What does one do in the face of religious conviction that declares one group to be sinful, abnormal, and abominable?
I do not buy for a second that the blowback from our brothers and sisters in the GLBTQ community, whose rights have been curtailed, whose happiness and very lives have been cut short because of the fallout of such religious conviction, can be considered persecution, bullying or anything of the kind.
However, we must seek to understand that our conservative Christian brothers’ and sisters’ feelings and convictions are genuine and strongly held. If this video is any indication, they had some of these ideas taught to them from a young age. They received their faith from their parents before them, have made it their own, and will pass it on to their children. Now, the word “abuse” is used to describe this sort of youth education and indoctrination, but I would argue that abuse may not be the right word. We all seek to teach our children the mores and convictions we hold to be true, and we do so out of love. Though some of these ideas may be abhorrent, we must remember that these parents are not typically neglectful of their children, nor do they abuse their children physically or verbally. They teach what they teach because their understanding of scripture, based on what they read in the light of what they themselves have been taught, leads them to believe that this is the ONLY path to salvation.
So, if we use words such as “abuse” or “bigotry”, these folks really feel they are being stepped on and persecuted for their religious conviction. Despite the harms that conservative theology causes to the GLBTQ community, it is not helpful to use the label of "bigot" on our brothers and sisters who speak out of religious conviction. Though such an approach might seem justified, it will only strengthen feelings of martyrdom, and thus strengthen the religious conviction we oppose. At best, we can perhaps seek to change the convictions at their roots. Only if we can lovingly, patiently convince these people that their stance against loving GLBTQ relationships is not consistent with the loving God they embrace. Putting this another way, in embracing a theology that rejects their GLBTQ brothers and sisters, conservative Christians are missing a very real part of God’s love; but in rejecting our conservative Christian brothers and sisters for what we see to be their abuse, bigotry, and intransigence, we are also missing the same. (I have to remind myself of the latter half of this sentence repeatedly, so if this seems particularly preachy, it is directed at myself as much as anyone else, and I am seldom a good example.) Hearts can change, and we must work to that end.
But how do we do this?
Approach 1: Hypocrisy of Imbalanced Attention to Cleanliness Codes
Perhaps the most obvious line of argument is that those who repeatedly turn to the same handful of verses with zeal to condemn homosexuality are less than interested in the surrounding verses. Shellfish, poly-fiber clothing, pork, nocturnal emissions, menstruation, and so on are all listed as unclean or abomination in close proximity within the mosaic codes. In fact, there are myriad activities that we all engage in every day that the Bible lists as unclean or sinful, so it seems a little bit hypocritical to focus on the one area of homosexuality. This is the approach that Dan Savage takes in addressing a convention on high school journalism.
Before we pursue such a line of argument, we should beware of some real pitfalls. First and foremost, in pointing out the other sins that we do not emphasize in the Bible, we must remember that doing so implicitly concedes the idea that non-hetero orientation or relationships are sinful. They are not. Furthermore, we should ask ourselves: Do we really want greater emphasis placed in these other areas of uncleanliness? Do we really think these constitute sin? I do not. I quite enjoy my shrimp, and to convince somebody they are under-emphasizing a conviction one does not share seems silly. Moreover, in asserting stances that are not genuine, we only make hypocrites of ourselves, all too transparent to those we are trying to convince.
Approach 2: Overwhelming Balance of Social Justice
Another approach, might be to highlight the lack of emphasis on the vast weight of the Bible's concern with social justice and poverty, which is far from ambiguous. Jesus' story would be much shorter if we were to exclude his many parables, words, and deeds concerning social justice. He would have come, died, rose and that would be it. The rest of the Bible would be reduced a mere incoherent flyer. The Bible is neither unclear nor fleeting in its discussions and teachings concerning social justice. Yet it seems any time one mentions social justice, many of the same folks who seek to condemn homosexuality cry out accusations of socialism and anti-Americanism, and offer a variety of indignant excuses why these many, many verses do not apply.
Although I definitely embrace the idea that we must do more toward social justice--i.e. universal health care, fair living wages, strong public education, and so on, I still have my reservations about using such a tactic in seeking better acceptance for our GLBTQ brothers and sisters. Given that we, for the most part, are bloated residents of a developed country, who more than likely pass homeless folks everyday on the way to work, more concerned about car repairs, air conditioning, whether we remembered our cloth shopping bags, or the new iPhone app to notice, we may not ourselves be paragons of virtue when it comes to social justice. In some way, perhaps this is the point. We are all greedy, so finding another area of emphasis that does not directly affect most of us instead, such as someone’s sexual orientation, is easier. The results of such guilt projection are devastating.
Approach 3: Call Out the Verses Themselves In the Context of the Wideness of God’s Mercy
Perhaps we might best focus our efforts on the relatively small handful of verses that conservative Christians consistently cite to absolutely condemn loving gay relationships (from Paul’s letters and the Pentateuch). Given that there are less than a half dozen such verses in the entire Bible concerning this particular topic, it hardly seems as central an issue as some want to make it today, but for the sake of argument...
In each case, these verses have really very little to say regarding anything we would understand as loving homosexual relationships. Each instance of condemnation involves some form of sexual servitude or a situation of outright rape to enforce dominance. This is especially true of the seeming favorite story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), two wealthy cities where rape of visitors was a customary way of instilling fear and dominance to maintain security. Nobody should support or defend such abusive behavior as rape or pedophilia, ritual or otherwise, so the Bible is quite correct here on the one hand. On the other hand, abuse, dominance, pedophilia, and coercion have nothing to do with loving relationships of any kind. The overwhelming weight of the Bible favors and encourages loving relationships.
Quite simply, the Bible is not nearly as clear on matters of sexual orientation as some would seem to think, even less so with what we would understand as a loving homosexual relationship. Jesus himself says nothing on the topic, for or against. And this perhaps brings us to the best argument of all. He had a great deal to say about how the exclusionary practices of his day--whether it be against the mentally ill, the physically ill, the poor, the prostitutes, the Samaritans, the tax collectors, the *gasp* lawyers--were a false approach to the kingdom of heaven. In fact, Jesus stated time and again that those who thought they had the kingdom of heaven pegged, those who were most convinced they knew what God wanted of them to get in, had the most to learn. Surely this is as true now as it ever was. God has a place for everybody.
No comments:
Post a Comment