testaments make clear everywhere that God holds those in authority (governmental and religious leaders, employers, masters, etc.) to a high standard in their treatment of those under their authority, and his anger burns against those who misuse it. This standard obviously applies to slavery, for God speaks through the prophets in the powerful language of liberating his people from slavery to sin. His choice of slavery as a metaphor for evil further indicates that he views slavery as the poster child of fallen authority run amok. Deeply distressed, God promises to rectify the situation by sending his Messiah king, who will not only exercise benevolent authority but will also change the hearts of people so that nobody ever misuses their authority again. So while the Bible does not renounce slavery in name, it roundly condemns and actively opposes the substance of slavery, which involves the distortion and abuse of authority.

Antebellum slavery in the South embodied this substance because it involved masters holding absolute, lifelong authority over slaves and their progeny without any protections against abuse. People who found justification for slavery in the biblical passages that explicitly mention it make the same mistake as people who read six or seven verses and find there an excuse for hatred and mistreatment of homosexuals: they fail to take a holistic view of biblical truth. Those who did read their Bibles in order to understand God’s message were compelled to fight for abolition, as is evident from the profoundly biblical content of the preaching and activism of people like William Wilberforce and William Lloyd Garrison. It appears to most people today that these activists had little biblical ground to stand on, compared to the slave-owners who could quote their seemingly straightforward verses in support of slavery. But those who read and understand the Bible and its treatment of authority can see that the abolitionists occupied a veritable continent of God-ordained truth, while their opponents inhabited a raft of their own construction. These examples demonstrate that the truth of the Bible cannot be plucked simply from a few isolated passages; it must be forged from principles which are, in turn, mined from the text as a whole.

Still, the question lingers “Why didn’t God explicitly forbid slavery in the law, if he saw how corrupt it would become?” In other words, even if God meant well on the issue of slavery, he was terribly ineffective at getting rid of it. In fact, we humans managed to abolish it on our own where he failed, so why should we take our cues from him when it comes to moral issues? However, judging the effectiveness of God and humans on this issue requires a closer look, and we find that God is light-years ahead of us. God has realized from the beginning that a legal prohibition against slavery would do little to solve the underlying problem of corrupt humans abusing authority. Even if it were illegal to own a slave, people would still find ways to make others do backbreaking work with no say in the matter, no hope of freedom, and no reward for their labor. This principle was sadly demonstrated in America after the civil war: the legal abolition of slavery was a very righteous thing, but for more than a century afterwards, White people continued to exercise unjust authority over Black people, abusing them as badly as before, through less direct, more institutional means. Even today, authority in general is still open to legal abuse. Though there are many kind employers, the stereotypical American workplace (to say nothing of the developing world) is a place of oppression and dehumanization dressed in professionalism.

To be sure, God hates slavery in all its forms and wants it gone from this earth, but he realizes that the substance of slavery is still very much alive today and that truly abolishing it requires more than legislation. In our age, we tend to think that if we can just elect the right leaders and enact the right policies, we can eradicate every social ill from the top down. But God’s ways are different from our ways. While God absolutely applauded the abolitionists and expects us to do everything in our power to protect the weak against abuse by the strong, yet God has always understood that only a change in people’s hearts will address the root of the problem. That’s why he sent a Savior instead of a political leader, and that’s why social justice is not possible without salvation. Our job is to bring God’s good news to politics, economics, society, culture, etc., but our work proceeds from the bottom up and begins with the completed work of Jesus Christ.

Conclusion: The Source of Progress

In today’s world, the work of Christ seems superfluous. We have great faith in the intrinsic goodness of humanity, and we believe that society will inevitably become better and better as each new generation throws off the errors and prejudices of its predecessors and exposes its own innate virtue. We kind of like Jesus and his teachings, but we are suspicious of Christianity and the Bible because we perceive that they hold back social progress. But, if we lose our historical and geographical tunnel vision, or even if we take a hard look within ourselves, we realize that advancement is not inevitable and that whatever innate goodness we have is buried in piles of selfish rubble. Rather, what good has been accomplished is largely the result of God invading human culture with his radical ideals and working justice through his faithful servants. As such, the careful study and holistic application of God’s word is our best hope (I believe our only hope) for lasting progress.

The discussion of the church, homosexuality, and marriage resumes in the next post.

Working out Truth and Love in the Context of the Church, Homosexuals, and Marriage (1st post)

Introduction

Welcome to the beginning of a blog. I’ve wanted to start a blog for some time now, for the purpose of discussing various issues related to Christianity (not only the subject of this first series of posts). However, the catalyst for creating the blog was an article written by Candace Chellew-Hodge for the website Religion Dispatches (RD). I had been thinking about the subject for a while and decided it was time to write down my thoughts, which were far too long to post as a comment on RD; hence, I am starting this blog. If you’re interested, please read her article first, and her website if you desire a more complete perspective, and then my response, which I will break up into a series of posts. In the comment thread, a couple people expressed interest in engaging rationally and building bridges to Christians on the other side of this issue. This is music to my ears, and I would love to start the bridge from the other side! I would be glad to read and carefully consider reasoned arguments and constructive critiques in order to sharpen my understanding. However, I give fair warning: I am only interested in rational dialogue and will delete any comments that are vitriolic or disrespectful of Candace or others.

Part I: Common Ground

Dear Candace (and fellow readers of Religion Dispatches),

I have just read your recent article on Religion Dispatches entitled “Bishop John Selby Spong Declares Victory: Is it Premature?”, along with the comment thread of that article and, since I was interested in your position, several sections of your website. I admire how patiently you respond to those who throw at you venemous words drained of all reason. Clearly, you are familiar with the love of Christ, and I hope to emulate you here in my own response, despite where we may disagree. As I write, I have Proverbs 3:3 before me at the top of my computer screen, “Don't let love and truth ever leave you. Tie them around your neck. Write them on the tablet of your heart.” Love and truth are difficult to balance, and I ask the Holy Spirit for the wisdom and power to do so.

But before I explain why I disagree with your and Spong’s line of reasoning, let me emphasize the many areas in which you and I do see eye to eye, as far as I can tell from your RD article and website.

- In the article, you note the paramount emphasis of Christianity on compassion and concern for neighbor. I agree.

- On your website, I get the sense (I don’t have actual quotes) that you affirm that sex is designated by God as holy and is only meant to be pursued within a covenant relationship exclusively between two people. I agree.

- You assert that the Bible does not explicitly condemn homosexual acts within a covenant relationship (and that it does not even mention committed homosexual relationships). You charge that opponents of homosexuality incorrectly interpret the Bible when they cite the six or seven “clobber passages” as broadly condemning homosexual acts in general; you maintain that these passages actually condemn (homo)sexual acts “that use or abuse or break covenant with another”. I agree with you on all of this, and I’m planning to write another post later explaining to the evangelical community why I, as an evangelical, believe this.

- With respect to the law, you argue that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, including the right to form state-recognized relationships, the right to make important financial and medical decisions for their partners, the right to pay the same taxes as heterosexuals, the right to hold a job without discrimination, etc. Regardless of whether gay marriage is honored by God or not, I agree with you that the state should treat homosexual relationships exactly the same as heterosexual relationships. (I may hold one possible exception to this view when the relationship involves children, but I’m not completely sure about it yet. I will also address this issue in that future post, so I won’t discuss it here).

- Bishop Spong makes the point (and you second him) that things like truth, morality, and fundamental rights should not, and really cannot, be determined by a majority vote. God offers the only true standard, and he is right even if the entirety of humanity is on the other side. I fully agree with you.

- You joyfully proclaim that God reaches out with his grace to everyone, regardless of gender or sexual orientation! No one’s sexual orientation can preclude them from entering the kingdom of God, and no one should be denied full participation in the church because of the same. I could not agree with you more!

So then, if I agree with you on this much, what could we have left to disagree on? The first point is an issue of tactics: I take issue with a couple of the associations and implications you make in your article (though, possibly, you are merely reporting what Spong says and not making such claims yourself. If so, my disagreement is with Spong and not you, but this seems like an appropriate forum to address the issues anyway). But more substantially, I respectfully dissent from the opinion that the church should expand and alter its view of marriage to encompass same-sex marriage.

Continued in next post