such a polarizing subject for Christians, what stance should the church take in providing spiritual direction for Christians and to culture? Does it matter what the church does or believes? Many in the church are oblivious to the issue or consider it a peripheral, unimportant argument among academics and administrators. In his watershed book Christ and Culture, H. Richard Niebuhr proposes five typologies that define the relationship of the church to its surrounding culture. If one adopts a typology of the church as in relationship to culture in some way, what we believe and what we do should matter greatly within the total cultural environment. If we become isolationists from culture, then what we believe and do only matters to a church “behind the walls” while culture goes about its secular business without our influence. How we go about relating to culture is a massively complex issue. This book takes the position that what we believe and what we do are important to our culture and civilization. Ushering in the Kingdom of God is more than bringing people into the Sunday morning worship service; it is also impacting culture in a positive way. The United Methodist Church’s mission statement declares that “The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Local churches provide the most significant arena through which disciple-making occurs.”3 That phrase carries a lot of content to be unpacked, but one thing it means is that the UMC is responsible, to some extent, for the moral and spiritual character of the world around us. What we believe, say, and do should make a difference in the societies of the world.
It matters what the church believes about homosexuality.
Where are we today?
Many churchgoers (if not most) today, both laity and clergy, are noninclusionists or “traditionalists” by belief. I define traditionalists as those who, if pressed to answer, would say that homosexuality is a sin. They might define the difference between orientation and homoeroticism. That is, they might say something like “hate the sin but love the sinner.” If asked why they think homosexuality is a sin, they would refer generically to God’s law, scripture, church teaching, and/or doctrine in a mostly obscure way. Some people would cite scripture out of context, such as “the Bible says it is an abomination.” Whatever the specific response, I think most churchgoers would fall into this traditionalist group. Many who call themselves Christian but do not go to church would probably respond as traditionalist, as well. Of course, what the church believes and teaches should have nothing to do with individual opinion; our joint beliefs and teachings should be shaped by other, more transcendent sources and warrants. However, we cannot ignore what impacts the mindsets of individuals in the church because individuals impact the mindset of the church. Although expressed rather graphically, the traditionalist mindset equates with the opinion of Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, who made the following remarks in an interview in the January issue of GQ magazine: “It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Phil Robertson expresses what a lot of uneducated heterosexuals think. By uneducated, I mean those who still think that homoerotic behavior is a lifestyle choice made by people who are basically heterosexual. In other words, the belief exists that we are all heterosexual by creation, and some of us choose the homosexual lifestyle. This book does not debate the issue of choice versus orientation, because the issue does not exist. Homosexuality is a discovery or realization. There is no defense of flat-earth theory contained within this writing.
Another difficulty in discussing homosexuality is that open, honest, and real discussions about the details of homosexuality are difficult. One of the reasons for this lack of negotiability is the passionate polarization already mentioned. Another reason is our culture’s reluctance to discuss sexuality and expressions of sexuality at all. As Archie Bunker (in the old TV classic that broke a lot of taboos) once said to Edith, “Paragorically.... I will not let you ever talk about our sex life.” As long as gays stayed in the closet, traditionalists did not really have to be involved; they could just hope the issue would go away. There are some similarities to the civil rights movement in the 60s. African-Americans could not possibly stay in the closet, but if they would just stay in their place, some said, the whole issue would go away. Civil rights for people of color did not go away, and civil (and religious) rights for the LGBT community will not go away either.
Kids in my pre-sexual-revolution era may have joked about gay attributes, but it was like no such thing really existed. Today, that head-in-the-sand stance is gone. The issue is very much out in the open and being argued and tested. The LGBT community has been marginalized and oppressed for a number of years by both secular culture and religion. Much has been written in academic (psychological, sociological, theological) literature, the media has had a continuing field day, and our political/secular culture has relished the ongoing battle.
What should the church be teaching?
We have noted the impact of tradition on belief, but tradition is a sticky wicket. Whose tradition? What timeframe in history? Recent tradition is clear in both the church and culture: traditionalists say that homoerotic behavior is anathema. But is the tradition consistent with experience, reason, and, most importantly, scripture itself? Traditionalists say that their tradition squares with scripture, and some quote various “clobber” scriptural texts that allegedly prove their point. These texts are bandied about and picked up piecemeal by the populace of pew sitters and church outsiders who both claim “values” as part of their agenda. This book is about those clobber texts and what they mean regarding homosexuality. Biblical interpretation is fraught with conflict, especially when it comes to a controversial subject.
Scriptures have been used to justify slavery, racism, ethnic prejudice, and elitism. The great theological arguments for and against slavery in the mid-1800s are an example. Plucked from context and interpreted literally, slavery was not only justified but proven as pre-ordained by God. The scriptures interpreted similarly have been and are being used to oppress and dominate women. The civil rights movement in this country was opposed by many well-intentioned (white) churches. There is a trajectory to the movement of the Holy Spirit among us, incorporating the living nature of holy scripture. Even the few years that separate the writing of the gospels show changes in the expectations of Jesus’ return. It is quite natural and good that as the context changes over the years that the work of the Holy Spirit takes on new and exciting tasks. The gospel is truth, and the Holy Spirit represents the teachings and grace of Jesus Christ to us, but the application/context changes.
There are many books written about how to interpret biblical texts, but Adam Hamilton has written a book that is particularly helpful in understanding the Bible.4 I do not intend to plow this ground that has been so ably cultivated by Hamilton, but I do want to emphasize two things. The first is context. Each book in the Bible was written within a particular context or set of contexts. The history that is covered and the history of the writing itself varies significantly. The creation stories in Genesis tell about something that happened in the distant past, but are told from the perspective of someone living much later. The oral tradition was passed down through the ages before being set in writing. The writing was also passed down through the ages while the language was changing, and various writers were redacting (editing) and adding various other sources. Each writer or group of writers had their own agenda in repeating the story, and their readers were different in each generation. Occasionally, the readers or hearers were privy to details that make the biblical writing obvious to them but puzzling to us who came later. Those details were very much a function of the culture and scientific knowledge of the day. Of course, what is fascinating is that, through many hundreds of years, the Bible is relevant and revelatory as God’s word to each generation. Paul’s letters, such as Romans and 1 Corinthians were written to specific congregations or groups of congregations in the very early Church. Like today, each community of faith had its own set of issues that the apostle was trying to address through the written word. Scholars try to determine what was going on in those churches because we only have one side of the dialogue … Paul’s.
The
