The Making Of An Ally: Why I Am Open & Affirming

This extremely long page started as four somewhat-extremely long posts. For easier finding, for those who may be interested, I have put them together here. Get something to drink; this’ll take awhile.

+

The Making Of An Ally: Why I Am Open & Affirming

Part One: Experience

I am what the Disciples of Christ call “open and affirming” – that is, I believe in the full acceptance and inclusion of openly gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the life of church and society; I believe that church and society should be “gender-blind” the same way we should be “color-blind”; and, while there are certainly sinful manifestations of same-gender relationships – same as there are with opposite-gender relationships – I do NOT believe that same-gender relationships are sinful in and of themselves.

I’ve come to this position over many years of navigating and wrestling with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Today – going in no particular order on the Quadrilateral – I touch upon the first real formative experience I had in this world…an experience with a gay young man who, some years ago, opened my eyes and my heart, and set me on this path. [As always when I relate stories, names and small identifying details are changed to respect people's privacy.]

+

October weekend, college, senior year. I was sitting up late into the night with my good buddy Jason. Ordinarily a fun-loving guy, Jason was sad and serious that night, upset about many things; and it had pleased God to put me where and when Jason needed a friend to be. One thing Jason was very upset about, he said, was a recent breakup with what he termed his first serious love. I was a bit surprised, having never seen him around campus with any particular girl, and said so. Jason went silent a moment, eyeing me, weighing me.

Then he took a deep breath and informed me, with shaking voice and shaking hands, that his first serious love had not been a girl.

It took a second to register. I remember thinking to myself, “…oh. …oh? ….oh! He’s gay, then. He just told me he’s gay. I’ve never known anybody gay before. I should probably say something. He looks scared to death of what I might say. I should say something compassionate, something wise, something profound.”

I blurted out: “Okay.”

Turns out “okay” was exactly what Jason most needed to hear. Because the poor guy dissolved into tears on the spot. “I wasn’t sure I could tell you, because I know you’re a Christian!” he said. I replied – in perfect confused honesty – “Why should that matter?” -Understand, I was raised in a theologically mid-road, issues-neutral environment where LGBT folk, and their place or lack thereof in the Kingdom, was simply not on the radar. So, I hadn’t been educated yet on Why That Should Matter.

Jason fixed that in a hurry. For the next two hours, Jason poured out his tears and his story of what he’d struggled with and what he’d endured, growing up in a conservative Christian family and church and circle of friends, while simultaneously growing into awareness of his orientation.

There was the “best friend” who dropped him like a bad habit as soon as Jason confided.

There was the clergyman who tried to exorcise him and then, in a breach of pastor-parishioner confidence, outed him in certain circles, effectively blacklisting him from ever pursuing his heart’s-desire vocation.

There was the stark terror of what would happen if his parents found out – would he be cut off? beaten? disowned?

There were years of sermons, cruel jokes, taunts and threats.

There were countless sleepless nights he’d spent on his knees in dorm rooms and church sanctuaries, begging, begging, begging God to “make him straight, please, make him straight”.

There were all the things that just about any Christian-raised, non-heterosexual soul can tell you, because she/he/they will have struggled with the weight of some, all, and/or more of these violences.

On that night in October, it was all news to me; and it was terrible news indeed. I wasn’t theologian enough, then, to know much about what the Bible said. (Indeed, I’m not theologian enough to presume I know it all now, either, although I know it better.)

But at that particular moment, I knew two things.

I knew I cared deeply for my friend Jason and hated to see him hurt.

And I knew – for a brief yet unforgettable instant – one of those count-on-one-hand soul moments that sometimes come unbidden: the searing, bright, certain, clear fury of Love – not my limited love, not my little measure of indignation – but that awesome, rare-and-terrible-and-true slash across the mindscape that feels like lightning from the very throne of God. And in the uncompromising light and heat of that bluewhite flash, the Word burned into me. This is NOT how Christians should be treating My people! This is NOT how it should Be!

Whoogh.

Having those occasional prophetic flashes is kinda cool, in a scary way. Living into them, though, is a little more pedantic, and takes more time. Did I immediately embark upon an illustrious career as a crusading ally, bringing peace, justice, and liberty to all gaykind? Ummm….no. I deepened and enjoyed my friendship with Jason, and through him met some really neat people (including his future husband); but at first, I mostly filed this formative experience away, graduated college, married my husband, and went on with an uneventful life.

For awhile. The time would come, though, for me to bring this experience along with me into seminary and into my studies of scripture, tradition and reason.

+

Part Two: Scripture

In my last post, I related one of the formative experiences that set me on the road to becoming an open & affirming pastor. Now, I turn to my worshipful struggle and engagement with scripture.

(Forewarning: the nature of this discussion is such that I have to use some not-for-kids words in places. So if you have young shoulder-surfers about, as I myself do on occasion, you might want to come back here when they’re otherwise occupied.)

Onward, then.

+

Scripture, as you may already know – and if you don’t, a quick Google of “gay scripture” will quickly educate you – is a huge point of contention in LGBTQ folks’ relationship with traditional Christianity and vice-versa. All Christians who believe that non-heterosexual relations are sinful will appeal to scripture to back their beliefs; and all Christians who do NOT believe it’s inherently sinful, have wrestled with scripture in coming to their own beliefs; and all of the various arguments and counterarguments can be found anywhere and everywhere…so I’m not going to try to reinvent the wheel. I’ll put some links at the bottom of this post to get you reading more, and better, scholarship. But here, I’ll do a quick-and-dirty summary of the specific verses upon which 98 percent of the arguments hang, and a quick-and-dirty summary of both the “standard” and “standard-alternative” interpretations of these verses. Finally, I’ll offer up where I personally stand, and why.

First scripture set: Genesis 1:26-31 vs. Genesis 2:18-3:24

Summary: In two parallel creation accounts, God “makes all things and calls them good”; then, focusing the lens a bit, God interacts more closely and intimately with the first humans, Adam (whose name means literally ‘earth, soil’) and Eve (whose name means ‘living’) – their disobedience gets them kicked out of the garden and into a larger and harsher world.

Standard scriptural interpretation: The intended order and perfection of God’s creation, and God’s creatures, was perverted when the serpent successfully tempted first Eve, then Adam, to disobey God. Since then, everything has been fractured and wrong. Homosexual desires are part of that fractured-and-wrong-ness. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

Standard alternative scriptural interpretation: God created all things according to God’s inscrutable wisdom and creative genius, and called all things good. If some people have been created other-than-heterosexual (an argument we’ll look further at, next post), then they, too, must be good, for God does not make mistakes. “God did so make Adam and Steve, and called them good, too.”

Second scripture: Genesis 19:1-13

Summary: Abraham’s nephew, Lot, has moved with his family to a town called Sodom, which God is planning to destroy, along with its neighboring town Gomorrah, because of great “wickedness”. At Abraham’s behest, two angels first go into Sodom to see if it’s really that bad, and they get their answer when the men of the town come to Lot’s house, where the angels are staying, and demand that Lot give up the angels (disguised as men) so that the townsmen can “know” (read: rape) them. Lot refuses, the angels disperse the crowd, and the next day, with Lot and his family hastily evacuated, fire and brimstone rain down from heaven and Sodom and neighboring Gomorrah are destroyed.

Standard scriptural interpretation: the Sodomites’ homosexual inclinations may not have been the only wicked thing about them, but they rank right up there, and they’re part of what made God mad enough to wipe the town off the map.

Standard alternative scriptural interpretation: the Sodomites were attempting to commit rape, and they were violating hospitality laws which were sacrosanct in the Patriarchs’ place and time. The homosexual overtones either don’t really matter, or else they run a distant second to the townsmen’s violent, xenophobic disregard for human life and dignity.

Third scripture: Leviticus 18:22 considered together with Leviticus 20:13

Summary: Part of “the long version” of God’s Law as recorded in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), Leviticus 18:22 says, basically, “two guys shouldn’t have sex with each other, because God hates that.” A few verses later, the prohibition is restated with the added emphasis, “…and you should kill them.”

Standard scriptural interpretation: What’s to interpret? If the Bible says it’s a sin, it’s a sin, so quit dancing around it.

Standard alternative scriptural interpretation: These prohibitions come nested with many other laws, some having the ring of “eternal/universal morality” (do no harm, respect God and others, care for the poor), others bearing the scent of cultural mores (hair and clothing styles, dietary restrictions, no hooker-money in the Tabernacle [Deuteronomy 23:18], and so forth). Into which category do the two Leviticus verses fall – eternal Godly condemnation, or temporal cultural taboo? The jury, in some Christian circles, is either out, or has found in favor of the second.

Fourth Scripture: Romans 1:26-27

Summary: Paul, writing to a community of early Christians in Rome, lists both male-male and female-female relations as one of many “depravities” that God “gave [the pagans] up to” as part of their overall benighted spiritual state.

Standard scriptural interpretation: Like “envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander…[and] hearty approval of those who do such things”, same-gender passions are supposed to be “cured” – or at least, seen for the evil that they are and heartily striven against – when one comes to Christ.

Standard alternative scriptural interpretation: Paul, of Jewish background and writing to other Christians of Jewish (or at least Jewish-friendly) background, is using the old bait-and-switch. Baiting his readers with a long list of sins and sinners they already heartily disapprove of and have disavowed – “yeah, we’re so much better and more enlightened than those so-and-so’s!” – Paul then switches tone, abruptly and forcefully, in Romans 2, stressing that they, the supposed righteous, are no better in God’s sight, because “ALL [emphasis mine] have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. Which, when truly taken to heart, leaves a Christian little time for judging others.

Fifth Scripture: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Summary: A “laundry list” of sinners – including folks who engage in certain same-gender sexual relations – who, because of their sins, will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Other New Testament letters have this “laundry list” of sins, but all are nearly identical to this one in Corinthians, so this is the only one I’ll post here.

Standard scriptural interpretation: As in Romans 1, same-gender sexual relations make the Bad List; therefore, they must be bad.

Standard alternative scriptural interpretation: If you go to the Greek, you find two words in this list: “malakoi”, which is usually translated “male prostitute” or “catamite”; and “arsenokoitai”, which is usually translated “homosexual offender” or “sodomite”. Basically, in the first-century Roman world, these were “effeminate male prostitutes, many underage, and the men who used and abused them” – horrifically, in many cases. These were not consensual, loving relationships between adult equals, and therefore we can’t judge the two nice ladies next door according to this standard.

+

OK, that’s the whirlwind tour. Please check out the links at the end for more, and better, treatments of any or all of these scriptures. Now, where I stand and why.

I stand, for the most part, with the standard alternative interpretations of these scriptures. I do so because, like most (not all) Disciples of Christ folk, I believe that the Bible is too important a book, and too precious a gift, to “only” take at face value. To me, taking the Bible’s words at face value and never questioning them (utter rejection of them is a form of never-questioning, BTW)…is like blowing through a hall of impressionist paintings and saying ‘that’s nice,’ ‘ooh, pretty’, ‘whoa that’s weird’, and ‘which way to the cafe?’. You miss all the true genius of impressionist art if you don’t slow down and look closely, and in the same way, you miss a LOT if you don’t really jump in and wrestle scripture, like Jacob wrestled his angel.

I accept that scripture says, and says clearly, that same-gender relations are sinful. I also accept that scripture says, equally clearly, that a woman should not teach nor have authority over a man; and it also says – clearly! – that I shouldn’t be wearing polyester and cotton at the same time because that’s two different materials. Just because I’m breaking that commandment right now doesn’t mean it isn’t in there.

But I do not give equal weight to all commandments. I perceive that there are layers – or chords – or strata, perhaps – of scripture. There is the legalistic topsoil we root in first, and for the most part it’s good for us. Don’t steal, don’t kill, obey the law, be a good neighbor, and don’t go running around having sex with everything in sight, that’s bad for you and them. There is the theological midlayer: “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.” At the bedrock layer, there’s the stuff that’s always been there and always will be. (OK, visiting geologists, I know; but let me slide here, ‘k? ) Like, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself.” “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”

And if you root deep enough and dig far enough in scripture, there’s gonna be times when, to get to the bedrock and punch down to the real water and fire of life that’s beneath it, you gotta disturb the topsoil.

That’s what’s happening now in this whole scripture-gay-okay-not-okay debate. What’s topsoil? And what’s bedrock? And what’s a stumbling block – or a stoning rock?

If I had all the answers, I’d be on Oprah. But I have a basic rule for discernment: “you know the tree by its fruits.” The scriptures discussed here, as traditionally used and interpreted, have not yielded good fruits for some two to ten percent of God’s children. They have become “texts of terror”, in the same way that Ephesians 5:22, 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (among others) have been used as “texts of terror” against women. A text of terror doesn’t tell someone, “you’re DOING a wrong thing,” it tells someone, “you ARE a wrong thing.” That’s a huge and awful difference. Especially if you’re on the receiving end.

OK, this has already gotten too long, I’ve got reason and tradition to get to next, where I’ll weave in a little more of the theology I’m fast getting into, and I promised you some links for further reading. So, until next time, I leave you with my standard smartaleck quip that really isn’t a smartaleck quip at all, but the most anchoring scriptural truth I know where this question is concerned:

John 3:16-17: “For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”

I cannot help but notice that there are no exclusionary clauses after “the world”. No, not even for the gays, nor the uppity women, nor even for the Irish. For one such as myself who’s two outta three, that news is good indeed.

+

There are literally TONS of sources out there. Here are just a few I’ve found either more helpful, or at least more representative of what’s out there.

Representative books:

Scroggs, Robin M. The New Testament and Homosexuality. Mid-road and in-depth look at the NT scriptures dealing with same-gender relations. Very thorough. One of my first choice go-to books.

Miner, Rev. Jeff. The Children Are Free. More in-depth treatment of the pertinent scriptures, from an author who was born and raised conservative Baptist and struggled with being both gay and called to ministry. He is now a Metropolitan Community Church pastor.

Gagnon, Robert. The Bible And Homosexual Practice: Texts And Hermeneutics. A scholarly voice from the “gay is not OK” camp. I disagree with him, but acknowledge his thoroughness.

Representative websites:

www.soulforce.org – founder Mel White also has a good book out, Stranger at the Gate

www.gladalliance.org – the Disciples of Christ’s GLBTQ/Affirming folks gather under this aegis.

And those who disagree with me and people like me:

www.focusonthefamily.com – you know these people, whether you know them or not.

Seriously, just Google “gay scripture” and start surfing. You’ll get all sides and all levels and every flavor of debate. And what you’re getting, right now a gay and soul-searching Christian is getting, too. Think about that.

+

Part Three: Reason

It must be understood…[that] Tradition, Reason, and Experience do not form additional “sources” [equal to Scripture] for theological truth…rather these form a matrix for interpreting the Bible. Therefore, while the Bible is the sole source of truth, Tradition forms a “lens” through which we view and interpret the Bible. But unlike the Bible, Tradition is not an infallible instrument, and it must be balanced and tested by Reason and Experience. Reason is the means by which we may evaluate and even challenge the assumptions of Tradition. Reason is the first means by which we may “trim our sails” and adjust interpretations of Scripture.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

Last post, I gave you the whirlwind tour of scriptures related to the question of whether it’s OK for Christians to condemn same-gender relations. I closed by asserting my own position: while a face reading of scripture certainly supports condemnation of our brothers’ and sisters’ relationships, a deeper reading – prayerfully conducted with all our heart, soul, mind and strength – will challenge and ultimately overturn that first assumption. In this post, I turn my attention to how reason – the “mind” part of “heart, soul, mind and strength” – plays into this.

+

Christians (and others) who condemn same-gender relations usually operate either from the premise that non-heterosexual relationships are either a choice, a pathology, or both. We’ll take these premises one at a time, staring with choice.

The concept of inborn sexual orientation, in a modern, biomedical sense, is still fairly young – only about 100-150 years old. (Take a few minutes and get a general overview, and links to scholarship, here. ) The Bible doesn’t mention “sexual orientation”, anymore than it mentions “epilepsy”, “genetic engineering”, or “space travel”, because the people through whom scripture came to us simply had no words nor frame of reference for such things. To a rabbi of the 6th century BCE, the idea that some people could be “born gay” would be as alien as the idea that, with the right combination of knowledge and materials, they could build a rocket ship and go to the moon.

2600 years later, we know that it’s possible to build a rocket ship and go to the moon. We also know that some people are “born gay”.

Do we? Yes. We do.

We know that sexuality is much more complicated than we used to think.

We know that measurable differences have been found in the brains of gay/lesbian vs. straight people.

And, from firsthand accounts from countless non-heterosexual folks like my friends Jason and Keltic, we know that gayness can’t be wished, doctored, denied or prayed away, despite all efforts to the contrary.

It simply does not stand to reason that anyone would “choose” a “lifestyle” that carried with it the risk of disownment by friends and family, loss of homes and jobs, harrassment and violence and even death at the hands of others, and – for Christians – the full and terrible weight of church sanction and condemnation.

+

With the choice argument flatly rejected, I turn now to the pathology argument. That one goes something like this: “maybe they choose to be that way and maybe they don’t, but then, addicts and child rapists don’t ‘choose’ to be the way they are either, do they? Are we going to say that it’s okay for people to be addicts and child rapists? shouldn’t we be praying for a cure, rather than saying OK, go on ahead and sin all you want?”

Cutting through the strong (and flatly insulting) language in which it’s often couched, the bare-bones logic of the pathology argument runs something like this:

“Pathology” is defined as “any deviation from a healthy, normal, or efficient condition”.

Heterosexuality is the “healthy, normal, [and] efficient condition” for human sexuality.

Non-heterosexual relationships deviate from that norm.

Therefore, Non-heterosexual relationships are pathological.

This argument turns on an implied universalism in the second premise: that heterosexuality is the “healthy, normal, [and] efficient condition” for ALL humans. Certainly, with some 90-98 percent of the human population identifying and behaving as heterosexual, it seems to be the case for MOST humans. In the numbers game, it’s not “normal” to be gay. But, then, for 98 percent of the U.S. population, it’s not “normal” to be a redhead, either, so might does not make right. We have to look instead at “healthy” and “efficient”.

Anyone who’s ever been scorched in any way by addiction or sexual violence can tell you that there’s nothing “healthy” or “efficient” about either one. The pathology of addiction is such that, once that switch is on, it takes the addict and everyone/everything around him or her into a long and hellish downward spiral that can only be “cured” by one of two things: abstinence, preferably with supportive therapies, or death. The pathology of sexual violence is such that, at this point, it can only be “cured” by intensive therapies at best, and, at worst, the forcible confinement or death of the one who suffers from it and causes others to suffer because of it.

Now let’s look at same-gender attraction. Following the patterns above, it “should” be curable, or at least manageable, by some combination of abstinence and supportive therapy. A non-heterosexual person, sufficiently motivated and committed, “should” be able with Divine and mortal help to live a “healthy, normal, efficient” life, much as recovering addicts or the managed mentally-ill can do.

“Should.” There’s just one problem: they don’t. Curiously, the “norm” among LGBT folk seems to be that, the more a gay person tries to be straight, the more “pathological” they become. An alcohol addict grows progressively sicker from living into his reality and consuming alcohol. A sexual predator grows progressively sicker from living into her reality and preying. And in their sickness, they sicken and wound many around them. But gay folk seem to grow healthier, more efficient, and less pathological when they live into their reality and seek out monogamous, loving relationships with one another. A reality that blesses the one who lives into it and curses the one who denies it is not a pathology.

+

So if gay’s not a choice, and gay’s not a pathology, what in the world do we do with the scriptural injunctions? -We look at them through the lens of reason. Reason tells us that scripture is the inspired and infallible Word of God, and the more you put it under the microscope and dissect it, the more you cannot “reasonably” decide otherwise. But reason also tells us (at least, most of us who’ve at least read this far!) that scripture came to us THROUGH inspired, very holy, but also fallible and time-bound human beings. Humans who didn’t know then what we know now. Humans who were a young and still-developing species (as opposed to slightly less-young and still-developing, like we are today). Humans who had the same tendency that we still have today to try to put our own words into God’s mouth.

Anyone want to argue that God REALLY spoke from Heaven and told the Israelites to kill old men, pregnant women and children? -it’s in the Bible!

Anyone want to argue that slavery’s a good thing? -hey, it’s in the Bible!

Scripture doesn’t change, and it’s absolutely true. But sometimes, it’s a buried treasure; and sometimes, the ‘human element’ within Scripture covers the greatest treasures of all and needs to be gently, respectfully, brushed ever so slightly to the side…much as an archaeologist gently brushes away the dust of the ages to find the treasures that lie beneath. In this matter, Reason is the archaeologist, and the ‘dust of the ages’ is the condemnation, and the treasure that lies beneath is good news…for 100 percent of all people.

+

Part Four: Tradition

I can’t even hear the word without hearing it sung as it is in the opening to _Fiddler on the Roof_. “Tradi-TIONNNN, Tradition! TRADITION!” Complete with heavy foot-stomping and slow accompaniment in minor key. Heavy song, sung by heavy dudes, for a heavy concept.

Tradition is becoming almost a dirty word in some Christian circles. It’s often used as another word for “conservative”, “reactionary”, “old-school”, or whatever else indicates “the opposite of fresh, new, creative and/or progressive.”

In the question we’ve been considering over four posts now – “Is it appropriate, or inappropriate, for Christians to condemn same-gender relationships on religious grounds?” – Tradition is often used to weigh in on the side of appropriateness. We’ve condemned them for two thousand years, we say, and our parent religion Judaism condemned them for centuries before that, so why should things be different now? For many open and affirming Christians, tradition is dead weight at best; at worst, it’s an enemy to be overthrown.

I came out of the waters of baptism almost 29 years ago, and came into the open and affirming camp by fits and spurts over the past 20 years, and have been worshipfully engaging with scripture, reason, and experience (my own and others’ as told to me), all that time; but it’s been only just recently – within the past few years – that I’ve begun to really take a look at the question through the lens of Christian tradition, Christian history…the soul of the church, as it were. And I’ve been surprised and humbled to find out that tradition is, in fact, an ally in and of itself for those of us who believe as we do. Let me share some of what I’ve found.

Over the past 2000 years, our faith has spun, developed, matured and nuanced in an observable cycle, and, although it’s far more complicated than what I am about to present, it basically goes like this:

Spiritual Awakening: Think volcanic eruption. 1st century church, missionary efforts in various times and places, pre-Reformation and Reformation, American frontier revival – all are examples of times when the Spirit really “took off” in the life and peoples of the Church. These times are marked by great enthusiasm, fire, a kind of spiritual high that is contagious and enviable, yet also a bit unstable in its energies.

Maturation and Structuring: The lava cools and things start to grow in the nutrient-laden soil. late 1st- to early 4th-century church, early Middle Ages, post-Reformation denominational development, etc. These are times of banking and feeding the fires of spiritual awakening; they are marked by tremendous struggles between competing factions for the “soul” of the movement, and attempts to codify and teach a consistent and structured doctrine – “this is how the Bible should be read, this is how church should be conducted, this is how you should believe in so many words.”

Institutionalization, With Both Good And Bad Results: The volcano settles itself into a respectable and habitable mountain. Constantinian Christianity, High Middle Ages, and early-to-mid-20th century “gentrified” American Protestantism are some examples of this. The church becomes accepted and standard for its surrounding culture; then, it becomes wedded to that culture. The good of that is that the church does great things for the culture it’s in – education, social ministries, a “glue” that can hold society together, etc. The bad of that is that, inevitably, some or many within the church, and finally the “soul” of the church itself, becomes complacent and even corrupted by human and less-than-Godly interests like power, security, gratification, and gain.

Reform and Reawakening: The volcano rumbles, shakes, spits, and sometimes explodes back into life. The monastic movements, the Protestant Reformation, the Restoration Movement in frontier America, and the various liberationist theologies of the late 20th century into today, are all examples. Someone, or a group of someones, sees a disconnect between the Godly ideal and the church’s reality, challenges the Institution, and tries to close the gap between real and ideal. “You have heard it said…but I say unto you…”

This messy, raucous, sometimes violent process leads back into a time of new Spiritual Awakening, and the cycle repeats.

Today, we are in a time of reform and reawakening. The churches that many of us have been born into, and raised up to love and serve, are facing the old evolutionary law: Adapt Or Die. All the current “isms” and “ists” and “ologies” that sometimes make our churches resemble spiritual mosh pits, are part of the volcano’s life cycle; and all all the small-t “traditions” – everything from what is proper to wear to church, to what is the proper gender and/or sexual orientation of the person in the pulpit – are twisting and shouting in the mighty whirlwind that is Spirit, with its Big-T Tradition of never letting the faith be too comfortable for too long. “They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.”

+

All right, so I made the case for church having a Tradition of running in cycles of quiet and disquiet, harmony and discord, and I made the case for today’s hot-button questions being part of that great cyclic Tradition. But what about the specific question? How does “Tradition” – history, zeitgeist, the abiding soul of the Church – make it okay for us straight Christians to be okay with two ladies getting married in the church, or our pastor doing the ceremony, or said ladies later serving as officers or ministers?

Tradition, as such, doesn’t and hasn’t and isn’t gonna say in so many words, “Go for it, Eve and Maeve!” But if we look at Tradition as it unfolds through church history, and especially as it unfolds around historic chuch conflicts we can clearly see this much:

Where “Righteousness” and Love collide, Righteousness must re-examine itself, and Love must win out.

Many, many, many good and loving and truly righteous Christians – many whom I dearly love and deeply respect – believe that it is not Righteous to affirm non-heterosexual relationships as good and blessed by God. They’ve got their own combinations of experience, scripture, reason, and tradition to support them in that belief. And I am no longer young enough nor arrogant enough to brush them, or their point of view, off into the shadows of Gehenna, as I might have when younger. I am willing to concede that I might be wrong, I might even be heading for hell and taking others with me. I don’t have God’s cellphone number; God will be God, and I could be just as wrong as I think Dr. Dobson and his ilk are in this area.

But if Tradition shows us that Love Trumps “Righteousness”, as I believe it does, then I am left with a heavy question to ponder.

Condemning non-heterosexual relationships may fulfill the commands of “righteousness” as we understand it…but does it fulfill the command of Love?

My experience so far, my understanding of scripture, and such reason as I possess, leads me to a simple answer: No. It does not.

It is not loving to drive wedges between Christ and those who need and seek Him. But that’s what we do when we say, “straights only”. (And for churches who say, “Sure, gay people are welcome, just not in our pulpits or in our marriage rites” – that’s STILL saying “straights only”.) It may be loving to point out what a sinner is DOING wrong, but it’s not loving to tell someone that they, themselves, as God made them, ARE “wrong”. Yet that’s what we do when we “point out our brothers’ and sisters’ error in Christian love”; because for our brothers and sisters, gay isn’t something they do; it’s something they are. To tell them that they must change in order to be acceptable to God is not only unloving, it’s unscriptural; for Romans very clearly states that NONE of us can be acceptable to God no matter how diligently we try to change. It’s unreasonable; for what other class of sinners is told that they have to get it together BEFORE Jesus will accept them? -and, in its works-righteousness, it’s unTraditional.

For Tradition, Big-T, states that the only thing making us acceptable to God is the Blood of Christ. That Blood spits and flows and runs out of that fiery heart like lava from the First Days. It rains transforming fire upon righteous and unrighteous alike. It tears us down to the core, and there it leaves the nutrients for our new life to grow and unfold, as and how GOD so wills it. We can choose to walk away from it and in so doing, choose our own hell; but as I understand Tradition, anyone, but anyone, gay or straight, righteous or unrighteous, life-all-together or life-a-train-wreck, who stands with me under the transforming blood and water and fire of Jesus’ love, is my brother, my sister, my kith and my kin.

In the Tradition of Mary and Brigid and Hildegard, of Francis and Clare and Wyclif, in the Tradition of Luther and Fox and Stone and the Campbells and others, “Here I stand; I can do no other.” May God help us all to clearly see Love’s path.

+

Written in the winter of 2009 by the Mad God Woman. Any and all of this may be used, provided you’re not going to make money from it. (I’m not making money from it, so it just wouldn’t be fair!) Kindly leave me the credit/blame in the form of some link love. Thanks and God Bless.