Open Hands Vol 9 No 1 - Biblical Interpretation: Beyond Judgement to Love

Open Hands Vol 9 No 1 - Biblical Interpretation: Beyond Judgement to Love

9

1

1993

Summer

Open Hands is a resource for congregations and individuals seeking to be in ministry with lesbian, bisexual, and gay persons. Each issue focuses on a specific area of concern within the church.
Open Hands is published quarterly by the Reconciling Congregation Program, Inc. (United Methodist) in . conjunction with More Light Churches Network (Presbyterian), Open and Affirming (United Church of Christ), and Reconciled in Christ (Lutheran) Programs. Each of these programs is a national network of local churches that publicly affirm their ministry with the whole family of God and welcome lesbian and gay persons and their families into their community of faith. These four programs -along with Open and Affirming (Disciples of Christ), Welcoming (Unitarian Universalist), Supportive Congregations (Brethren/ Mennonite), and Welcoming and Affirming (American Baptist) programs -offer hope that the church can be a reconciled community.
Open Hands is published quarterly. Subscription is $16 for four issues ($20 outside the U.S .). Single copies and back issues are $5. Quantities of 10 or more, $3 each. Subscriptions, letters to the editor, manuscripts, requests for advertising rates, and other correspondence should be sent to:
Open Hands
3801 N. Keeler Avenue Chicago, IL 60641 Phone: 312/736-5526 Fax: 312/ 736-5475
Member, The Associated Church Press
© 1993
Reconciling Congregation Program, Inc.
Open Hands is a registered trademark
ISSN 0888-8833
@Printed 011 recycled paper.
Resources Jor Ministries Affirming the Diversity oj Human Sexuality
APPROACHING SCRIPTURE
What Does Scripture Say? How Shall We Listen?
The Bible and Homosexuality ................................................................... 4
Victor Paul Furnish
Biblical Echoes of My Loving:
Interpreting the Scripture from a Gay Perspective .................................... 7
John Linscheid
Dead or Alive:
Approaches to Teaching the Bible ............................................................. 9
Dorothy Jean Furnish
In Word and Deed: Jesus' Approach to Scripture in Matthew ............................................................................... 12
Nancy Carter
VOICES OF YOUTH
A Personal Perspective ............................................................................. 15
Alison Graham
SUSTAINING THE SPIRIT
Lamentations 18: Not the One You Know ............................................... 16
Covenant Group 18/Donna Kay Campbell
STUDYING SCRIPTURE
Hospitable Interpretations of Sodom ...................................................... 18
Lindsay Louise Biddle
Sodom's Sin: Conformity ............................................................... 20
Peg Beissert
God's Peculiar Righteousness: Unconditional Grace .............................. 21
Dick Poole
The Great Commandments According to Mark ...................................... _
Arnold Isidore Thomas
RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 2LETTERS
TO THE EDITOR .............................................................................. 28
MOVEMENT NEWS ......................................................................................... 29
Open Hands 2
Biblical Interpretation: BeyondJudgment to Love
No issue is more fraught with tensions and disagreements in our churches today than that of interpreting biblical passages related to homosexual behavior. However, the real question before us is not what the Bible says about homosexuality, but what role and authority the Bible has for our lives. Will it serve as a book of rules and punishment meted out in judgment, or as a written witness of a magnificent story of God's love?
To help us continue in this dialogue, we include four general articles on how to approach the Bible, as well as three exegetical articles fOfyour personal or congregational Bible study. The writers tell a consistent story of the Good News in the Bible: God is gracious! God is loving! God is accepting! All are welcome at the table of God .
Ultimately we must decide: How will we and our churches respond to God's Good News? In judgment or in love? -Mary Jo Osterman, Editor
Next Issue: Counteracting the Religious Right
'bJPG,OMINGt THEME ISSUES
v~..;, ~% ~
'I'l.ooking for W:J;it~rsand Worship I tems $kfOr g,'ur Winter 1994 Issue on W()rshipResources for our Ministries
i" if
Send worship buUetins; photos of creative communion or worship tables, banner photQs or ideas.i1Sendprayers, poems, calls to worship, corpqrate confessit>ns, litanies, benedictions, music youhave fOll~d especially\,helBfuI, etc. Briefs ermon illustratio1)s!stories are OW:tbuti1no sermons3please.
9
(Articles nee"Cted Q,P: worship issues tn a justice-oriented community; in€lusiv¢ liturgy in welcoming congreg£;ltions; preaching about i!:b.eterosexism; appiojaches to dlildren's sermons on heterosexism.
DEAULJNE .~XTENDEDTO NOVEMBER 1, 1993
Editor
Open Hands
3801 N. Keeler Chicago, IL 60641
Program Coordinators
Mark Bowman
Reconciling Congregation Program, Inc.
380l N. Keeler Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641 312/ 736-5526
&.T&T&T~
Ann B. Day
-.'Y&'Y&'Y" OPEN
Open and Affirming Program
--a--IfRI·ru
P.O. Box 403
&.T'i~
Holden, MA 01520
IIII.'YA'Y'"
508/856-9316
Brian Knittel
o
Reconciled in Christ Program 2800 Buena Vista Way Berkeley, CA 94708
5lO/841-6990
T Lindsay Louise Biddle
More Light Churches Network
3538 22nd Avenue, S.
Minneapolis, MN 55407 612/ 724-5429
Publisher
Mark Bowman
Open Hands Editor
Mary Jo Osterman
Layout I Graphics I Typesetting
In Print -Jan Graves
Editorial Advisory Committee
Reva Anderson, Toledo, OH Peg Beissert, Rolling Hills Est., CA Ann Marie Coleman, Chicago, IL Ann B. Day, Holden, MA Dan Hooper, Los Angeles, CA Derrick Kikuchi, Daly City, CA Samuel E. Loliger, Buffalo, NY Dick Poole, Oak Forest, IL Caroline Presnell, Evanston, IL Emilie Pulver, Chicago, IL Bradley Rymph, Washington, DC Paul Santillan, Chicago, IL
Summer 1993 3
What es Sc ·pture Say?
How Sha We Listen?
The Bible and Homosexuality
by Victor Paul Furnish
1. What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
Strictly speaking, nothing. It was only toward the end of the nineteenth century that medical and psychological investigators began to advance theories about the origins and formation of sexual identity Until then no distinction between "heterosexual" and "homosexual" orientations was possible. Although even today we understand very little about how sexual identity develops, at least we know that the process is highly complex and involves many different factors . Neither the biblical writers nor the ancient world in general had any notion of this. Therefore, no ancient language, including Hebrew and Greek, had any specific words for "sexuality," "heterosexuality," or "homosexuality"
Of course, same-sex practices were known in virtually all ancient cultures. On occasion they come into view in the biblical writings; but not often, and never as a topic for sustained discussion.
2. If homosexuality as such is not a biblical topic, what's the point of the story about Sodom?
The topic in Genesis 19:1-25 is not even "sex," let alone same-sex practices or "homosexuality" in general. What is condemned here (and also in a version told about Gibeah, Judg. 19) is the violation of the right of strangers to be accorded hospitality In certain later Jewish writings Sodom did come to symbolize same-sex acts, which accounts for the coining of the words "sodomy" and "sodomites" and their continuing use today But these terms are not employed within the Bible itself, where Sodom is primarily a symbol for evil in general and for the certainty of divine retribution for any who persist in it. For instance, what Ezekiel condemns primarily is Sodom's "pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease," and its neglect of "the poor and needy" (16:49-50, NRSV).
3. Aren't there also specific biblical laws that prohibit same-sex intercourse?
Only in Leviticus, where it is said that a male shall not "lie the lyings of a woman" with another male, because it is an "abomination" (18:22). In Leviticus 20: 13 the death penalty is specified for both participants. This law stands within the socalled Holiness Code (Lev. 17-26), which is a collection of materials of widely varying date. The Code provides reg lations for worship, specifies what things are ritually clean and unclean, and includes a few moral laws, like the well-known commandment to love the neighbor as oneself (Lev. 19: 18).
The statute about male same-sex intercourse is not one Of the moral laws in the Code, but is concerned with ritual -a distinct from moral or spiritual -purity According to th ancient Hebrew conception, something is "pure" (or "clean") as long as it remains an unblemished specimen of its kind, but it becomes "polluted" (or "unclean") when its physical integrity is in some way compromised, e.g. by "mixing" with things (or people) of another category This is why the laws of Leviticus prohibit sowing two different kinds of seed in one field, wearing two different kinds of fiber, cross-breeding different species of animals, and dressing like persons of the opposite sex.
Open Hands 4
~
This kind of objective purity is also the concern in Leviticus
18:22 and 20: 13; here intercourse between males is viewed as a mixing of roles. The male who takes the passive role, presumed to be properly the female's , becomes impure. This was thought to pervert the whole relationship, and thus to render the other male unclean, too. The circumstances of the act, e.g. whether someone has been victimized, would make no difference. Whatever the circumstances, the relationship itself would be impure and the participants equally defiled.
In the New Testament this distinction between the ritually "clean" and "unclean" is specifically rejected, both in sayings attributed to Jesus (Mk. 7:17-23) and by Paul (Rom. 14:14, 20). It is therefore not surprising that the Levitical prohibition of same-sex intercourse is not invoked by any New Testament writer.
4. Does the New Testament oppose same-sex practices for more distinctively Christian reasons? No. The most extensive reference comes in Romans 1:2627,
which is still just one sentence in Greek (my translation):
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions,
for just as their women exchanged natural intercourse
for unnatural so also the men, abandoning
natural intercourse with women, were consumed with
passion for one another, men committing shameless
acts with men and receiving in their own persons the
penalty reqUired by their error.
Although this remark is specifically about Gentile society, in the context Paul is insisting that the whole of humankind stands in need of the grace of God, "because all have sinned and fall short of God's glory" (3:23). His comment about same-sex acts echoes what Hellenistic-Jewish writers commonly said about Gentiles, while the description of these as "unnatural" derives from Stoic thought. Moral essayists contemporary with Paul described same-sex intercourse as "unnatural" for two reasons. First, because they presumed that it was an equally attractive option for everyone, they feared that it could lead to the ultimate extinction of the human race. Second, they regarded any same-sex act as a violation of what they supposed to be the "natural" superiority of males over females. In the case of two males, both would be demeaned by the passivity of either; in the case of two females, both would be gUilty of usurping the role supposed to be reserved for the male .
Paul shares the view, widespread in his day, that every same-sex act is self-indulgently lustful and therefore degrading to both parties. Therefore, where he lists the kinds of people who will not inherit God's kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9), he includes a term that most likely refers to adolescent call-boys (NRSV: "male prostitutes"), and a second one that refers to "males who go to bed with males" (NRSV: "sodomites"). The latter is also listed by one later writer (1 Tim. 1: 10). These two lists are the only places other than Romans where anything about same-sex practices surfaces in the New Testament.
Summer 1993
?• 1?9 •
•
-
5. Aren't there any teachings of Jesus on this subject?
None that have been handed down. A saying about "eunuchs" in Matthew 19:11-12 is sometimes cited as a general affirmation of those who have been sexually marginalized. But the point there is much more specific: remaining unmarried is
appropriate only for those [males] to whom celibacy is "given"
(v. 11) for the purpose of serving God's kingdom more fully (v. 12). And the recent suggestion that Mark 9:42 is a denunciation of pederasty (an adult male's purchase of sexual favors from an adolescent boy) is largely conjectural.
This silence of the Jesus traditions is important evidence that the first century church was not preoccupied with the matter of same-sex relationships. However, it would be wrong to interpret Jesus' silence as evidence either of his or of the church's indifference to such practices. On this point, as on many others, we do not know what Jesus taught, and it is likely that Paul's views on the topic were representative of the church overall.
6. It is sometimes quipped that "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Doesn't the creation story show that only heterosexuality conforms to God's will? There are actually two creation accounts, one beginning
in Genesis 1: 1 and another in Genesis 2:4. The former affirms that God created both "male and female" (1:27-28), and the latter includes the observation that "a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" (2:24, NRSV).
Both accounts are concerned mainly to describe how things have come to be as they are, not to prescribe how people ought to act. Moreover, they deal with what is typical of humanity overall, and show no interest in explaining or commenting on conceivable exceptions. Thus Genesis 1:27-28 explains the differentiation of humanity into two sexes as due to God's concern for procreation ("Be fruitful and multiply," v. 28), and Genesis 2:24 explains (hetero-) sexual desire as due
5
----------------------------------~-----. ------
to God's concern that human beings enjoy companionship. In Genesis 1 it is simply presupposed that sexual intercourse is for the sole purpose of producing children, and in Genesis 2 it is simply presupposed that everyone experiences desire for physical union with someone of the opposite sex. Possible exceptional cases, like singleness, childlessness, or "natural" sexual attraction to a person of one's own sex, lie quite beyond the conceptual horizons of these accounts.
7. Does the Bible provide any positive role models for consensual, loving, and committed homosexual unions? It is sometimes suggested -but rarely by biblical scholars
-thatjonathan and David had a homosexual relationship. The same has been said, less often, about Ruth and Naomiand,
occasionally, aboutjesus and a "beloved disciple" who is mentioned in the Gospel of John. There is no evidence to support any of these claims, however. The fact remains that every biblical reference or allusion to same-sex practice is in some way negative.
8. How about the aposde Paul? Bishop John Shelby Spong has suggested that he was gay. First, Bishop Spong himself admits that he is just speculating
about this.3 But in addition, there have been advances in Pauline studies which render his interpretations of many key passages (e.g. Rom. 7:14-25 and 1 Cor. 7:1) quite impossible. When all is said and done, we know nothing about Paul's sexual orientation.
9. Since the biblical references and allusions to same-sex acts are always in some way negative, doesn't this put the Bible firmly on record as being anti-gay? It would be an anachronism to call the Bible "anti-gay," just
as it would be anachronistic to describe it as "anti-environmental" simply because the biblical writers viewed the natural world as something to be tamed and controlled, not protected. We violate the integrity of the Bible's own witness whenever we attempt to extract responses to issues with which the ancient world was not faced. Indeed, what most distinguishes Scripture are not its specific teachings and moral rules. These are all conditioned by the cultural particularities of the ancient world and the special circumstances within and for which they were formulated. In this respect, we must take account of what I call the Law of Diminishing Relevancy: To
the extent that something is specifically appropriate in one particular situation, it is less specifically appropriate in any and every other particular situation.
10. If the specific teachings and moral rules of the Bible do not distinguish its witness, then what does? Primarily, its understanding of God -that the whole of
creation, nothing and no one excepted, has been graced and claimed by God's unconditional love. The Bible functions as Scripture within the church by shaping and nurturing this understanding of whose and who we are: women and men who live out of God's grace, and who are thereby called to faithful, grace-filled lives.
n. Ho can this biblical understanding of God and humankind inform the church's discussions and decisions ~ homosexuality today? Scripture helps provide the context within which Christian
moral options are to be examined, and bears witness to the norm by which these options are to be assessed. The norm is God's faithfulness and grace as disclosed in Christ; the context is the faith and life of the believing community itself, including its experience and traditions. Thus, whether the topic is homosexuality or some other, Christians are called to consider what decisions and actions are most faithful to the gift and claim of God's love.
In short, "the Bible says" very little about same-sex practices, and what it presupposes about them can no longer be presupposed. For knowledge about homosexuality itself, we must depend both on the findings of modern research and on the life-experiences of homosexual persons. Apart from such knowledge, nothing the church teaches or does with reference to homosexuality will be credible or relevant. But in addition to what is credible and relevant, the church must ask what is Christian. For this it turns above all to the scriptural witness about the gift and claim of God's love.
12. How can people be helped to understand that the passages usually cited in discussions of homosexuality are neither credible nor relevant in our day? Even those who are unwilling to proof text on other topics
-for example, divorce and remarriage -may resort to prooftexting when it comes to homosexuality, usually as a way of supporting opinions they already hold. This can be pointed out to them (speaking the truth in love!), and they can also be made aware of the diverse cultural, literary, and theological cQntexts of the passages in question. But in addition, and more baSically, they can be encouraged to listen .for the word that is most central to Scripture and most definitive for the faith and witness of the church -which is the word that in Christ we are both graced and claimed by God's love.
Finally, however, this scriptural witness is most fittingly and believably communicated in the actual lives of God's faithful people. We may be confident that, as the church experiences the grace of God working in and through the lives of homosexual persons who are brothers and sisters in Christ, it will be better able to listen for and to live by the word that Scripture really speaks.'Y
lSee Randy Shilts, Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.
S. Military (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993) 539,540.
21n a letter to the author, da ted 3/15/92.
3Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. A Bishop Rethinks the
Meaning of Scripture (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991) esp.
108-20.
Victor Paul Furnish is University Distinguished ProJessor oJNew Testament in Southern Methodist University's Perkins School oj Theology, Dallas, Texas.
Open Hands 6
'
t "o~/~J~n!'Y'vg,a,·'~,,/~7
'>" /l)'v.·~1il
;;' ~ • ,: ~, ' ',. .:': .i ,t../
•
Interpreting Scripture from a Gay Perspective
byJohn linscheid
I have an ongoing love affair with the Bible. The Bible moves me and shapes me. In its restful bosom, its disturbing questions, and its challenging climaxes, I meet God . Its stories whisper to me of my own life as a gay man: mysteries of identity, dynamics of 'er, hiddenness, visibility. The Bible -esses authority for me because it I:le life.
sed to disturb me when advoes of compulsory heterosexuality used me of not believing the Bible. en I discovered -as had racial and
anomie minorities and feminists before
me -that those with power always / to enforce their interpretation on ose \\!ithout. And they seldom listen
o alternate suggestions. So I minimize skirmishes over proof texts. Instead, I direct my energy toward finding life in
he sacred words.
For me, life-sustaining Bible reading "nvoh-es several considerations in addi.on to studying historical and literary aspects of the texts. Among these are: 1) drawing upon personal experience, 2) reading in light of my social context,
(3) responding to an interpretative community, and (4) opening to the Holy Spirit.
Drawing on Personal
Experience
eminist scholars, such as Virginia
Ramey Mollenkott, taught me to pay attention to my own experience. My unique way of living attunes me to dynamics overlooked by the predominant culture. As I read the Bible, I respect the reactions of my body, mind, and spirit. (Do I become happy, tense, sad, or calm as I read?) I note similarities and differences with my social and sexual situation, paraphrasing texts from a gay perspective.
Predominant culture imposes its norms on the Bible. One group which
Summer 1993
works to "change" homosexuals into heterosexuals encourages people with unquenched same-sex attractions to claim the heterosexuality of Jesus to cover their own "broken" sexuality. Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus was heterosexual. This group simply asserts it.
Because I know the fulfillmentrather than the social guilt -of loving another man, I am willing to consider what such an organization won't. Scripture doesn't tell me whether Jesus was gay or not. But, as expelled gay Jesuit John McNeill points out, Jesus hung out with a lot of unmarried folks, such as Mary and Martha and Lazarus. And their culture valued marriage and procreation even more highly than ours does. In many non-Western cultures, men readily express affection to one another physically. That scandalizes the homophobic West. (The New Revised Standard Version couldn't handle a disciple reclining "in Jesus' bosom" and translated John 13:23 "reclining next to him.") So gay men, out of our experience, now lead the Western church in acknowledging physical affection between Jesus and the disciple whom he loved .
Reading in Light of Sodal Context
Gospel dynamics also reveal themselves in my social situation, For example, like Satan tempting Jesus, the predominant church challenges me to prove that I am a child of God. "If you are a child of God," I amtold, "change your gay nature" (like a stone into bread). "Call upon God for power to sustain purposeless celibacy" (like jumping off the temple for no good reason). Finally, "We'll give you riches, power -even ordination -if you fall down and worship our heterosexuality as the ultimate truth for humankind" (compare Mt. 4:1-10). LikeJesus, I must claim my experience of God's love in the face of demonic counter propositions.
Responding Within an Interpretive Community
But what of limits to personal experience? My interpretations must be tested in a faith community. The institutional church traditionally claimed this authority. Today, sexualminority Christians -and other people on the margins -constitute the community I am interpretatively accountable to. Gustavo Gutierrez wrote that "to know God is to do justice." My primary accountability must be to those for whom my interpretation may enhance life or cause oppression.
Early in the sexual-minority struggle within the churches, we looked critically at traditional "clobber" texts. For example, we noted the focus in the Sodom and Gomorrah story on inhospitality rather than on homosexuality. I used the example of Lot offering his daughters to the rapists as evidence of the Sodomites' heterosexuality and of the radical demands of hospitality in Lot's culture (Gen. 19:8). My community held me accountable to women and to the way my interpretation normalized abuse. As a result, I pressed beyond surface arguments about the nature of the Sodomites' sin. Now this story warns me how social structures enforce insidious hierarchies through which minorities may sacrifice each other while resisting the dominant assault.
Opening to the Holy Spirit
Meditation and prayer initially broke the oppressive power of social structures and opened me to the love of God. Openness to the Holy Spirit still undergirds my Bible study.
7
The most astute applications of scripture to my life and social or political situation come, ironically, when I still the noise of living and culture. In a quiet place, I relax and meditate, reading and re-reading the text, praying the Holy Spirit will move my spirit.
Reading the Bible from a gay perspective, I repeatedly find my story in its pages. For example, as a gay white man, I face an invisibility dilemma. While society may oppress me with "straight" assumptions or based on suspected "homo" behavior, I alone can confirm my label. Such a confirmation poses its own risks. Coming out is a spiritual journey much like that ofJesus.
I travel on the boundary between clear identities -"in but not of the world." Jesus likewise traversed the boundary. Through much of his life, his identity did not fall clearly into one category. People continually asked who he was and the source of his authority. At times he forbade those who recognized his true identity to reveal it (Mt. 8:4; 9:30). Other times he was less reticent (Mk. 5: 19). Usually; he responded enigmatically to inquiries (Mt. 11:2-4; Mk. 11:28-29;Jn. 6:42-48).
I understand the quandary. Labels limit identity. Am I single? Coupled? Homosexual? Gay ? Queer? Words focus society'S interaction \\ith me. Our high school's vocational agriculture teacher once provided a spontaneous sex education lecture to the effect that individuals are "men men, women women, women men, or men women (l think I fall in the third category.) For me, gender definitions are ambiguous. Heterosexist culture says I am not a "real man." Gay men bear, in the popular mind, a largely feminine identity ("sissy;" "fairie," "queen"). In gay circles, masculine and feminine occupy a broader, sometimes fuzzier, spectrum. (A bearded body builder wearing a dress fits nowhere easily in a dualistic paradigm.)
Juggling language is crucial to gay identity just as it is for Jesus. Jesus skillfully manipulates efforts to label him. He asks Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" (Mk. 8:29). When Pilate asks whether he is a king, Jesus responds, "You have said so" (Mk. 15:2). Like a sexual minority person negotiating probing questions,Jesus keeps definitions and categories fluid. Through "evasions," he reveals more truly who he is than he would with "acceptable" answers.
Most importantly, Jesus claims authority to redefine the terms and control his own destiny. When Peter confesses Jesus as Messiah, Jesus redefines the role as taking up the cross (Mk. 8:29-31). Yet Jesus approaches even death as an act of power. "No one takes [my life] from me," he says, "but I lay it down of my own accord ... and I have power to take it up again" On. 10: 18). Refusing to submit to victimization by political and religious powers, he seizes his own death and makes it life-giVing for those who follow after.
Coming out of the closet represented just such an act of power for me. I negotiated the process carefully to maximize my own initiative and frustrate the dominant society's attempts to victimize me. As I "laid down" my straight identity and died to the world, I "took up" a new life possessing empowering integrity.
Many friends who have AIDS or are HIV-positive similarly seize life despite society's conviction that only death lurks within them. They repudiate victimization. Like Christ traveling to Jerusalem, they transfigure their journeys
to foster life in themselves and in
us who live in their company.
I take courage in the scripture's reflections of my own life and of the lives of sexual minority people around me. Having been bruised by those who wield the Bible, I am sometimes tempted to leave it behind. But then I read its verses out of my gay context, and I respond to the temptation as Peter did: ''To whom can we go? You have the words of eternallife" On. 6:68).'"
John Linscheid, a member of the oldest Mennonite congregation in North Amelica,
reads the Bible on the buses and subways of Philadelphia. This summer, he and his lover, Ken White, observed their tenth year of spiritual f1iendship.
Announcing a NEW,
Revised and Greatly Expanded
Edition of The Other Side's
Much·Requested Booklet
Christians and Homosexuality {
In the last live yearn, we"e so~ thousands upon
I
thousands of these booklets, featuring some of the best articles av~ilable anywhere on Scripture and £ homosexuality, with a helpful guide to organizations ::~ ministering in a Christian way in the gay and lesbian community. Now we've revised, updated, and greatly .. expanded it, adding a host of new articles and features, including "A Crisis of Pronouns,· "Gay Godfathers,' "Reading the Bible Through Gay Eyes,· a debate on gay-lesbian ordination. Plus all the ::: original features. Great for sharing, reading, :~ discussing. Big savings on bulk ordersl Single copy, $5.00. 10-99 copies, $3.50 each. 100 or more, $2.50 .:; each. Free shipping. The Other Side, 300 W. Apsley, ~:' Philadelphia, PA 19144. A wonderful resource! 1
···t?~>~&i1%vlti'l"Wgm£!.;a.;:_·t:~
Open Hands 8
ou make the Bible come alive!"
lthough meant as a compliment, I cringe when I hear that statement ana sometimes reply, "But the Bible isn't
ead~" If the atmosphere seems just right ay add, "It is our teaching of the e :that is dead!"
Here is a prescription for deadly Bible teaching. Begin by visualizing the learner indo The age of the learner doesn't at this point. The Mind is waitfilled. Next, visualize the Mind p with Right Knowledge, be. he teacher has chosen the con. "-ely and has taught it well, with esired outcomes in mind . Finally,
e in the certainty that Right Knowl=:e \.llilllead to Right Belief. And right lief 15 the goal of our teaching. To do deadly Bible teaching one must
'~e the proper methodology. While -.. -dents listen, explain the historical d cultural background for the Right Bible Knowledge. Demonstrate how to nd Bible passages which contain the ht Knowledge, how to use the conordance, and how to consult the Bible .las Then plan Bible "drills" so that e!1ts can practice these skills. As-passages to memorize and reward who do it well. Finally, tell the ents what the selection means, and sume their acceptance of this meanng.
What's Wrong With Deadly Teaching?
W hat is wrong with this picture? In the first place, learners are much more than Minds. They are a delightful mixture of feelings, opinions, experiences, self-identity and stubbornness -as well as Mind! And whatever Right Knowledge is presented to Mind,
Summer 1993
it is always processed within the context of this whole person, whether or not such process is encouraged.
In the second place, the uniqueness and complexity of each learner complicates the choice of Right Knowledge. What might be right for some persons at a given time might be inappropriate for others.
And finally, questions about Right Belief must be raised. If Right Belief is the desired outcome of our teaching, who determines this Right Belief? Is it the teacher? The denomination? The pastor? The curriculum writers? And what about the one being taught? Surely the student's Mind and feelings and experiences must be a major part of the equation. Ultimately, if the truth be known, it is always the student who processes the Right Knowledge in the light of lived experience, and it must be the student who comes to her/his own Right Belief. Otherwise, teaching is little more than indoctrination.
Deadly teaching is a trap which has caught many of us. We have been carefully taught a variety of theological doctrines with their accompanying implied and sometimes required behavioral "do's and don'ts", and we have been taught them within a church environment which said 'The Bible is God's Word; this is what the Bible says; the Bible contains Right Beliefs; to question God-given Right Beliefs is a sin against God."
Some never question the doctrines or their underlying assumptions and are like the seminary student on his graduation day who was overheard saying with pride , "I came to seminary knowing what I believed and I leave believing exactly the same thing." Others find the struggle for integrity fu tile
and leave the institutional church. Still others (this writer included) insist upon asking the questions. We hang in with the church even when there is little support for inquisitive minds and spend a lifetime searching for a place that will affirm both the questions and the questioner.
Two Approaches: Two Dangers
There must be another way! There must be an approach to teaching the Bible that does not render the Bible obsolete as life changes occur and as new insights about self, others, and world are discovered. In the old way the teacher might stop frequently, sometimes after every verse, and ask: "What does this mean in our everyday life?" Students would struggle to move from the Red Sea or Daniel in the lion's den to the Senior Prom, a job just lost, or a broken romance. The instinct was sound -the Bible and life cannot be separated. But the process was generally unproductive.
The Bible and life cannot be separated. What are separated by light years, however, are the cultural settings of the Bible and our life in this last decade of the twentieth century. Much of the daily life of those whose witness is recorded in the Bible has little resemblance to our own. Struggling to find meaning in every verse or paragraph of the Bible lesson often resulted in superficial life applications.
On the other hand, everything in our contemporary life is relevant in one way or another; relevant to us personally, to the church in which we work and the community in which we live, or to the larger world arena. One way to begin to overcome this separation of cultures is to start our Bible study with our own personal and cultural life struggles and work our way back to the life issues recorded in the Bible. But
9
there is a real danger inherent in this process, also. While beginning with the biblical text may lead to superficial life application, beginning with modern life situations can tempt one to proof text or read into biblical accounts something that is not there.
What is needed is a teaching approach that holds the possibility of eliminating both dangers. This we can know with certainty: Deadly teaching is neither biblical nor necessary; lively teaching is both biblical and possible! And all ages -kindergarten through adult have a right to lively teaching, whatever the content, but especially when the content is the Bible.
Congregation As Context
Lively teaching begms '\ith the context within which the teaching takes place. Teaching and learning do not occur in a vacuum. \\'here something is learned becomes a part of the learning as well as what is learned. Sex education which occurs on the street may contain the same facts as sex education taught by church or parents, but the perceptions and values learned may be, and usually are, quite different.
The Bible we read today was not delivered by God in one grand moment of revelation, but grew out of the experience of God's people over hundreds
of years. It was not crafted by a literary religious genius in a lonely retreat, but was hammered out by the Judeo-Christian community as community. And it grew directly out of the experiences of that community as it faced the life and death issues ofexistence. Deadly teaching denies the reality of the living context within which the Bible was written. Lively teaching is best done within a community of faith that is committed to addressing the contemporary life situations of its members.
The actual teaching of the Bible may take place in age-specific groups or in an intergenerational setting. In either case the process should be understood and owned by the church as community, for it is the church as community that must be there to support its members as they struggle with the issues of faith and justice. "Lone Ranger" Bible study is not biblical!
Preparing to Teach
Students, of whatever age, are not empty vessels. They come to the teaching situation with many ideas and attitudes already in the process of being formed. Lively teaching allows questions and accepts the uncertainties of growing persons. It acknowledges that the teacher is a "Christian-in-process ' also!
Teachers who hope to help the Bible "come alive" (there's that phrase again!) will consciously hold these assumptions:
I know what this Bible passage
means to me. I have an idea about
what the writers intended it to
mean to their audience. I don't
know what it will mean to my
students. I will share my meanings
but I will not impose them
on others.
The Teaching Plan1
Lively teaching has three steps. First, lively teaching begins with an activity that will help students feel some of the emotions which may have been felt by persons in the biblical narrative. For example, before telling the story of Jesus' baptism, students might be asked to paint a picture of how it felt when they were baptized, or when they wit-
Open Hands 10
"
feeling w • ..,,% •,.....".. .,......... '" .........a ..a .. =#~ ~g , ~ S <iJl
nessed the baptism of others. Or the class might be divided into groups of two or three and asked to share their feelings when they had an important life decision to make. (Whether they share the subject of the decision or the decision finally made is immaterial.) This process is important because it provides a real life connection between the experiences of the student and people who lived generations ago. This
J(irst step may be called 'feeling into the Bible. "
Second, lively Bible teaching does . begin with a "thus saith the lord" duction of Right Knowledge about assage. An alternative would be an ach and attitude that said: "Hear our foreparents in the faith experiGod's
presence and understood 'ord." Because of the thity they may hear it with
emotions as well as their
One hopes so! In any he)' will have been given --~on and opportunity to
e Bible text to their own feelim!s and life experiences. ers are not limited in this -Imply reading the Bible to but may present the bibntent
through a whole range
. -ities, including drama, choeadmg,
songs, art, and espe-
Iv through story telling. This seclep
may be called "meeting with
Bible experientially."
ThIrd, lively teaching provides
time to respond to the exlence of the Bible passage.
IS IS an absolutely necessary of the teaching plan. We are
Just called to know the Bible, but to 'n it some meaning for our lives. e each individual will find unique nings, it is within the context of the Uh community that those meanings n be tested and refined. Therefore, roviding an opportunity for persons
o respond within the community context to their personally discovered meanmgs is crucial.
Children (and youth and adults who are willing to risk!) might respond through art and dance and creative writing as well as in discussion -through Heart as well as Mind. At first, nonriskers will be more comfortable with
Summer 1993
discussion.
The teacher's role in this step is twofold: (l) accepting the feelings and meanings evoked in the students by the Bible passage, and 2) witnessing to one's own meanings and understandings of the passage. The further growth of students is best served, however, when teachers are careful to avoid making judgmental statements about the nature or quality of class members responses. This third step may be called "responding out of the experience of the Bible."
Teachingfor Openness and Inevitable Change
Remember -the pOint of this approach
is to teach in such a way that students arefree to think their own thoughts, do their own interpretation, and keep open to the possibilities of new meanings in the future. The realization of God's vision of justice for all is possible only when God's people are open to the possibility of new meanings.
The Bible is not an answer book. It is a written witness of real people to their experiences of God in the past, and is one channel -but not the only channel -through which God may be experienced in the present. We do both the Bible and ourselves a disservice when we assign to its culture-laden text specific meanings for all time.
"New occasions teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good
uncouth . .."
lively teaching of the Bible provides
us all with an approach which will keep all our hearts and minds open to God's new revelations. T
1Adapted Jar adults Jrom my original model in Experiencing the Bible with Children. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990) esp. chs . 7-11 .
DorothyJean Furnish is Professor Emerita of Christian Education, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary and the author of several books on teaching the Bible to children. She is a member of Wheadon
United Methodist Church, Evanston, Ill inois and af filiate member of Community United Church of Christ in Boulder, Colorado.
11
M atthew has been called the Gospel of Justice. In Matthew, Jesus uses a method of interpreting Jewish scriptures based on the values of love, justice, hospitality, and doing good. Understanding and using Jesus' method of interpretation of scripture can aid Christians working to establish justice for all.
Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets
1 esus emphasizes the importance of not only speaking good words but doing good deeds. The structure of
the gospel of Matthew reflects this concept.
Matthew has five major discourses
followed by narratives aboutjesus' and
the disciples' actions.
The best-known of the discourses is
the Sermon on the Mount, in which
Jesus says:
Do not think that I have come to
abolish the law or the prophets; I
have come not to abolish but to
fulfill. For truly I tell you, until
heaven and earth pass away, not
one letter, not one stroke of a
letter, will pass from the law until
all is accomplished. (5:17-18,
NRSV)
But what does Jesus mean? Some
claim that these statements mean that
Christians should adhere to every part
of the Bible. Others claim that Jesus
meant "law and prophets" in a very
particular sense. In two places in Matthew,
Jesus defines "the law and the
prophets." Significantly, his first definition
is in the Sermon on the Mount:
"'In everything do to others as you would
have them do to you; for this is the law
and the prophets'" (7:12, emphaSiS mine) 1
Even more telling, when a Pharisee asks
Jesus about which commandment in
the law is the greatest (22:36):
12
In
Jes byNoneyA.
He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (22:3740,
emphasiS mine). As Matthean scholar Eduard Schweizer has noted, "Matthew in fact reduces all the commandments to one."2
Most of Jesus' statements in Matthew 5:21-7:12 are examples of "doing good unto others." Though the specifics ofjesus' examples may not be applicable to today's living, the basic value on which they are founded, the Golden Rule, is applicable.
In Matthew, a tension is present between the meaning of Jesus as fulfillment of the scriptures and Jesus as a new Torah. Jesus is like the faithful scribe who "brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old" (13:51). In the end, most of Matthew's story involves Jesus modifying and even rejecting parts of the law.
Jesus Modifies or Rejects Parts of the Law
Matthew vividly illustrates Jesus' approach in a section of the Sermon on the Mount called "the six antitheses" (5:21-48). The antitheses are words of Jesus that state, "you have heard it said . . . but I say unto you .. ." Biblical scholar John P. Meier has observed: In six instances of important socio-religious institutions permitted or commanded by the written Mosaic Law, Jesus dares to contrast his word with God's word. Even more startling, in three cases (antitheses three, four, and five, on divorce, oaths and vows, and retaliation),jesus revokes the letter of the Law and replaces it with his own diametrically opposed command.3 Immediately after having said he ha
come to fulfill the scriptures, Jesus sets aside some of them! In all six antitheses, Jesus applies the Golden Rule to make his changes. In the last antithesis Jesus turns the laws of retaliation "upside down": "Good must be done to all because all are to be part of God's household."4
Jesus Interprets Scripture Through His Actions
1 esus becomes Living Scripture as he puts his words into action, revealing the true characteristics of the Household of God. He shows that hospitality is an important value -all are welcome in God's house. Three stories in Matthew 8 symbolize Jesus' giving three groups of people direct access to the Presence of God, which he symbolizes (1 :23). Biblical scholar Amy-Jill Levine has observed:
.. . the evangelist groups together the healings of the leper, the centurion's servant, and Peter's mother-in-law. The leper represents those removed from full participation in the Temple and thus from a major aspect of the public practice of religion because of disease; the centurion is restricted to the Court of the Gentiles; the woman . . . cannot enter the
Open Hands
Temple's inner court.5 These groups have been blocked from full inclusion in the religious community because of legalistic clinging to scripture, misuse of scripture, and/or hierarchical social mores. Jesus sets aside scriptures that are used to restrict accessibility to God's Presence.
the Table: Jesus Reinterprets ighteousness and Sin
sus is even more radical in his conuct at table. He confronts exclusivby eating with so-called "sinners." 10-17) Jesus does not eat with these rs to "convert" them. Rather, by
with these oppressed people, hows that they are already a part Household of God. erl confronted by the Pharisees he company he keeps,Jesus says:
learn what this means, 'I de.:::cy, not sacrifice.' For I have call not the righteous
ers" (9: 13).6 In this en~, "mercy" (or _ parallel with
.. and "sacrirogresses.
is rightfor he
Summer 1993
Later Jesus says that mercy, justice, and faith are the "weightier matters of the law" (23:23). Those at the table with him are also righteous, for they grasp the meaning of loving God, neighbor, and self. They delight in sitting down with each other and Jesus in an atmosphere of love and acceptance and having a good time. They show mercy to each other.
Jesus illustrates further the meaning of mercy (9:18-34). When a woman with a flow of blood touches his cloak, he does not condemn an "unclean woman" for making him "unclean." Instead he praises her faith and she is healed. jesus then raises a twelve-yearold girl from death by touching her "unclean" dead body. Two men who are blind ask jesus to show mercy on them. He heals them also. As in the earlier triad of healing stories, this triad also
reveals Jesus' good news that all can
have direct access to the Presence of
God. Everyone has equal status.
The Pharisees continue to reject
mercy as a gUiding principle. When
jesus casts out a demon from a man,
they accuse him of being eviL jesus,
however, continues to proclaim the good
news of God's household. He says that
the harvest is plentiful, not meager and
exclusive, as the religious hierarchy
claims (9:35-38). Everyone is invited to
God's Table, where everyone is treated
with respect.
Jesus as Sabbath Rest: Jesus Confronts Oppressive Exegesis
Jesus' saying about God desiring mercy not sacrifice is repeated in Matthew 12. just before this chapter, jesus describes himself and his teachings as "Sabbath rest." He invites those
13
carrying heavy burdens caused by o~pressive teachings to learn from hIS gentleness and humility He offers teachings which offer liberation from burdensome scripture (11:28-30).
Having spoken about "rest," Jesus illustrates it in actions. When his disciples are hungry, Jesus allows them to pick grain to eat, despite the Sabbath laws. He heals a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath. In each case, the religious leaders attack him for n~t following Torah and try to make scnpture a heavy burden (12:1-14).
Jesus uses two different interpretive methods to defend himself. In the grainfield, Jesus cites other scripture passages (not in Torah) to defend his pos.ition, reminding them of David and hIS companions who ate the bread of the Presence that was reserved for the priests, and of the priests in the temple who break the Sabbath yet are guiltless. Here, he gives more weight to some scripture passages and less weight to others (12:3-8).
In the synagogue, Jesus uses a form of rabbinical argument.7 He suggests that if the hearers would save a sheep from a pit on the Sabbath then they surely would save a human being. Her~, he appeals to tradition and to expenence in order to suspend scripture (12:913).
In each case, Jesus' point is that a merciful response of meeting the needs of people is more important than observing Sabbath laws. Consistently he suspends or sets aside scriptural mandates when they block the way of loving actions that meet the needs of
people. .
Against the will of God, the Phansees plot to sacrifice Jesus (12: 14).Jesus, however, continues to do the will of God: "he brings justice to victory" (12:2).
In Matthew 23, Jesus pronounces woe on those who are plotting his death. He says they oppress the people with hypocritical and hierarchical attit~des and actions (23: 1-12). They stram at gnats (scripturallegalisms) while swallowing camels (failure to observe the weightier matters of scripture and to do acts of justice, faith, mercy). He curses them for failing to be merciful, sacrificing the prophets, and for failing to accept the hospitality of the one who comes in God's name ( _3:37-39).
Setting Priorities:
Then and No
As "Living Scripture,' Matthew's r\.Jesus demonstrates the characteristics of the Household of God, based on the principles of justice, love, mutuality, forgiveness, faith, goodness, and ministry to those in need. In word and deed, Jesus sets aside scriptures and practices which support hierarchical community arrangements and therefore place heavy burdens on the people.
The new household that Jesus constitutes is one which is no longer defined by oppressive scriptural laws that give some groups of people more status than others. Jesus upsets elitists who seek to exclude others from God's realm by labeling them "sinners" or "outcasts" or "inferior." He says/shows that the basic requirements for membership in God's Household are love of God, neighbor, and self, which is revealed in just and merciful actions. .
As followers of Jesus today, we also are called to be concerned with the "weightier matters" of the scripture. We are to give the most value to scriptures which stress love and justice and to do acts of love and justice.
A scripture passage can be suspended in certain contexts by appealing to other scripture, tradition, and plain common sense (when one can see that love and justice are being neglected). In this way, love and justice can be present in all situations.
If a scripture becomes outdated or irrelevant,Jesus shows us that it can be updated and altered to address the changing times. If a scripture is harmful it can be set aside .
'I believe the implications of Jesus' approach to scripture should be cle~r by now. Love and justice are baSIC norms. Hospitality is a Christian lifestyle. Everyone has a place at God's table and no one is to have the "place of honor" (23:6):
•
no matter one's sexual identity, preference, or orientation;
•
no matter one's racial, cultural, or ethnic background;
•
no matter one's economic, social, or marital status;
•
no matter one's gender or transgender status;
•
no matter one's physical, intellectual, and emotional abilities and disabilities;
•
no matter one's age. In Matthew, Jesus enjoins all disciples, then and now, to teach people' obey everything he (not Torah) has commanded (28:19-20). Everything Jes : has commanded is to love God, neig bor, and self and to do good -no mor no less. Through these actions, we C"
be in right relationship with God, o~...selves, and our neighbor. We can
reconciled.~
1Verses 5: 17 and 7: 12 Jorm an inclusion, technique oj repetition oJten used by Ma tth to 'frame" a literary passage and gives cl. about his themes). In this case, the inclusi signifies that the verses in-between ~;e ab
Jesus and "the law and the prophets.
2Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, translated by David E. Grc (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975), p.109.
3John P. Meier, The Vision of Matth~\' Christ, Church and Morality in the FlY . Gospel (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), p. 6..;
4Michael H. Crosby, House of Disciples Church, Economics & Justice in Matth e \ (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988), p.184
5Amy-Jill Levine, "Matthew," The Women.'s Bible Commentary, edited by Carol rl Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville. KY: Westm inster/Jo hn Knox Press, 1992), r
256.
6Jesus is citing Hosea 6:6. Hosea 6 ca lls Jor Israel to return to God who will heal them and raise them up on the third day. It judge. Ephraim and Judah whose love oj God ha dissipated.
7The argument is called gal wehomer -Jrom the light to the heavy.
©1993 NANCY A. CARTER
Nancy A Carter, an ordained elder in New York Annual Conference, is a member oj the board oj directors oj the Reconciling Congregation Program. She is the
author, with contributions by Bishop Leontine
I.e. Kelly, oj the book Jesus in the Gospel oj Matthew: "Who Do You Say That I Am 7"
Open Hands 14
Personal Perspective
by Alison Graham am a nineteen year old, heterosexual girl. I grew up outside of Chicago with an all-heterosexual ~ily. I went to Wheadon United Methst Church which has a large comnity of homosexuals or bisexuals. I 'e just completed my first year at
. University in Madison, New Jer: am going to major in political e and eventually I want to be a
Senator from Minnesota.
not think there is anything wrong any sexual orientation. Actually, I nderstand how anyone could a particular orientation was wrong. only mildly legitimate argument rd against bisexuals and homoIs l5 that the Bible allegedly says -exuality is a sin. My sister keeps .e that God thinks heterosexuonly
way to go. I keep telling her that, first, it never says that in the Bible and second, God didn't write the Bible.
Let me defend myself. To begin with, only one reference in the Bible possibly refers to lesbianism (Romans 1:26). The few other references to sexual orientation only deal with gay men and in almost every instance the passage is about one man raping another, which is obviously a sin. The Bible is right to call rape a sin. Ifthe writers of the Bible really felt that homosexuality was wrong, don't you think they would have spelled it out for us so that there would be no question?
Furthermore, God certainly did not write the Bible. Taking the Bible as God's direct word would be like me relying upon fourth hand information Oohnny heard from Cindy who picked it up from James that Rob . . . ) as truth. Actually, the latter would be more reliable because the original source can be spoken with
directly.
ummer 1993
Perhaps you think that I feel this way because I haven't had to put my beliefs to test. After all, it's really easy to say that you believe in one thing without realizing how different the scenario is when you are confronted with it yourself. Oh contraire, mon Jrere. One of my closest friends is bisexual and I watched him go through so much pain as he came out. Never have I felt so strongly that God loves everybody. I saw him discover that he was bisexual, then try to cover it up because society wouldn't accept him. I saw his struggle over whether or not to go to the campus bisexual group, worrying about whether or not his friends would reject him, whether people would look at him as an outcast, and whether he would be discriminated against. He went through one of the toughest times in his life. God was not against him; rather, God was the only one with him. You've read "The Footsteps of God?" Well, there you go.
I just want to say one last thing. I think if the Bible were to be written today it would be quite different. When the Bible was written, people didn't know that one was born with his or her sexuality. We are trying to overcome racism and sexism because we understand that race and gender are genetic. I hope that someday everyone will realize that people are who they are and that's that. If you have brown hair, you're just as good as a blonde. Ifyou like peaches you are no more a sinner than someone who likes broccoli. Ifyou are a gay, lesbian, or bisexual, you are as good as a heterosexual.
God loves you, and so do LT
Alison Graham is a member oj Wheadon United Methodist Church, a Reconciling Congregation, in Evanston, Illinois.
15
Lat11ettta ions 18
}/of tift O"t!-tJfJ ~o.v
My gut is wrenchirul.
I am devastated.
Why am I here?
I am dis·graced.
My lover died and I cannot share it.
I have apartner of 14 years, and I cannot share it.
Even now, I can feel mYSelf puttirul mYSelf on guard.
I stay in the church because I feel like that's where I need to be.
We celebrate that we can live our lives as much as we can.
Ws hard. But irs still there. The rough rocks no longer can hurt us.
We cannot celebrate our lives. We are invisible, silent. OUr tears wear away the roughedges
Unresolved grief. The rock becomes acomfort and astrerulth.
What we can't celebrate contaminates what we can. Where is the safe place to grieve?
We are sittirul at the bottom of a slag heaP. We have to accept the fact that we will always have to stru~le,
We are blinded to the slag heap of the church. to fight.
What can we do to keep it from coming down? Why do we have to fight for something that should be ours?
We have unknowingly added to the slag heaP.
Fon!iveness is different than saYirul··rm sorrY: '
T
he church has not asked for forgiveness.
Open Hands 16
(s there a lesson in pain?
The pain never leaves YOU.
We can never forget the pain.
Pain pushes us to action.
I( am a heterosexual woman and I·m angrY.
cannot know what it is like.
'm aru!rY and it just isn·t right.
feel guilt because I didn·t know.
I am angrY. Where is the God of Justice?
9maru!rY because rm lesbigay and I cannot speak. Vou, God. listen to my aru!er. did this in the name of Jesus Christ. makes YOU want to worship somebody else.
9 m still here because the church is my mother
'm not leaviru!.
m20nna stay in my mother·s face. IGod. YOU OPened my eyes to the unfairness. aru!rv at YOU. but now I know that YOU have stayed by me. me gay for a reason. t know why. but I know Ws true.
~f4~"'f"f"S
' "' (",.. di'
t/ie ~·~~~t
Words of Assurance
The steadfast 1Q.\le" ofGod never ceases. GodiSi'hler€ies never come to an·end: TheY".Clre .. ~iJ*:;f!i:'4RlI}" rriorning: . g:r,m\'faithfUlness. "GOO is m~POrtiOli~·· saYs nw soUl.
··therefotel wilt hoPe,in God."
Lamen~tiogs'i3~i~24
Written by Covenant Group 18 at the Third National Convocation of the Reconciling Congregation Movement, Washington, DC, July 1993. Group Leader: Donna Kay Campbell, Corydon, Iowa.
ummer 1993 17
Hospita e nterpretations of
Sodom and Gomorrah
Lindsay Louise Biddle
Literary Context
The book of Genesis ("beginnings") is the first of the five books (Pentateuch) comprising the Torah ("Law"). It can be divided into two parts: chapters 1-11 dealing with The traditions about the origins of the world and humankind, and chapters 12-50 dealing with stories of the patriarchs (fathers of the Hebrew people) and the descent into Egypt.
Chapter 19 is included in the story ofAbraham, the first patriarch. It comes from the ')" (YHWH) source, the oldest biblical literary tradition and one that views God's call of Israel in the perspective of God's purpose for humanity [Marks, pp. 1-3, Anders p.210]
Genesis 19: 1-11 succeeds Abraha intercession on behalf of his nep Lot and his family after Abraham hea God's plan to destroy Sodom an Gomorrah ( 18: 16-33) and precedes the flight of Lot, his wife, and two daughters from Sodom to Zoar (19: 12-23 and the destruction of the cities (19:2428).
Historical Context
Abraham is thought to have lived sometime during 2000-1900 B.C.E. Genesis 11 :27 shows Lot as the son of Abraham's brother Haran.
Sodom and Gomorrah were located near the Dead Sea, perhaps just to the east and south. Both cities were inhabited during most of the third millennium and in places perhaps into the early second millennium. [Achtemeier,
p. 974]
Cultural Context
The common understanding that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible is rooted in several brief passages the most well known and influent'~ being the story of Sodom in Gene_· 19. Although the word sodomy was u later to mean homosexual practices, Old (and New) Testament times r word existed for homosexuality, or ~ that matter for heterosexuality The cor.cept of sexual orientation was unknown. John Boswell points out that "None of the many Old Testament passages which refer to Sodom's wickedness suggests any homosexual offenses, and the rise of homosexual associations can be traced to social trends and literature of a much later period." [Boswell, pp. 92, 93]
To understand the story of Sodom, we need to know what cultural mean-
Open Hands 18
g both the writer and readers attached it. As we read the story we become 'are very quickly that the story is one
ot intended violence and gang rape of e guests in Lot's home. To understand the fuller meaning of story, however, we must go behind
o the customs and codes of honor manners of Lot's time. There we
O\'er that Lot was upholding a code spitality to the stranger: "When an resides with you in your land, you not oppress the alien. The alien ~esides with you shall be to you as itizen among you; you shall love
en as yourself; for you were aliens c land of Egypt: I am the Lord your ev. 19:33, NRSV). .~'"T·"nl Notes anners and faith follow one another in the story of Sodom and rrah. The first three verses outospitality requirements for surn a harsh land -lodging, foot ng, and dining. Lot does not of. 115 guests by asking their identity,
!iii
background, or purpose (the story assumes Lot does not know they are angels sent by God to rescue him and his family from the destruction of the cities ).
The men of Sodom exhibit bad belief and bad behavior by demanding to know the two strangers (19:4-5). Scholars interpret the verb yada, "know," differently. Boswell assumes little if any sexual inference. For Edwards, the verb refers to sexual activity, and denominational reports explain "know" as threatened gang rape. McNeill affirms the verb's double meaning. The men of Sodom certainly attempt to terrorize Lot's guests, and the sexual innuendo simply adds to the harassment. It is also worth noting that not only does the story denigrate women as sexual property, but several modern English versions abet this sexism in their descriptions of the daughters "who have never known a man" (v. 8, NRSV). The verb, "know" (v. 5, NRSV) used actively regarding Lot's male visitors, receives rather harsh moral interpretation: "know them carnally" (New King James Version), "rape them" (Living Bible), "have
sex with them" (New International Version) "abuse them" Oerusalem Bible). The same verb in passive form regarding his female children reflects little or
no moral judgment, respectively: "have not known a man" (NKJV), "virgin daughters" (LB), "have never slept with a man" (NIV), "are virgins" OB).
Jesus offers his opinion of the twin cities of doom when he warns his disciples, "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town" (Mt. 10: 14-15; d. Lk. 10: 10-12). Jesus surely knew the prophet Ezekiel's rendering of this divine judgment, "This was the guilt of your sister [city] Sodom; she and her daughters [cities] had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it" (16:49,50). Although 2 Peter 2:6-10 and Jude 1: 7 mention Sodom, Boswell and others hold that they do not refer to homosexuality .
Interpretation
ETIQUETTE AND RELIGION appear side by side in the Library of Congress system, and with good reason, for the way we treat one another reflects our beliefs.
ummer 1993 19
DOING THE "RITE" THING means more than applying correct table manners at the altar of sacrifice. It means embracing what Boswell terms a theoxony, a divine call to welcome the stranger. [Boswell p. 96] For Lot, it means offering his two daughters to appease the men of Sodom. (A friend of mine suggests that had this ploy worked, the men could not be truly homosexuals!) For us Christians, it means inviting all to the common table prepared by Jesus Christ who, during his ministry, lodged, washed feet, and broke bread with every kind of folk.
Note too that the punishment given the men of Sodom is blindness (19: 11). We no longer equate such physical or other challenges with sins even though the Old and New Testaments often do so. Nor do we define darker skin or femaleness as iniquities, as has been biblically supported in the past. However, strangely enough, the story of Sodom frequently gets used to promote homophobia and gay bashing; it almost never serves to condemn rape or misogyny or xenophobia. Using this tale about hospitality to preach hatred and practice exclusion of others is like using Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan as a basis for anti-Semitism or priest bashing -it misses the whole point of the story!
To GET it, we must cease equating sex with sin and (hetero)sexism with God's will for humanity. Let us instead remember our beliefs and actions with decency and grace and strive to overcome those 'sins of Sodom' outlined in Ezekiel that threaten to separate us from God, ourselves, each other, and our earth.T
References Achtemeier, Paul j., general editor. Harper's Bible Dictionary. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.
Anderson, Bernhard W Understanding the Old Testament. 3rd edition. Englewood Cliffs, Nj: PrenticeHall, Inc., 1975.
Boswell. John. Christianity, Social Tolerance,
and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press, 1980.
Edwards, George R. Gay, Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective. New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1984.
Marks, John H. "The Book of Genesis." Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible. Charles M. Layman, editor. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971 . pp. 1-32.
McNeill, John j. The Church and the Homosexual. 3rd edition. Boston: Beacon Press, 1988.
Lindsay Louise Biddle is a member oj the Twin Cities Area Presbytery and serves a church in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Open Hands 20
-god's Peculiar Rig6teoustless:
Utlcotlditiotlal-grace
Pick Poole
ary Context Book of Romans is a letter from e apostle Paul to the Christian nity in Rome. It is public correonce intended to be read in the
~~.~.i.lluunity's public worship, as op'0 private correspondence (such emon) limited to sender and reletter
begins with a greeting -), followed by a major segment 320) which focuses on the unusness of humanity. In 3:21 the ifts to God's peculiar righteous'ealed in Jesus Christ, a righ.ess based not on works but on ness. In chapters 4-8 Paul offers .entary on this peculiar righteoususing as illustrations Abraham,
and Christ, baptism, marriage, rth. In chapters 9-11 he struggles he fact ofIsrael's unbelief and the quent place ofIsrael in God's plan
. 'ation, continuing to demonstrate s peculiar righteousness. Chapters _ _5 include Paul's exhortation to his rs to live lives manifesting the righness of God revealed in Jesus
t. He concludes in chapter 16 with
mer 1993
personal greetings, final instructions, and a doxology
The particuiar verses with which we are dealing (1:26-27) come at the beginning of the letter shortly after the keynote (v. 17) and in the beginning of the illustration of the unrighteousness/ unfaithfulness of humanity. Through his use of rhetoric Paul is drawing his readers to the conclusion in 3:20 that "no human being will be justified in [God's] Sight by deeds prescribed by the law" and is thus preparing his readers for the "explosion" of God's righteousness in 3:21.
Historical Context
Paul was first and foremost a pastor, a missionary proclaiming the gospel where others had not yet done so. However, for centuries he was understood, not as a pastor, but as a "systematic theologian" whose writings were seen as theological treatises for the teaching of the gospel for all times in all situations. Only around the turn of the last century did scholars begin to see that Paul's purpose was not to be systematically consistent and precise, but rather to speak to the specific issues of specific Christian believers living in specific communities at specific times.
A fair amount is known about Paul, (originally Saul), from the coastal city of Tarsus, a Jew with rabbinic training, and also a Roman citizen. As Saul, he was zealous in his commitment to Judaism, to the point of persecuting early Christians, but his conversion refocused his zealousness to proclamation of the Christian gospel. His ministry became a ministry to the Gentiles and his name changed to Paul, reflecting his Roman background and connectedness with the Gentiles.
In his mission to the Gentiles Paul traveled much in the forties and fifties
C .E. throughout Asia Minor (Turkey), Greece. and Macedonia, preaching the gospel and organizing communities of believers. He also wrote letters to those communities, encouraging them in their continuing faithfulness to the gospel, speaking pastorally to their problematic issues, and challenging them when they seemed to be moving away from the gospel.
Paul's letter to the Romans, most probably written in the spring of 55 or 56 C .E., is unique because it was written to a community which he had never visited. It served as a letter of introduction in preparation for a visit he wanted to make to Rome on his way to Spain. The Christian community in Rome to whom he wrote was probably predominantly Gentile Christian, though Jewish Christians were likely a minority presence.
Cultural Context
Although verses 26 and 27 in chapter 1 make reference to sexual behavior, we must be careful to avoid putting the terms homosexual, gay, or lesbian into Paul's thought. "Sexual orientation" is a modern concept, one with which Paul would be completely unfamiliar. Richard Hays notes: ".. . the usual supposition of writers during the Hellenistic period was that homosexual behavior was the result of insatiable lust seeking novel and more challenging forms of self-gratification." [Hayes, p. 2001
To understand the cultural context of this passage in Romans, one must examine the secular Greco-Roman world, Hellenistic Judaism, and PalestinianJudaism. Paul's own cultural context for this passage is Hellenistic Judaism, influenced by the Greco-Roman world -though certainly he was conversant with the Palestinian Judaism centered in Jerusalem. [See Scroggs, chs. 2-6]
Greco-Roman culture was highly maledominated, such that all meaningful
21
discourse occurred between males; in general, women were not present at the banquets or the symposia or in the educational centers. Normal male-male relationships were between an older and a younger, with the older taking the active role as educational mentor, teacher, sexual aggressor, giver of gifts. The younger (generally pre-pubescent or just into puberty) was the passive partner whose function sexually was to gratify the other, but not generally to be gratified sexually in return. The term describing this sort of relationship was "pederasty" or "lover of boys."
Palestinian Judaism, both in its Aramaic translations of Scripture and in the early rabbinic commentaries on
these translations, opposed homosexual activity, though saying little about it. The perspective was that such activity was practiced among Gentiles, not among Jews. However, some rabbis, seemingly aware of the potential for Jewish males to engage in this "Gentile activity" sought to protect them from such temptation which would transgress the Torah/Law by establishing certain limits, such as that a man with no wife may not be a teacher of children, thus preventing the Greco-Roman practice of pederasty connected with education.
Hellenistic Judaism , represented by the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and especially the commentators Philo and Josephus, was hostile to homosexual behavior and viewed it excluSively as a Gentile (non-Jewish) practice. Philo (a contemporary of Paul's) in his comments clearly was referring to the practice of pederasty with its active and passive partners. He was especially vehement in his condemnation of the passive partner. He deriSively labeled
such persons androgynous (literally, "male-female"). His hostility stemmed from two sources: first, that both active and passive homosexual activity was "against nature" (para phusin); and second, that this activity was against the Hebrew Law which prohibits the wasting of semen divinely intended for procreation. [Scroggs, p. 89]
The reference in Rom. 1:26 to women is culturally more problematic. Except for this one mention, the Bible is silent on woman-woman sexual activity. In addition, Greco-Roman literature has few references to female homosexual activity. [Scroggs, pp. 140-144] In rabbinic literature there is only one mention of female homosexual behavior, which focused on the question of whether or not it constituted loss of virginity. Two houses of rabbis in the discussion split on their decision.
Scroggs notes that "from a legal perspective, female homosexuality was of little interest, and . . . not taken with much seriousness." [Scroggs, p. 80]
Textual Notes
Verses 26-27 illustrate for Paul the unrighteousness of humankind, as do the other behaviors listed before and after them. Paul is not denouncing selected pagan vices; he is describing in "mythico-historical categories" humanity's alienation from God the Creator; he is offering a "diagnosis of the human
Open Hands 22
ndition." [Hayes, p. 190; Kasemann,
47]
The peculiar element of this section
"omans is how God's wrath is dem"rated. The wrath of God is not -played upon persons as a result of r worshiping idols or degrading their . es or being "filled with every kind ·;ckedness, evil, etc." (1:29). Rather,
.\Tath of God is the result of ankind's forgetting of God the CrelUmanity's ignorance and unfaith~
ss. Thus, the female and male ho-exual behavior described in verse _ItS simply one illustration of Paul's
n of the fall of humanity. .e various behaviors Paul describes
be "abominations" to both Helc and Palestinian jewish readers. 'er, the term "abomination" (see __ us 18:22; 20: 13) "does not sigmething intrinsically evil, like r theft . .. but something which is ll:' unclean for jews, like eating r engaging in intercourse during ·mation ..." [Boswell, p. 100] m Countryman likewise notes Paul thought homosexual inter__ was filthy and disgusting, but not think it was sinful or that people should necessarily share ew." Questions of purity are "a ~ of individual conscience and cane imposed on other people." [The 'ldent] Countryman's appraisal is on his reading of Romans l4: l4: . \' and am persuaded in the Lord
"hat nothing is unclean in itself; s unclean for anyone who thinks ean" (NRSV). I'H#ornyetation
ertainly, Paul was pejorative in his lustrations; he was neither neuor affirming of the homosexual r-h~;or he found in his world. But exactly was it that he was speakainst? Scroggs makes an excelse for the fact that Paul was speak-against the pederastic practices on in the Greco-Roman world in ay. Scroggs also suggests that Paul ed women in this text as a way of nstrating the equality of women
e false world, since such equalit~.· ~ n the new creation. [Ser,
mmer 1993
It is also crucial to see verses 26-27 in the context of what precedes and what follows them. In chapter one, Paul draws the reader (especially a jewish reader who has Gentiles in mind) to that very judgmental place of thinking "Yes, indeed, those who do these things are horrible and should die!" (see 1:32). But then there is that rhetorical hook in
2: 1: "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself . .." [italics mine]
Paul's intent in chapter one is NOT to pass judgment on others; that is God's responsibility. Rather, Paul's intent in 1:18-3:20 is to demonstrate that all humanity is fallen and is separate from God's righteous desire for creation. And we cannot by our own doing rectify that situation. Verse 21 of chapter 3 then radically shifts the attention away from humanity's unrighteousness to God's peculiar righteousness that justifies the unjust, makes right the unrighteous. God does what humanity cannot do.
Paul's emphaSiS is not on the moral condition of human beings (heterosexual or homosexual), but rather on the absolute fallenness of all humanity and on the unconditional graciousness of the Creator in making all thing new. I suspect Paul would be incredibly saddened by the enormous energy expended these days on 1:26-27, while humanity languishes in its blindness to the focus of this book.
One of my favorite theologians, and I believe the best commentator on this whole section of Romans, is Shug in Alice Walker's The Color Purple. Shug speaks to Celie of her understanding of God, that God made everything, loves everything "it" made, and wants human beings to love everything, too. Indeed, "it pisses God off" when someone walks by the color purple without admiring it.
So, what does God do when God gets pissed off? Well, says Shug, God "make something else." Then Shug explains that
"People think pleasing God is all God care about. But any fool li\ing in the world can see it [God] always trying to please us back." [Walker, pp. 203, 204]
It pisses God off when we stumble around in our darkness, seeing clearly neither the Creator nor the creation. So, what does God do when God gets pissed off? God makes a new creation. What a strange and peculiar God this is!
What a wondrously gracious God this is! For in this new creation all who are unrighteous are made righteous (how exactly, I do not know), all who are blind are made to see. Humanity is not stuck in the cycle of its ignorance. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are no longer at issue; the incredibly gracious -and absolutely free -love of God as revealed in jesus Christ is offered. Will we accept it? Will the church accept it?T
References
Boswell, John . Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: University oj Chicago Press, 1980.
Hays, Richard B. "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis oj Romans 1." Journal of Religious Ethics. 14/1 (1986) 184-215.
Kasemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980.
Scroggs, Robin. The New Testament and Homosexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
Walker, Alice. The Color Purple. New York: Pocket Books, 1982.
The Independent (London, April 22, 1992). Quoted by Advent, April-September 1992,
p. 5, Jrom More Light Update.
Dick Poole is a Lutheran pastor who does
spiritual direction at the Claret Center in the Hyde Park area oj Chicago and participates in Resurrection Lutheran Church in Oak Forest, where his wife is pastor.
_3
The Great Commandments
According to Mark.9s Jesus
Arnold Isidore Thomas
Literary Context
Often regarded as the "Second Gospel," Mark provides the earliest written account of the apostolic tradition concerning the ministry of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark is a major point of reference for the gospels of Matthew and Luke in constructing their frames of knowledge about the works ofJesus. This reliance has caused Matthew and Luke to be linked with Mark as "Synoptic Gospels" or gospels that share a "common view" (synoptikos in Greek) ofJesus' life and ministry. Matthew and Luke employed other common and independent sources for their respective accounts of Jesus, but the great commandments are featured, with variation, in all three gospels, and Mark is clearly the eldest Christian voice among them.
The Gospel of Mark is divided into five parts: 1) The baptism and temptation ofJesus (1: 1-13); 2) Jesus' ministry in Galilee (1:14-9:50); 3) his journey to Jerusalem (ch. 10); 4) the last weeks of his life, including his death and burial (chs. 11-15); and 5) the resurrection (16:1-8). [Metzer, p. 47 NT] The great commandments saying falls within the final weeks of Jesus' life. It follows his rebuke of the Sadducees concerning levirate marriage (12:18-27) and precedes his rejection of the notion that the Messiah is the Son of David and his denouncement of the scribes (1 2:3540).
One cannot be certain if Mark has placed the great commandments saying in its accurate context. In Mark the scribe who asks the question seems friendly, unlike the lawyer in Matthew who, with other Pharisees, "conspired against him." (Mt. 22:35) The incidents preceding and following the saying are similar in Mark and Matthew, but Luke has employed this saying to furnish a narrative prelude to the parable of the Good Samaritan. The different moods and settings of this saying prove that contextual accuracy was not a major focus of the Synoptic writers.
Historical Context
The author of Mark remains a mystery. The most popular assumption claims that he was John Mark, a follower of Paul and Barnabus mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 12:25). The gospel was written in Greek for Greek-speaking Gentile Christians, as indicated by the author's need to explain Hebrew terms and customs. It was probably written around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. This tragic event in the life of Israel and the early church, along with the persecution of Christians under Emperor Nero, most likely inspired the apocalyptic vision of chapter 13. The purpose of the gospel was to encourage Christians to remain strong in their faith during this period of crisis and persecution, and to assure them that God's judgment was imminent.
The author was a Jewish Christian writing in a time when Christianity was swiftly losing its Jewish identity and becoming more Gentile in character and makeup. Robert Funk adds that Mark "develops a sharp polemic against unbelieving Jews, which suggests that Judaism and Christianity are in the process of separating." [Funk, p. 28]
The historical context of Mark is therefore far removed (by forty to fifty years) from the life and historical setting ofJesus. The priority of Mark deals with the faith and perseverance of persecuted Christians and not the presentation of the historical Jesus.
UnderstandingJesus as an historical figure is not an easy assignment. The reality of this charismatic Jewish reformer is shrouded in the faith testimony of a church that sees Judaism as its adversary. The Synoptic Gospels may share a common view, but they don't always speak as one voice concerning the life, death, and resurrection ofJesus. Still, there are indisputable facts we gain from biblical and extra-biblical sources about Jesus. These facts confirm thatJesus was a GalileanJew, baptized by John the Baptist, who traveled throughout Palestine preaching and healing; that he called disciples and was embroiled in controversy about the temple; that he was . crucified outside
Jerusalem by Roman authorities; and that after his death his followers continued as an identifiable movement. [Sanders, p. 11] Sanford Lowe elaborates that
Jesus
"emerged as a feisty, earthy and
life-affirming preacher of hope to
the dirt poor and the oppressed,
to those who may have lost all
hope in living . . . What was the
dangerous message he preached?
. Jesus sought to affirm the
Open Hands 24
spontaneous fullness of life as everyone's birthright, especially for the downtrodden and the poor. His message frequently expressed a 'quiet confidence in the plenitude of creation' and our unbreakable connection to the
ource of life." [Lowe, p. 5]
esus was not a separatist seeking .. creation of a new religion, but a rmer who sought to change his faith Hion from within. He was a Jew worshiped in the synagogue and ryed Jewish customs and laws. Yet etimes he deviated from the norm igious observance when he felt the .i. .. .mandments of his faith lacked the of divine intent (Mk. 2: 15-28) . this in mind, let us attempt to
erstand the religious tradition from hJesus answered the question conmg the greatest commandments.
~tual Notes
-us believed that the greatest comandments were a combination of Shema ("Hear") of Deuteronomy nd the law of neighborly love from . icus 19:18. This combination may \... been unique to Jesus' understandof Torah, but the favorable response e scribe suggests a familiarity both nd Jesus shared with a preferred .tion of rabbinic instruction that
tened the load of the law.
Sherman Johnson states: "The raboved to make aphorisms summing he heart of religion, . .. and there much discussion as to which were weightiest commandments. One i told how Moses gave 613 comdments, but David reduced them even (Ps. 15:1-5), Isaiah to six (Isa. 5), Micah to three (Mic. 6:8), Amos '0 (A.m. 5:4), and Habakkuk to one
. 2:4)." Uohnson, p. 523]
esus himself may have been influ-ed by Hillel. This acclaimed Jewish '""her, and contemporary of Jesus, mmed up the law in his response to mquiring Gentile who desired a cone statement as to the essence ofJudaT'
1. Hillel replied, "What you would . have done to yourself, do not to d ur neighbor; that is the whole Torah,
all the rest is commentary." usner, p. 64]
-ummer 1993
Cultural Context
The predominant and overarching ethic of the Bible is that of love for God and neighbor. According to Walter Wink, this love ethic "is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in a given country, culture or period." [Wink, p. 1085] Israel and the church's love for God, and God's reciprocal love for them, determined who was their neighbor and how they would relate to the world around and within them. One's neighbor was considered an equal worthy of respect and fair treatment. Since Israel saw itself as a chosen people separated by God from the rest of the world to be a holy nation, neighborly love was first understood as an exclusive right reserved for male Jews (Deut. 15:1-3). This commandment was extended by the Holiness Code of Hospitality to foreigners dwelling in Jewish households. It stated that, "The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as a native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God" (Lev. 19:34, RSV).
The Bible seldom deems women equal to men. Jewish women were considered undeserving of neighborly love (as evident in Gen. 19:8 andJudg. 19:24). Their purpose was to marry, have children, and serve their husbands. Though they were treated as property of their fathers and husbands, Jewish women, by law, were favored over foreign women as wives .
Israel's low regard for foreigners, especially during and following the exile, fueled the hatred of its leaders for marriages to foreigners (Ezra 9:1-3; Neh. 10:28-30; 13:23-30). But try as it did, Israel could not rid itself of the fondness many of its natives had for foreign mates. Hating the foreigner became an increasingly difficult task for the Jewish male when the foreigner was his wife, mother-in-law, or father-in-law. While some biblical writers frowned on such relationships, others lauded them as obvious ways God was extending the borders of neighborly love. Yet despite numerous actions to the contrary, this marital prohibition endured and was actively enforced during the life ofJesus.
It is important to remember that the great commandments are products of a culture and theological perspective that condoned racism (Ex. 32:2; In. 4:9), slavery (Lev. 25:44-46; Eph. 6:5-9), and the silencing and debaSing of women
25
(l Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:12-15). But such was also the culture and theological perspective from which the Constitution of the United States was created. As the rights of our Constitution were gradually amended to reflect the more inclusive mind of a more diverse American population, so evolved the understanding of the great commandments.
The gradually favorable impressions Israel and the church had of the world around them influenced the creation of an amended interpretation of their love for God and neighbor. Though Abraham prevented his son Isaac from marrying a Canaanite (Gen. 24:3),judah, Isaac's grandson, freely married the daughter of Shua, a Canaanite (Gen. 38:2). Though Moabites were denied access to the assembly of the lord (Deut. 23:3), Ruth, a Moabite, married Boaz and became the great grandmother of Israel's greatest monarch -King David. While the anger of Israel burned against foreigners during the exile, Esther, a Jew, married Ahasuerus, king of the Persian Empire, and her influence saved her people from annihilation (Est. 7: 1-10). Though Jews were not to associate with Samaritans, Jesus spoke to a Samaritan woman at Jacob's well, and her testimony about him made her the first evangel of the gospel On. 4). When, in the Gospel of luke, the lawyer asked
Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?", Jesus answered with the parable of the good Samaritan who comes to the aid of a Jew (lk. 10:29-37). Such words and actions endorsed the belief of Isaiah that God accepts all "foreigners who join themselves to the lord," for God's house "shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples" (Isa. 56:6,7).
These cross-cultural examples of neighborly love, sadly, did not extend to embrace gay men and lesbians by the time the Bible was compiled. The hatred the Bible displays toward homosexual behavior is a hatred of heterosexuals assumed to have lapsed into a sinfulness associated with foreign cult prostitution (Deut. 23: 17). The biblical writers had no concept of homosexuality as an orientation formed in-utero. They believed that everyone was divinely created and intended to be heterosexual, and any deviation from this procreative norm was considered ungodly (lev. 18:22, 20: 13; Rom. 1:2627). Yet the inability, or unwillingness, to procreate was, in fact, the condition of another formerly ostracized group of people -eunuchs.
Because of their different sexual orientation and "disability" (due to sterility or castration), eunuchs were believed to be cursed by God and, like Moabites, were excluded from the assembly of the lord (Deut. 23:1). But Isaiah once again countered this intolerance with the belief that God promises full acceptance of eunuchs who are faithful to God's covenant (lsa. 56:4). Furthermore, Jesus acknowledged, in deference to eunuchs, that heterosexual marriage vows do not apply to all people (Mt. 19:11-12), thus removing the taint of sin and divine curse from one's inability or unwillingness to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28).
Interpretation
Many would argue that if lesbian and gay men were willing to refrain from sexual activity, like eunuchs, they too would be tolerated. They might even add that it is not only homosexual affection that offends them, but also the nonprocreative "waste" of male semen (Gen. 38:9-10). This opinion would surely place them in a diminishing class ' by themselves. In an overpopulated world where millions of people are dying from lack of food , nourishment, medical care, and hOUSing, I doubt that many people would mind if a male sperm were directed to places other than the female egg (like a condom, for instance).
The borders of neighborly love need to be further extended. It is unfortunate that Christians, who have already rejected biblical sanctions for slavery and misogyny, fail to comprehend that biblical homophobia is based upon a similar sanction of uninformed and unneighborly prejudice.
Jesus desired to know a person's relation to God by being in personal relationship with that individual. He sought to counter the prejudice of his society by being with individuals and people, on a first-hand basis, who were the objects of prejudice -women (lk. 10:38-42), tax collectors and sinners (Mt. 11: 19), lepers (lk. 17: 11-19), foreigners, eunuchs, and others outside the "in-crowd." He knew that his ministry of personal contact with the untouchables of his society would cause division and upset the faith and families of many who followed after him (Mt. 10:34-39).
Gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals are the untouchables of our society, and our unneighborly attitudes toward them are sanctioned by biased biblical perceptions. I believe that God's word, while inherent in Scripture, is not confined to it. Neither is it bound by the bias of ancient or modern culture. God's word, expressed in the commandments of love for God and neighbor, speaks to us in every time and place. It guides us in every context of our life in relation to others. It challenges our complacent assumptions of those we fear with reminder that God's house "shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples" (lsa.
56:7). And it cautions us: "Those who do not love do not know God" (1 In. 4:8) ....
References
Funk, Robert W, editor. The Gospel ofMark: Red Letter Edition. Sonoma: Polebridge Press (the Jesus Seminar Selies), 1991,
Johnson, Sherman . The Gospel According to St. Matthew. Vol. 7: The Interpreter's Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 1951. Gohnson provides the introduction and exegeSiS)
Lowe, Sanford. "The Significance of the Work of the Jesus Seminar for Judaism." The Fourth R, Guly 1992):1-9.
Metzgel~ Bruce M. and Murphy, Roland E, editors. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV). New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Neusner, Jacob. Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1984.
Sanders, E P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Wink, Walter. "Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality."Christian Century (November 7, 1979):1085
Arnold Isidore Thomas is pastor oj the First Congregational Church in Williamstown, Massachusetts -an Open and AJJirming Church.
Open Hands 26
E BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY
following resources offer a moderate to liberal view.]
I, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chi0:
University of Chicago Press, 1980.
en, Bernadette J. "Paul's Views on the Nature of Women and ....emale Homoeroticism." In Immaculate and Powerful: The Female '1 Sacred Image and Social Reality. Edited by C . W. Atkinson et al.
'T'he Harvard Women's Studies in Religion Series. Boston: Beacon ress, 1985, pp. 61-87. [Looks at ancient texts -secular and relious -where lesbian relationships are discussed.)
ntr>'man, William L. Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the ~'ew Testament and Their Implications for Today. Philadelphia: .Fortress Press, 1988.
rds, George R. Gay /Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective. -e\\' York: Pilgrim Press, 1984.
l"lsh, Victor Paul. "Homosexuality" In Harper's Bible Dictionary. EdIted by P. J. Achtemeier et al. San Francisco: Harper &: Row, 1985,
402 .
_.sh, Victor Paul. "Homosexuality" In The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues. 2nd ed., rev. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985, pp. -2-82.
sh, Victor Paul. "Understanding Homosexuality in the Bible's Cultural Particularity" The Circuit Rider 15/10:10-11, 12.
scheid, John, booklet editor. Christians and Homosexuality -A Discussion of Biblical and Ethical Issues. Updated Edition. Published ,. The Other Side, 300 W. Apsley St., Philadelphia, PA 19144. $5.
.:oni, Letha and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. Is the Homosexual My "cighbor? Another Christian View. San Francisco: Harper &: Row, -~. [Revised edition will be available January 1994.)
s, Robin. The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
3
. Bishop John Shelby. Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. arperSanFrancisco, 1991.
following resources offer a conservative view.]
ser, Frederick J. "Homosexuality and the Old Testament." Word and World 10 (1990):161-65.
-. Richard B. "Awaiting the Redemption of Our Bodies." Sojourners ~ll)' 1991): 17-21.
Hays, Richard B. "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans l." Journal of Religious Ethics 14/1 (1986):184-215.
Seamands, David A "A Common Thread of Opposition to Homosexuality Runs Through the Bible." The Circuit Rider 15/10:8-9, 12.
SELECTED COMMENTARIES FOR BIBLE STUDY On the Whole Bible
Guthrie, D. and J . A Motyer, editors. The New Bible Commentary: Revised. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970. [Written from the "unqualified belief in (the Bible's) divine inspiration"; a conservative resource.)
Mays, James L. et aI., editors. Harper's Bible Commentary. San Francisco: Harper &: Row, 1988. [Produced in collaboration with the Society of Biblical Literature. Highly recommended .)
Newsom, Carol A and Sharon H. Ringe, editors. The Women's Bible Commentary. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992. [Focuses especially on passages and themes which bear in some way on feminist issues.)
On Genesis
Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching_ Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis: A Commentary. 3 Volumes·[chs. 1-11,1236,37-50, respectively). Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1984-86.
On Matthew
Harrington, Daniel J ., SJ . The Gospel of Matthew. Sacra Pagina . Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991.
Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Matthew. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975.
On Mark
Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Juel, Donald H. Mark. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1990.
On Romans
Achtemeier, Paul J . Romans. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.
Ziesler, John. Paul's Letter to the Romans. Trinity Press International New Testament Commentaries. Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989.
~~mmer 1993 27
Editor:
I have just read your Fall 1992 Open Hands. It is very impressive. Congratulations on all you have been doing in recent years, and on being joined by additional denominational groups.
I have been at Kirkridge now for 18 1/2 years, and for most of those years we have publicly welcomed gay and lesbian people at our events ... We salute your work in the confidence that the hearts and minds of people within the denominations will open and that gay and lesbian people will finally be welcomed fully into the family of the Church as they already are into the family of God, and courage and every blessing to you.
Robert A Raines
Director, Kirkridge, Bangor, PA
Editor: .. . I am concerned about the attitude I see and hear from gays and lesbians regarding their place in the church.
If gays and lesbians leave the church, how can people like me convince congregations that we are lessened by the leaving? ... I can understand the desire to leave, but don't people realize how hard it is to make change from within a system if the very people the changes are deSigned to help are no longer around?
I would urge your readers and your writers to discover ways in which we can all work to bring the kingdom a little closer.
Charles J . Alkula
Landover Hills, MD
Editor: I am writing to you to request your assistance in my efforts relating to a human rights issue.
In defiance of an international human rights treaty to which it is subject, Bermuda maintains on its statute-books a law (Section 175 et seq. of the Bermuda Penal Code) that criminalizes homosexual conduct between males, even when that conduct occurs between consenting adults .. .
While the major Christian denominations present on the island have manifested their desire to see the law rescinded, the African Methodist Episcopal Church does not. This Church counts among its members fully one-third of Bermuda's black citizens and enjoys enormous influence with the island's Government and population .
. . . please consider communicating with the clergy (and laity) of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Bermuda and urge their prayerful reconsideration of their position.
William A Courson
Bloomfield, NJ
Editor:
I just finished reading the winter issue of "Open Hands". It's a fine publication, but please allow me one minor dissent. [Mark Bowman] states that heterosexual allies expend their energy proving that lesbians and gay men "can't help being who they are." (Winter 1993, pp 6-7) I suggest that is not the most objective way of expressing the reality of gay sexual orientation. I feel it can more accurately be said that gay sexual orientation is not just some sort of casual preference it
is instead an intrinsic part of each individual ...
Martin Matson
Lincoln City, OR
Editor:
With all due respect, I found your description of the "exgay" or "transforming" ministries to be incomplete or lacking in objectivity. (Winter 1993, page 11) You mention the "personal pain and trauma for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who have diligently tried" changing their behavior or orientation. This sounds like all this change is the sole work-
drudgery at that -of the man or woman contemplating such a change, rather than the work of the Holy Spirit with that person's cooperation, as well as the support of a committed ministry or church community ...
Secondly, you state that "these (transforming) churches require that changing one's behavior is a condition for acceptance into the church". Is that true? I read (in Transforming Congregation material) of "a love for homosexual persons persons
of sacred worth who bear the wounds of fallen humanity and need the sexual healing only Christ can bring." From that statement, I don't picture someone being unequivocally barred from membership, but I don't know for sure . ..
Linda L. Scisson
Little Rock, AR
Editor:
I want to congratulate you on the Winter 1993 edition of Open Hands. What an excellent issue! We've ordered a dozen copies for use in our work here in the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference and I'm sure we'll want more soon ...
Michael Spencer
Simple Justice, Seattle, WA
Open Hands 28
, tle",:;e:ttf Ne~f
• wt.i1it-:s '""': :. Xl; (\'
elcome New Churches . :ine more churches have jOined the menical welcoming movement in the ,\" months.
'HECO
CIUNG~
aith UMC
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Faith UMC is a closely knit commu" of 75 members with an emphasis or. learning and growing together as Christian community. A weekly Bible udy and a dialogue time after the rmon provide key growth opportuni. Active in many prophetic minises, Faith was the first "sanctuary ,urch" in Iowa and has been involved a "Going Home" project accompany-refugees back to EI Salvador. After reliminary discussion and a visit by .e RCP coordinator, Faith moved kly to become a Reconciling Con:egation because it was consistent with identity and ministry of the congre'
Ion.
--MOREUG:J
Gibson Heights Presbyterian Church
Louis, Missouri
Gibson Heights' session adopted a
olution welcoming all people into
e church as fully participating memrs,
with both the opportunity and the responsibility for ordination should they be elected to leadership positions, regardless of sexual orientation. According to the clerk of the session, Bonnie MontIe, "We celebrate diversity in our church. An all-inclusive church embraces race, ethnic groups, gender, age, education, economic status, physical or mental challenge, and marital status -we meet this criterion."
Palisades Presbyterian Church
Palisades, New York
"In our hearts, we at Palisades Presbyterian Church have been part of the More Light movement for many years. Now we have made it official," states Jack Hoffmeister) chair of the church's More Light Task Force.
This small-town congregation, northwest of New York City, is comprised of families, conventional and unconventional. Members include a variety of persons -scientists, actors, business people, teachers, and others -and lots of kids. Gay people have always been included, a distinguished but indistinguishable part of the church family.
Several years ago, when a gay member was nominated for elder, the "definitive gUidance" threatened to disrupt Palisades' tranquil association with the Presbyterian Church (U.s.A). Instead of choosing another elder, the session left a place open for cause for three years. Last year) in response to the denial of the Rev. Janie Spahr's call to Downtown Presbyterian in Rochester, the session decided unanimously to become a More Light Church.
Takoma Park Presbyterian Church
Takoma Park, Maryland
During a mission study three years ago, Tacoma Park recognized the need to determine whether its diversity would include gay or lesbian members. Located in a nuclear-free-zone community bordering Washington, D.C., the church already housed a Central American refugee center and child development center. The congregation also expressed its commitment to justice through a sister parish in Nicaragua and a developing ministry in the area of affordable housing.
The session of this congregation, whose members come from at least eighteen different nations and are drawn together because of their enjoyment of God's gift of diversity, spent a day wrestling with this new aspect of inclusiveness. A small committee drafted a More Light declaration which the session adopted and presented to the congregation. Following educational events and a congregational forum, the session voted to become a More Light Church last February.
VanBrunt BoulevardPresbyterian Church
Kansas City, Missouri
"Sometimes the Spirit helps a congregation come together and do the right thing!" says Kirk Perucca, pastor, about becoming More Light. The session of this small, multi-racial, urban congregation, predominately made up of older, blue-collar folks, adopted its More Light statement unanimously.
"Becoming More Light has given us new life!" Kirk states. "It has helped us connect with the community in more ways than evangelism efforts have in the past. Honestly, this is the best gift this church could ever receive!"
&..T~"'~T~
"T...T...T"
OPEN
--If--
L AffiRMING :J
CONGREGATIONS
....a&..
T~"'~T~
..T.......T..
OPEN AND AFFIRMING
Central Congregational Church
Topeka, Kansas
Although Central's membership peaked in the 1960s (at more than 1,000 members), its enthusiasm hasn't peaked yet! Its 525 members have been inten-
ummer 1993 29
tional about extending hospitality to everyone, its Open and Affirming vote being one expression. Through Central's large building in the inner city, space is offered to groups including the Topeka Center for Peace and justice, the Kansas chapter of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, a tutoring program for inner city youth, a low-income day care center, and the Gay/Lesbian Task Force of Topeka where the pastor is a board member. Recently, members of the church helped bring the AIDS Memorial Quilt to Topeka, which raised $30,000 for AIDS
service in the area.
New Hope Church of Sonoma UCC Sonoma, California
This small church of 12 adult members and 12 children is located in the middle of California's wine country. When begun three years ago, it was deliberately organized as a peace and justice congregation. New Hope has made a commitment to economic justice by deciding to give away half of the church's income (from all sources). These funds support "hands on projects" like the work of an Hispanic bilingual organization. In the fall, the congregation will continue to discern new directions for its ministries!
Pakachoag Church Auburn, Massachusetts
A suburban, central Massachusetts congregation that has grown and diversified recently, Pakachoag attracts folks seeking Christian community and freedom to explore the challenges of faith and ministry. Its programs include the Pakachoag Church AIDS Support Group and the Pakachoag Community Music School. With great joy and gratitude, it recently dedicated a new church building which includes flexible sanctuary space, offices, meeting areas, etc. Eventually this will be the congregation's new church home and the original building will be used for expanded outreach. Members continue to discuss ways that the church might live its ONA commitment and help other churches interested in the ONA process.
University Congo Church UCC
Missoula, Montana
Located in a community of 50,000,
this 101-year-old church has 360 members and a large, active church school. Being in "Big Sky Country," the church knows a lot about "mios" -ministries in open spaces! Hoping to broaden the UCC presence in this expansive area, University Church is considering giving leadership to start a new church in Kalispell (north of Missoula). University Church lost and gained some members after its ONA vote and also has more gay/lesbian people attending. The pastor believes theirs is the only church in Montana of any denomination (other -than UFMCC) to have made a "welcoming" statement. That makes them pretty unique in that part of the country!.
Sexuality Still Controversial for Presbyterian General Assembly
The 205th General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church (USA), meeting
june 2-9 in Orlando, Florida, proved
once again that sexuality is controversial
whatever the issue.
The majority of overtures addressing
the "definitive gUidance" that prohibits
the ordination of "unrepentant,
self-avowed, practicing homosexuals"
made their way to the Committee on
Human Sexuality. After hearing many
hours of personal testimonies offered
by persons from a wide variety of perspectives
on homosexuality, the committee
recommended a three-year
churchwide study and dialogue.
Despite several attempts at amendments,
the Assembly voted 396-155-7
to adopt the committee's report. It states
that the current "authoritative interpretation"
(new phrase replacing "definitive
guidance") of the Constitution prohibits
the ordination of openly
homosexual members as deacons, elders,
or ministers. It strongly urges each
presbytery to study issues of human
sexuality, particularly relating to church
members, ministry, and ordination and
to report their results to the 208th General
Assembly in 1996. And it leaves governing bodies to decide how gay, lesbian, and bisexual members can openly participate in the studies without jeopardizing their positions in the church.
During the Committee on Human Sexuality's report, newly elected moderator, David Dobler, invited gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons to address the Assembly for twelve minutes. About fifty members, deacons, elders, ministers, family members, and supporters stood on the stage and began introducing themselves to the 700 commissioners and just as many visitors. The presentation ended with a brief statement by the Rev. janie Spahr, and the audience responded with a standing ovation.
After the committee's report was approved, several dozen people who had earlier been on stage, demonstrated their anger and frustration. They walked among the commissioners singing, 'Jesus Loves Me" and "We Are a Gentle, Angry People" and chanting "You study us to death!" "How long, 0 church, how long?" and "Lift the ban!" Several commissioners and visitors stood in solidarity with the protestors.
In other business, the Assembly voted 334-166 to approve the Consultation on Church Union (COCU) despite some commissioners' fears that the church would be forced to recognize the ordination by other denominations of openly homosexual persons. During the report of the Committee on Worship and Sacraments, the Assembly voted against an overture to amend The Book of Order's Directory of Worship to prohibit ministers from participating in the holy unions of same-sex couples. The Assembly approved the Committee on Social Witness Policy's report that calls for the repeal of Colorado's Amendment 2 and that urges President Clinton and Congress to end discrimination based upon sexual orientation in the military. At the same time, the Assembly rejected a commissioner's resolution that would have urged sessions to examine the current Boy Scout policy prohibiting gay youth from joining troops housed in their churches .•
Open Hands 30
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
'T#
: Reconciling Congregations Gather for Third Convocation
•
The theme "Borne on the Breath
of God" captured the buoyant spirit ~
nd enthusiasm of the third naVa-
n \~~
nal convocation of United Meth~
~v· ) J)
~~
Reconciling Congregations
"The convocation drew 278
-,,~J
~~mbers and friends of RCs from
".fo~~~~:' -::::::,..., cs. to Washington, D.C. for 72 hours of worship, study, training, and
. es, with preaching by Mark Bowman, on-Petty, Rev. Bonnie · Beckonchrist, and h were consistently mentioned as high ·-eRend. Dr. Sally Brown Geis (Iliff School of
r Tex Sample (St. Paul School of Theology) challe['be~ :mJ aroused participants with daily Biblical reflections. A.:ma Crawford and Dr. Elias Farajaje-Jones (Howard Dhinit)' School) captivated participants with their presentation on affirming diversity. During the Saturday night celebration, Bishop Susan Morrison commended the RC movement for its faithful witness.
Forums provided succinct, informative presentations and opportunities for dialogue. Covenant groups offered the opportunity to meet each day with a small group of
• colleagues to process information and to share individual faith journeys. Twenty different workshops provided handson training in different reconciling ministries. A rousing • concert featuring Susan Savell, Gene Cotton, and the Lavender Light Gay and Lesbian and People of All Colors Gospel Choir was another highlight. The youth participants toured D.C., visited the Holocaust Museum, talked with congressional offices about lifting the ban on gays in the military, and shared their experiences of ministries with lesbian and gay persons. A special preconvocation colloquy for large-membership churches exploring reconciling ministries drew 55 participants from 20 churches across the country.
Again and again participants were overheard expressmg their amazement at the magnitude of this grass roots movement in the UMC. The experience of the weekend is best capsulized by their comments:
The RCP convocation is a profound event facilitating the transformation ofour church. The convocation helped me listen to marginalized voices and to examine ways that I, as a heterosexist, must confront my own sin and repent.
Rev. Betsy Singleton, Little Rock, AR
The convocation is an absolutely invaluable experience for all the people involved -not only does it bring gays, lesbians and heterosexuals together in a loving, supportive and productive alliance; it serves as a source of nourishment and encouragement for people still struggling to become RCs or struggling with their sexuality . ..
Elaine Baker, Williamstown, MA
Comingfrom an annual conference with no Reconciling Congregations, I was amazed by the evangelical power of a truly welcoming space within the church. I have never experienced anything like it!
Rev. Harvey Manchester, Smyrna, DE
I have never been to a conference before that had such relevance for the entire church from beginning to end. Rev. Tom Shanklin, Rutland, VT
The convocation was spiritually alive. It really showed me what the church can and should be like . .. It made me remember what Christianity is about.
Joe Liggett, Toledo, OH
So many gifted, joyful, beautiful people! ... The main discovery for me was how far I have to grow into full acceptance of diverSity.
Rev. H. Myron Talcott, Colgate, WI
Startling contrast with our first convocation which could be fitted in a room 1/4 the size ofour gathering place this time. How wonderful to be growing!
Rev. Sally Daniel, Atlanta, GA
Mark your calendars now for the
Next RC Convocation inJuly 1995
inth Annual Conference !Provides More Light Energy
The ninth annual More Light Churches Conference -the first under the newly organized More Light Churches Network, -drew over 100 new and familiar folks to Seventh Avenue Presbyterian Church, San Francisco from May 7-9, 1993. Hosted by
Summer 1993
the Bay Area More Light congregations, the conference provided much good food, fellowship, and planning.
After opening worship, Robert McAfee Brown, liberation theologian and professor at San Francisco Theological Seminary, delivered a powerful keynote address. Attendees participated in numerous workshops.
A panel presentation by leaders of the Network, Presbyterians for Lesbian &: Gay Concerns, and the Coalition for Loving Justice preceded a discussion on developing a truly inclusive church. Then the first annual meeting of the new Network was held, the first board of directors elected and the first mission statement adopted.
Singer/songwriter Debra Wood blessed Saturday'S evening meal and
31
after-dinner entertainment was provided by a chorus of women students at San Francisco Theological Seminary, including a few SLUTS (Seminarian Lesbians Under Theological Stress!). Kathleen Jimenez, co-director of La Plaza Resolana in Santa Fe, New Mexico, preached a challenging sermon during Sunday morning worship. And Lisa Larges, a candidate to the ministry who was denied certification because she is a lesbian, closed the conference by charging participants to turn themselves into percussion instruments and use their voices to reform the church!
Elected to the Network's first board of directors were: Virginia Davidson (comoderator for advocacy); Lindsay Biddle (co-moderator for administration); Richard Lundy (communications coordina tor); Richard Hasbany (conference coordinator); Harold Porter (development coordinator); Ralph Carter (resource coordinator); and Robert Hettrick (secretary / treasurer).
The 1994 conference will be held May 6-8 in the Twin Cities area, hosted by St. Luke Presbyterian Church, Wayzata, Minnesota .•
UMs Retain Denver as 1996 Conference Site
The Commission on General Conference voted unanimously to retain Denver as the site of the 1996 United Methodist quadrennial assembly, while also proposing that the program include "a witness in support of civil and human rights for all persons."
In response to petitions and requests by several UM groups to move the General Conference following the passage of the antigay Amendment 2 in Colorado last November, the commission allowed one hour of testimony each from proponents and opponents of relocating the General Conference during its June 5 meeting in Denver. Asking for relocation were Affirmation: United Methodists for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns, Colorado United Methodists Against Discrimination, the Methodist Federation for Social Action, and the board of directors of the Reconciling Congregation Program. The mayor of Denver and several UM leaders from the Rocky Mountain Conference testified for staying in Denver. All speakers expressed opposition to Amendment 2, but disagreed on the best strategy for protest.
In its action, the commission stated that "the United Methodist Church can make its strongest possible witness in behalf of the civil rights of all persons by holding the 1996 General Conference in Denver. Our stand places us on the side of the ordinances currently operative in the City of Denver, [and] in support of the Rocky Mountain Conference of the UMC, other groups and persons ... who oppose Amendment 2 and the spirit it represents ... "
The commission instructed its Program Committee to consult with representatives of the various groups who testified to "bring recommendations for a UM witness in support of civil and human rights for all persons.".
UCCs and Disciples Gather in St. Louis
The 13th National Gathering of the United Church Coalition for Lesbian/ Gay Concerns (UCCL/GC) drew a record 136 people to Washington University in St. Louis from July 12-15. Exploring the theme "Unity and Diversity: Gifts to Celebrate, Obstacles To Overcome," participants examined the dynamics of racism, ableism, heterosexism, and other prejudices. Challenging addresses by Peggy Way, Professor of Pastoral Care at Eden Seminary and Mary Webber, creator of the Dismantling Racism Project in St. Louis generated insightful and spirited discussion.
On the final day, this Gathering became a joint event with GLAD (Gay, Lesbian, and Affirming Disciples Alliance). The two groups met together for community building, worship, and planning for our "presence" at the national General Synod/General Assembly which brought together 12,000 members of the UCC and DiSciples of Christ.
At the Synod/Assembly, UCCL/GC, GLAD, and the Open and Affirming programs of both denominations hosted joint booths in the exhibit hall. A highlight during the Synod/Assembly was the UCCL/GC and GLAD banquet, attended by over 450 people! The speaker, Michael Kinnamon, Dean of Lexington Theological Seminary, the Coalition choir, and the recognition of seventytwo Open and Affirming churches/ministries made for a moving and memorable evening .•
Open Hands 32