Name:Brandog Country:United States State:New Jersey Metro:Princeton
Expertise:I do theology, biblical studies, preaching, and pastoral care... although I really wouldn't call it "expertise". -Oh yes, I'm also a love doctor. Occupation:Might Seminarian Industry:Church
People often approach me with various questions about how I understand the nature of homosexuality and the appropriate Christian response. A lot of people simply assume that Christians are supposed to believe that homosexuality is a sin. I once maintained this view, but most people know that I have since changed my mind. Rather than saying exactly what I believe, I tend to spend much of my time helping other people figure out what they believe and why.
I thought I'd take this opportunity to candidly share some of my personal beliefs, which I hold rather strongly--despite my reluctance to openly share them, from fear of politicizing the Church or making myself appear unwilling to share the feelings of those who disagree with some of my conclusions.
----
The truth is that there are plenty of traditional, orthodox Christians who maintain that homosexuals should be ordained (and allowed to marry!) Not everyone is convinced that the "condemnation" of homosexual acts in the Bible means that openly practicing homosexuals are living in sin. Looking at the history of human sexuality, it becomes clear that the authors of the Bible had no concept of homosexuality as we know it today.
People often think of homosexuality as having its origin in ancient Greece, (which is not actually true, but significant for the conversation in today's church). Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon were all known to speak of erotic relationships with their boy students. This is known as the classical practice of Athenian pederasty. Men had sex with boys. It was actually assumed that these young men would grow up to get married and have sex with women, (as seen in these great philosophers).
Man-boy sex was merely a right of passage, a part of one's education; not an expression of one's sexual orientation. When grown men had sex with other grown men in this time, it was not necessarily because they didn't like sex with women. It was understood as sex in excess. They didn't consider the desire to be misdirected, but gluttonous. There was no such thing as "sexual orientation".
This was the context for the ancient Hebrews and early Christians. It wasn't any part of their custom to have gay sex, but they saw it all over Hellenistic culture. "Those people" had ritualized orgies, and their men would often have sex with boys! Naturally, the ancient Jews and Christians understood gay sex as an inherently pagan practice; one which is always associated with immorality, abuse, and idolatry. If you study the context of the few Biblical verses condemning homosexual acts, it is clear that they were very much associated with paganism.
The authors of Scripture had no concept of homosexuality as something between two monogomous adults, living in faithful service to God. This is homosexuality as we see it today. It certainly isn't always, but neither is heterosexuality!! But especially among the clergy, we have moral standards which are to be upheld. I no longer find any valid reasons to exclude homosexuals from fully participating in the life of the Church. (btw- it is through my relationships with such gays and lesbians that I eventually changed my mind).
People often ask me if I think homosexuality causes harm in the community. My answer is, "No more than heterosexuality."
I do not consider homosexuality to be any more sinful than heterosexuality; not in itself. Sexual preference is not an issue of ethics. However, I feel that a gay person, pretending to be straight, would be commiting the real sin against God.
How does one define sin, anyway? Is it... -that which displeases God? -that which keeps us from following God's will? -or is it simply a list of things in the Bible which follow "Thou shalt not..."? If this were true, then Jesus would have been quite the sinner!
People ask, "Is homosexuality subject to moral scrutiny?" -Absolutely, but no more than heterosexuality.
I'm not defending promiscuity or exploitation, only the legitimacy of the orientation. Gender identity is extremely tricky, just ask any geneticist or psychologist. The biological and psychological distinctions between male/female or normal/abnormal really just aren't as black-and-white as we want them to be. I obviously don't think that a quick thump of the Good Book will answer these questions. I choose to err on the side of grace. History has shown Christians using the Bible to discriminate against far too many people (women, slaves, Jews, Muslims, the poor, etc.). There's no way I'm going to allow comfort and tradition to keep me on the wrong side of this debate.
Then again, I am always extremely open to rebuke from my brothers and sisters in Christ. We need each other. That's why I'm sharing these thoughts in the first place.
**Edit** For those who would rather look at the essay than at me, (and I have no idea why such a person would exist) I have now copied the essay below. **
If you have difficulty with the MySpace Video Player, it's also on Youtube in two clips.
Text: "Revelation, Sanctification, and Inspiration," from John Webster's Holy Scripture.
Thesis: Despite agreeing with Webster’s statement that the Scriptures testify to the completion and perfection of Christ’s redemptive acts (64) as well as his belief in the efficacious work of the Spirit (27), these understandings of God’s immediate relation to humanity (as Son and Spirit) leave me unable to agree with many of his subsequent depictions of sanctification, nor with his identification of inspiration as a purely textual occurrence.
My Methodist heart, once strangely warm, experienced difficulty reading Webster’s discussion of sanctification as a process in which the creature does not, “in any straightforward sense,” cooperate with God (27).He describes holiness as an incommunicable attribute of God and explains that a creature is never holy until the Spirit sovereignly elects.However, I believe that sanctification must be taken on and striven toward by the creature as communicably empowered by the Spirit.That is not to say that creatures sanctify themselves; only that I understand reception of God’s holiness as active cooperation with God.
I would even argue that the creature’s sanctification is contingent upon the creature’s willingness to participate.I base this idea on the first “inspiration” in human history as recorded in Gen 2:7.Immediately upon creating man out of dust, God breathes life into him, and proceeds to entrust upon him the heavenly task of naming God’s creatures (Gen 2:19).Apparently, there is something innate within humanity that shares something of God from this inspiration, (what I actually believe to be the Spirit of God, itself).I find this inspiration imagery in Genesis to foretell what would occur, in the fullness of time, in the resurrected Son when he breathes on his disciples, gracing them with the Holy Spirit of God and entrusting in them the power to forgive sins (John 20:21-23) – which, (like the task of naming the creatures, and the “holiness” of sanctification), is another curiously divine attribute.My theological tradition actually views sanctification as proceeding from this initial inspiration, rather than the other way around.
2 Timothy 3:16 informs us that the Scripture is divinely inspired, but we make a mistake in not also recognizing the inspiration in all of God’s people.While I recognize the distinction that I speak on personal piety, versus Webster’s purpose of describing canonization, I nevertheless find his argument to be nonsensical to anyone without a particular preunderstanding of the irresistibility of Divine grace.Within his community, he speaks with brilliant theological consistency, yet many in my tradition will find problematic his definitive employment of such theologically loaded terms as sanctification and inspiration; presuming a Calvinistic election throughout.
Closing comments from video.
1.Spirit = Breath, Inspire = Breathe
2.These two verses (Gen 2:7 and 2 Tim 3:16) are the only instances in the Bible where I find “God” and “breathed” together. (Identifying Christ as God, I would also include John 20:21).
a.Not just the noun form, as “spirit/breath of God”
b.but the verb form, “God inspiring, -breathing”
c.(Dative, not Genitive).
3.I really don’t mean to downplay the Bible.I don’t personally believe that any other book is divinely inspired. Here is my question:
4.Is the Bible uniquely inspired?
a.Yes, I believe that the Bible is uniquely inspired, as far as it is the onlybook.
b.No, if you mean to affirm that nothing else in all of creation is also inspired.
i.In creating us, God inspired us. (inspired, breathed, inspirited)
1.Therefore, the Spirit of God is in us (all).
5.This is why I’m not a Calvinist.Even though it is the spirit of God that sanctifies us, I believe that this Grace - freely and universally offered to all – is resistible.
a.God does not choose some and not others.
i.At least I don’t believe it.
b.I believe that God chooses all of us -
i.and that some of us fight against the grace of God which works within us all. All are equally inspired- we read that from the creation story, and ultimately in the completion of Christ's redemptive acts.
For those of you who don't know, I am a Methodist student at a Presbyterian (PCUSA) seminary which is also supposedly "ecumencal". Being Methodist isn't so different than being PCUSA - both denominations are politically diverse, with similar worship and emphases on nurturing intelligent faith that cultivates wisdom. My Methodism is rarely an issue, with the huge exception of my Systematic Theology class. The professors consistently assign readings by extremely Reformed theologians, and they almost worship Karl Barth, (who - and this is an oversimplification - basically reworked Calvinism to actually make sense for modern people).
Now, Barth is brilliant, and I've enjoyed the opportunity to read and reflect on such detailed theology from many people who think very differently than I do, but I frequently find myself compelled to challenge the univocal assumptions made by my professors while teaching us how one should think about God, (note that only 51% of the students are actually PCUSA) . It's almost as if, You're either a Barthian or you're not doing theology.
Anywho. Each week, we are required to write a short reflection paper on any topic from any of the readings for the week. We are given the option to either (1) recap the author's work on a topic, or (2) write an argued critique against the author's presentation. As you probably guessed, my weekly submissions are usually argumentative. It's especially frustrating because the ones who grade my work tend to agree with the authors, and they do so with brilliantly thorough articulation... you know, teaching at Princeton and whatnot.
Oh, and I am required to make my case in less than 300 words. That's about one page, double-spaced, - almost exactly the length above this line, and no more.
I plan to post a few of these reflections for your reading pleasure. I hope that you'll actually appreciate that each is only one page long, and then you'll want to share your personal thoughts on the subject.
I realize that you would probably prefer to have me return to light-hearted satire; rather than publish my theological reflections based upon books you'll probably never read. The sad reality is that seminary dominates my life right now, and this is really all I have to offer.
If you were to read a one-page reflection, which topic sounds most interesting for followup conversation?
1. If the Bible is "inspired by God," must we consider this inspiration as unique to the text? (I argue "no". I think you'll be interested to read my suggestion for expanding the doctrine of inspiration.)
2. With all of the very real concerns raised by feminist voices, how should Christians choose their language when talking about God? What are the theological issues raised with using/altering traditional God-language? (The reading offered a great many suggestions. It's generally an interesting topic.)
3. God as Communion. (What can we learn about the value and function of community from the doctrine of the Trinity?)
4. (For the philosophically oriented,) Is Barth's epistemological Realism really real? Barth is a top-down kinda guy. Everything is worked out from God's perspective, which is "wholly other" than that of creation. Barth's theology is smart, neat, and orderly. But can we really presume to develop an authoritative systematic theology which gives meaning to our lifefrom outside of it, and without those definitions being tainted by our subjective place in time and culture? - I think not. I'll explain my rational, biblical, and theological reasons for employing Pragmatism to deconstruct Barth's dogmatic use of Realism. (in only one page!)
5. Are Methodists (as Arminian) really as self-centered and heretical as some Calvinists think? (The heresy of Pelagianism, and whether Arminians are guilty thereof).
That last one is actually an AWESOME topic that should initiate some very stimulating conversation regarding Calvinism and what people really believe about the relationship between people and God. For example:
- If salvation is the work of God alone, how do we understand our activity as humans with free will? - Do we choose salvation? - If we do so simply by having faith, must that faith also lead to works, thus empowering us to "earn" the assurance of salvation? - If salvation actually chooses us, can we lose it by telling it to fuck off? - Or does that act simply indicate that we were never chosen?
I actually might just ignore the paper (#5) and make a series of blogs about these issues. This is precisely the stuff that so complicates my life as a Methodist here at Princeton Theological Seminary.
The Day of Silence is an annual event held to commemorate and protest anti-LGBT bullying, harassment and discrimination in schools. Students and teachers nationwide will observe the day in silence to echo the silence that LGBT and ally students face everyday. In it's 11th year, the Day of Silence is one of the largest student-led actions in the country.
The Day of Silence, a project of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network), will be held during school hours. Over 6,000 participants are expected to be silent on Wednesday, April 18, wearing stickers and passing out 'speaking cards' that read:
Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies in schools. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices. Think about the voices you are not hearing today.
Preparing for the move to Princeton, I find myself rummaging through all my old junk at my parents' house. I just found a back pack deep in my closet, and written in bright paint pen, are the words, (very large and in all caps),
ARE YOU GOING TO HEAVEN?
I was so obnoxiously cute in high school. Now I'm just obnoxious.
