Tony Perkins of the American Family Council, gay-basher in chief, not only doesn’t speak for all Christians, he doesn’t speak for all evangelicals. Nor do Charles Colson, James Dobson, or Tim LaHaye. It would seem there is a younger crowd, a new generation, that is raising questions about the traditional evangelical intolerance toward gays. Yes, the move toward gay equality is advancing at all levels of religious and secular society, even within the quarter most associated with rigorous opposition.
A small but growing group which calls itself Evangelicals Concerned offers support for gays seeking reconciliation of their faith and their sexuality:
Organizations or churches with Evangelical roots have traditionally been the most condemning, exclusionary and antagonistic to Christians who identify as GLBT. This bias has produced untold levels of damage to many children of God and has caused many to abandon their faith traditions or commit suicide. Evangelical organizations are responsible for virtually every attempt to convert GLBT people. EC has challenged the conversion therapy notion for 25 years, standing in the gap and providing healing and safety to thousands of Christians.
The Gay Christian Network (GCN) also consists of mostly evangelical members. Earlier this summer, I met one of their leaders when we both happened to be workshop presenters at the Lutherans Concerned Convention in Minneapolis.
The Gay Christian Network is a nonprofit ministry serving Christians who happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, and those who care about them.
Like many Christian mothers, Sandy was completely unprepared to learn that her son was gay.
How could he be? Everything she had been taught in church had led her to one conclusion, that gay people were sinful, that they had turned from God, and that they were ultimately condemned to hell. Yet none of that fit the profile of her beloved son. He was a good son, and he loved God. How could he be gay?
For five months after learning of her son’s sexuality, Sandy was a wreck. She was sure that homosexuality was not of God. Yet she loved her son. She needed answers, but she didn’t know where to turn.
Then she found GCN.
An article in the Huffpost this week questioned, Is Evangelical Christianity having a Great Gay Awakening? Author Cathleen Falsani suggests that she struggled to accommodate traditional evangelical Biblical ethics with the reality of the gay relationships in her circle of friends.
That was my answer: Love them. Unconditionally, without caveats or exceptions.
I wasn’t sure whether homosexuality actually was a sin. But I was certain I was commanded to love.
For 20 years, that answer was workable, if incomplete. Lately, though, it’s been nagging at me. Some of my gay friends are married, have children and have been with their partners and spouses as long as I’ve been with my husband.
Loving them is easy. Finding clear theological answers to questions about homosexuality has been decidedly not so.
Falsani then discusses a book by none other than Jay Bakker, the son of the famous televangelists of a generation ago, Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker, called Fall to Grace: A Revolution of God, Self & Society
“The simple fact is that Old Testament references in Leviticus do treat homosexuality as a sin … a capital offense even,” Bakker writes. “But before you say, ‘I told you so,’ consider this: Eating shellfish, cutting your sideburns and getting tattoos were equally prohibited by ancient religious law.
“The truth is that the Bible endorses all sorts of attitudes and behaviors that we find unacceptable (and illegal) today and decries others that we recognize as no big deal.”
Leviticus prohibits interracial marriage, endorses slavery and forbids women to wear trousers.
Bakker’s exegesis is quite right, and he could have gone further. When I have presented workshops interpreting the so-called “clobber passages” of the Bible, I point out that these ancient Hebrew regulations were religious rules and not universal ethics, loosely akin to the modern day ritual of meatless Fridays, formulated from a consistent pattern of Hebrew rituals of boundaries, markers, and insularity. Don’t do as the Gentiles do. Don’t mix with the Gentiles. Don’t mix unlike things. Don’t mix seeds in your field. Don’t mix different fabrics in the same garment. Don’t cavort with the temple prostitutes of the Gentiles (male and female). Don’t follow the sexual practices of the Gentiles. Don’t eat meat from animals that confuse their category. A shellfish doesn’t have fins or swim like a fish; it is an abomination. Don’t eat shellfish.
Here is the preface to the chapter in Leviticus that contains the infamous clobber passage:
You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you.
Leviticus 18:3
Ritual regulatory rules of behavior for the ancient Hebrews are complicated, which cannot be adequately addressed here, but perhaps that is the essential point; it’s not as simple or as black and white as the literalists would suggest. When we understand the context of their ancient formulation, we recognize a ritualistic and symbolic system of separation of a besieged peoples, anxious to preserve their identity against the dangers of assimilation by the empires that dominated them militarily and politically.
Falsani also discussed Bakker’s interpretation of the New Testament, Pauline “clobber passages”, and Bakker again is accurate when he suggests:
Examining the original Greek words translated as “homosexual” and “homosexuality” in three New Testament passages, Bakker (and others) conclude that the original words have been translated inaccurately in modern English.
What we read as “homosexuals” and “homosexuality” actually refers to male prostitutes and the men who hire them. The passages address prostitution — sex as a commodity — and not same-sex, consensual relationships, he says.
In my workshops, I dig deeper. Modern day Bible versions that include the word “homosexual” are anachronistic at best and political at worst. Paul used two Greek words, arsenokotai and malakoi, which do not otherwise appear in the writings of the period; thus, it appears he may have coined them himself. Bakker’s suggestion that the terms refer to prostitution may be correct, but I think the better interpretation is that the terms refer to the Greco-Roman practice of pederasty, involving an aristocrat and a young man or boy, which was fairly common in the period. Again, attempting to make sense of Paul’s two-thousand year old writings is complicated, and there’s more to it than fits in this blog, but the essential point is that Paul’s writings were conditioned by a 1st century context. The issues facing Paul were not the same issues we face today.
Falsani’s experience—“Some of my gay friends are married, have children and have been with their partners and spouses as long as I’ve been with my husband”—persuaded her that the traditional application of the Biblical “clobber passages” didn’t fit for her and for a growing number of her evangelical friends. She concludes:
Only time will tell whether more evangelical leaders — Emergent, emerging or otherwise — will add their voices to the chorus calling for full and unapologetic inclusion of homosexuals in the life of the church.
But I’m sensing a change in the wind (and the Spirit.)
I don’t mean to a make gross generalization, by any means, but it does seem that the younger generation does in fact have more “tolerance” (I hate to use that word for it’s political connotations) regarding differences among people. While that seems to be the case, I’d be interested to see some empirical research done to find out why. Is it because of the Internet, exposing them to a much vaster array of people types than their parents and grandparents were exposed to? Is it from the much maligned 24-hour news cycle that puts issues out there all time so that some things they see become less and less evil? Does the “liberal media” have a lot of credit in the forming of young people’s opinions? A combination? Surely, but I’d like to seem some hard-and-fast research to back up the assumption – or disprove it. Why does the next generation normally seem okay with that which their parents and grandparents were uncomfortable accepting?
@Daniel
I think there are lot more nuances here we need to parse. First of all, I do believe that the younger generations are more “tolerant”, but not ALL of them, in fact not even a majority of Christians, believe that homosexuality is not sinful. Reading the book unChristian, the largest group of Christian youth is found in the growing evangelical churches..NOT the mainlines which are dying. Most of them, while more tolerant than previous generations, don’t agree scripturally.
Secondly, there is a myth that you can’t disagree and at the same time be nice. We ran into this a lot in the process of leaving ELCA. Many churches and pastors leaving were nasty to the ELCA, we chose not to be, and speak well of all, while not agreeing. It is sympotmatic of our nation, we have to demonize each other, not just disagree. On the one hand, extremists paint all who leave ELCA as bigots and neanderthals; on the other hand extremists paint the ELCA as no good and evil.
Both are wrong.
Last, it would be interesting to note that demographics are not static, but a continuity stat. The hippies became the yuppies, and those who voted for McGovern and Kennedy and Humphrey often voted for Reagan and Bush. Some people get more conservative as they age, some more liberal. So to say that those under 25 today will believe the same in five or ten years is foolish.
Jeff,
I mostly agree with your comment.
What I find most telling about the religious views of twenty-somethings are the findings that the last twenty years have seen a significant drop in that age-group that self-defines as Christian–and the reason for that drop, according to credible data, is because Christianity is viewed as intolerant.
My guess is that your prediction (hope?) that the younger generation will become more conservative regarding gay issues as they grow older is highly unlikely. On this issue, your conservative views will grow increasingly out of step with the majority of Americans as the generations pass. On this issue, you will find yourself on the wrong side of history. Those are my predictions.
@Obie
Glad to know you have the gift of prophecy….and that you can tell the future ;).
I fully admit that some become more liberal-but some will become more conservative.
As noted earlier, I do believe that one can also say that legal and civil rights for all Americans, civil unions, etc. is something that one can agree with (as I do) while still still believing the scriptures say something differently and that there is separation of church and state. Thus, what is ok in society may not be okay in the leadership of the church.
I don’t believe all the data regarding intolerance as being the drop for most twenty somethings not being in church. Some of that is historically true (i.e. , the boomers left and then came back after marriage and kids). Some is due to to the divorce and custody issues in families. Some is due to an increasingly secular media and “shopper” mentality among those who do worship anything. And some is just plain American narcissism.
Also, the lack of younger folks in church is due to the fact that those who don’t believe in the scriptures as anything more than a pseudo-fairy tale or another good book present no compelling case to join anything. What made Christianity unique, for better or worse, was it’s creeds, confessions, and standing for something. When it becomes bland American Protestantism, then Niebuhr’s predictions have come true.
Historically, we are in a reshaping of the Christian church and faith, but intolerance is not the only reason, and data has yet to prove it is even a large reason.
I don’t think there are any easy answers that will satisfy everybody. I have two kids that are in their middle 40’s now . One went to school at UW and used to be super tolerant of everyone. “Oh mother”. She had a husband who transgendered and because of that situation she is now anti LGBTQ. My son has a few gay friends and lives in Madison WI one of the most liberal cities around. He is still pro LBGTQ. What does scripture say — well that depends on if you interpret it literally or in the light of the times it was written or written down. I looked up the word abomination and it simply means “disgusting” — but in whose eyes? If you are the parent of a child who was molested, you will think one way but if you are the parent of a child who is LGBTQ, one will likely have a different point of view. Let us work to reach an understanding of where the other person is coming from and not judge all people the same if that is possible.
I was once an anti-gay conservative evangelical. Then I happened to learn about modern Biblical scholarship (the Bible knowledge that academics teach, and which most mainline pastors know about but don’t always tell their people about). Now, if the Bible is a collection of faith statements (some helpful and inspiring, some not) of pre-modern people and not a seamless document dropped from heaven to be literally interpreted, then my goodness why shouldn’t we view gay people as just another variety of human, with their morality standing or falling on whether they ‘love God and neighbor’? In other words, perhaps the best approach to achieve greater inclusion is to try to get evangelicals to discover what academic experts know and drop their outdated (in my opinion) view of the Bible. When I hear anti-gay arguments from the Bible it reminds me of 6000-year-old-earth arguments from Genesis.
First, while this may be somewhat tangential, I don’t think that the distinction that they were religious rules really works. There really wasn’t a distinction between the religion, state, and law that we tend to assume as modern people. Still, it is correct, I think, to say that they are not dictates of universal ethics. The better distinctions are historical and cultural. They were laws for a particular time and a particular culture. We are not of that time or of that culture. It should be clear to us that they were particular in intent, and not universal ethics, for, as you note, there is importance, in at least some streams in the Hebrew tradition, placed on distinctiveness from neighbors. That’s hardly a theme for the dictation of universal ethics for all of humanity.
We might also want to consider what these laws are, and what their context might be. What political and power considerations might have informed them? We may never know much here, but we can’t pretend that such things weren’t a factor or that the history of the text wasn’t intertwined with such matters. (It seems very unrealistic to think that King Josiah undertook his reforms from a purely religious perspective and without politics.) And who do these texts represent? Can we be sure that the text (remembering that it was, or at least became, a written text) was meant for the whole population or primarily for the Temple priests? I have no clear responses to these questions, and I don’t know we will ever be certain about them. But I do think they are worthy of consideration and reflection.
But for us, I think, the story is far more important than the rules, and well it should be. The story is simply more important within the text itself, as well. These are not rules that exist as a separate code of law (like Minnesota Statues of the United States Code), nor is it law that gets plunked down within a story. Rather, the story is an integral part of the law of Israel as it has come down to us. And it is the story in which Christianity and Judaism find important archetypes and meaning. At every turn, it is God who calls and loves and embraces. The God of the Pentateuch is as much a God of grace as is the God revealed in Jesus the Christ. Maybe that truth is coming out more in this time when it often seems things are disintegrating around us and when often petty distinctions seem to so quickly divide in hurtful and harmful ways. Maybe this is having the effect on many people and many things, including on matters related to the place of gay and lesbian people in our churches, in our society, and in our law.