More Faith-ful Than Thou

i.

Arius was a teacher in Alexandria, Egypt in the third and fourth centuries.  The centuries of persecution of Christians just ended which gave him the opportunity to really focus on what  he really loved: He loved to really dig into Christian theology and work out the logical ideas. But he wasn’t too enamored of the influence of Greek philosophy in Christianity and he would warn his students about the creeping influence.  One of the issues he took on was the idea that Jesus was eternal and was of the same substance -- the same spiritual “stuff”-- as God the creator. While he agreed that Jesus assisted in creation, Jesus was completely submitted to the Father and some time in the ancient past was begotten from the Father.  

Unfortunately, Arius’ bishop, Alexander-- yeah, his name was Alexander of Alexandria-- strongly disagreed with him.  He said that Arius had to teach that Jesus was the same substance as the Father. Arius said, well, sir, I have to teach what I see as true.  This became a big issue. So big that people on the street of Alexandria-- and Rome and Constantinople-- argued about it. It was said that you couldn’t go down to the market without sellers arguing with buyers, “same substance!” “Different substance!”  “Eternal!” “Created!”

Alexander was miffed.  So was Emperor Constantine.  He didn’t like his newly supported religion brining division among the people.  He wanted a clean, pristine, pure religion to call his own. So he called a council of bishops from throughout the empire and said, “Decide this! Now!”  They took a vote and Alexander of Alexandria won. So the Emperor turned to Arius and said, “Now you and anyone who believes in your heretical teaching, leave the empire!  We want one pure belief, clean of heresy!” So Arius packed up his family, his disciples and left the Roman empire.

And from this point on, one of the essential ideas of Christianity was that the church would be endangered as a social entity unless everyone believed the same thing.  This is where people insist upon the idea that we need to have a single, unified vision of the church. Unless we agree upon the basics, no one will listen to what we have to say.  God forbid that we disagree-- in public even! The council of Nicea created a thing called a “creed” or a laundry list of beliefs, which was a tool for Christianity to use to clearly distinguish between who was in and who was out.  Of course, they had to update that about every century, but still, it’s official.

Of course, this isn’t a new idea.  Bishops were given authority in the mid-second century to quiet down heresy, whatever they thought that meant.  Paul said that there was “one faith” and he argued with other Christians about which faith that was, even desiring that his opponents be castrated (although that might have been a joke).  And in the text we were reading, we can see the disciples being pretty insistent about who is in and who is out.

ii.
The apostle John was kind of a hothead.  That’s why Jesus named John and his brother James, “sons of thunder” because they were always ready to zap people for not being a part of the right group.  Meaning their group. So John reported to Jesus their latest activity. They saw someone helping out a mentally ill person in the name of Jesus and they stopped them.  “Who gave you authority to use that name? Have you attended Jesus’ classes? Do you have a monogrammed sweatshirt? Where is your membership card? Yep. I thought not.  Sorry, until you belong to the right group, you don’t have the right teaching. If you don’t have the right teaching, you can’t use Jesus’ name.” So they shut this guy down.

Jesus’ response should have been, “Well, I totally understand that.  This guy could have been doing good works in the totally wrong way. What if he said the Lord’s Prayer with the wrong words?  What if he didn’t understand that I was the Messiah?” That’s what John was expecting.

Instead, Jesus got on John’s case.  “What are you doing? Wasn’t this guy doing an act of love?  Why did you stop him? Think of it this way: do you want the name of Jesus associated with sincerely someone helping someone out or being a self-righteous, judgmental jerk?  I think the former, eh?

“This guy was on our side.  We don’t know that because they took the right seminar, have the right degrees from the right college or belong to the right denomination.  We know that because he is doing an act of love. That’s the guy we want to keep doing that kind of stuff! Next time you see someone doing an act of love, don’t look at the basis of their authority, rather thank them!”

Jesus even went on to say, that this guy who belonged to the wrong group, probably had the wrong theology would receive the blessing of God.  He cannot be denied his reward. And anyone, Jesus said, who does good work in the name of Jesus-- no matter what their theology or outlook, no matter how heretical they are-- will receive God’s reward.   If we are going to take this seriously, than any work of love, no matter how small is God’s work, even if done by people who believe in the wrong things.

iii.
It’s easy to apply this to people like Franklin Graham who demands that Christian progressives are going to hell.  Or people like John MacArthur who insist that all pentecostals and Charismatics are part of a diabolical heresy. It’s a good thing that us progressives are so open-minded and accepting of all people.  

Of course, there is this guy that I’ve been reading lately, Bishop John Spong.  He insists that orthodox Christianity is “Unbelievable” and that “Christianity must Change or Die.”  His answer is to change the theology of Christianity, to recognize that Jesus resurrected in the spirit, not the body, to deny the virgin birth of Jesus, to deny the reality of the Exodus.  I am not here to argue that he is wrong in his assessment, although I do think that his theology tends to be pretty focused on scholarship in the 70s and 80s. I am saying that he, just like the orthodox teachers he is arguing with, are focused on the wrong issues.  Whether one does or does not believe in the virgin birth isn’t the issue at all. The issue is what foundation do you have to enact the love of Jesus.

If Jesus is bodily risen from the dead and so Jesus is the king of creation and so we must follow Jesus’ law of love and that is how you learn to love, God bless you.  If you find that Jesus’ bodily resurrection is on shaky ground, but you are inspired by the Sermon on the Mount to live a life of love, then God bless you. If you are a Muslim who believes that Jesus is a prophet, but finds his life to be guiding yours to act with greater mercy, then God bless you.

On the other hand, if we think that Muslims aren’t the right kind of religion because they don’t believe in the right things, even though they give more to charity per capita than the Christian church, then we aren’t listening to Jesus.  If we reject the good work of supporting women in pregnancies through poverty of the Pregnancy Crisis Centers, because they don’t agree with our politics, we have the same problem as those who reject Planned Parenthood and their good work.  If we reject all of conservative Christianity because of their doctrine, then we are also rejecting the hospitals, the shelters, the many, many cups of cold water throughout the world they have also delivered.

Am I saying that God is pleased with all the work of all churches?  Absolutely not. What I am saying is that God does not measure his people by words on a piece of paper.  That God does not judge any of us based on ideas of what the future has in store for us. That God does not judge us based on which party we vote for.  Rather, God blesses those who do acts of love.

Diane had a boss who owned a laundromat.  He was an avid watcher of Fox and he voted for Bush and he was always talking about people who need to help themselves and get out of poverty.  But when he saw someone in need, he was there for him. I have never liked Bill’s politics, nor did I care for his theology. But I cannot argue with his life.  With the fact that his faith wasn’t primarily about teaching, but about how he lived. And I saw how he sacrificed, sometimes his well-being, for people in need.  He may not be part of our group, but he is among the blessed of God because of his love. And it took me more than a minute to open my eyes and see that it isn’t about theology or posturing-- God’s blessing is about how we respond to someone in need.

I was a person opposed to the LGBTQ.  There are men and women and there is God’s commandment and that’s enough.  And then Vickie came into our lives. She would be classified as a transvestite by some, although her issues were more complicated than that.  She and I went into counseling, so I could give her spiritual guidance while she was living in our house. In the end, she is the one who taught me.  She taught me that the truest Christian may not have everything right according to the church, but is humble, serving and loving. In fact, the best Christian I know was thrown out of multiple churches because of issues that had nothing to do with love, but with the kinds of clothes she needed to wear.   I thank God for her to come into our lives. She, more than anyone I know, taught me that love is more important than doctrine. And I have never forgotten that lesson.

Should we ignore theology?  I don’t think so. Our theology can help us determine how best to love.  But I think that we should take care not to judge someone who has a different theology or politic than we, because those things sometimes matter less than the practical details.

The other thing is something I wonder.  Bible studies and classes are usually about making sure that everyone in the group is on the same page theologically, on the right page of belief and doctrine.  Sometimes we have Bible studies to actually explore God’s will about something. But here is something I’ve considered. Perhaps instead of all this focus of studying doctrine and theology is the wrong step altogether, as enjoyable as it is.  Perhaps we need to have love studies. How to best love and care for people. What is love in one context or another. When we have limited resources, who should be loved, this person or that? How do we make that determination? What is the loving and unloving way to obtain resources?  What is the best approach to love, through things, presence or community? I wonder if we should have more love studies and fewer classes on what we believe. In so long as each session ends in action, and not just in thought.

On other thing I’ve been thinking about this.  It has to do with trusting God, like what we talked about last week.  If faith is really about trusting God, then we trust God to lead us in the Spirit, to get us to the right place, eventually.  If we can trust God that much, perhaps we should trust that God is also leading other people who seek her as much as we do. That we should trust God enough to bring other people to the place they are supposed to be, even if we are sure that their way is the wrong way.

Mending the Divide: Homosexuality in the Bible, Two Views

This blog post proposes to solve all the problems of homosexuality in the church.  After this, there will be no questions, no problems, and peace and harmony will rule and Jesus will return.  Well, maybe not.

The first issue is one I have long wanted to resolve: Which acronym should we use?  LBGTQ is usually accepted for those of an alternative sexuality, mostly because there are a variety of terms and issues involved in the community, and it seems best to include everyone, rather than exclude some.  Of course, some are excluded, even in this unwieldy and hard to remember acronym.  An alternative has been raised, which solves all of my problems: QUILTBAG (Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Transexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay).  This term not only includes almost everyone, but it is also much easier to remember.  And it has a sense of humor, which is helpful.

Below, I wish to suggest two valid interpretations of the Bible text, and three biblical conclusions we might draw from these interpretations. 

View #1: Traditional view—The act of homosexuality is a sin

We are only speaking about the act of homosexuality here, not any given orientation.  A person might be sexually attracted to puppies, and to act on that attraction would be a sin, but the attraction itself is not a sin, should a person resist that attraction.   (BTW, ew.)

The evidence of this is found in particular passages:

Leviticus 18: This passage gives a number of sexual taboos, including two men having sex, incest, bestiality, and having sex with a woman during her period.   The importance of this passage is not simply that it is a sexual law, but that it is the foundation of the idea of “fornication”. From this point on, especially in the New Testament, the word “fornication” or “sexual immorality” is used to summarize sexual sin.  This chapter summarized what “fornication” is defined as.  Thus, when Jesus condemns “fornication” (in Greek, porneia, for instance in Mark 7:21), he condemns all these sins, including the act of homosexuality.

Romans 2—Homosexuality as a judgment on society, a release of God to allow men give into sinful lusts.  Thus, the homosexual act is not only a judgment, but also a sin.

I Cor 6:9—Homosexuality in a list of sins which prevents one from entering into God’s kingdom.

I Timothy 1:10—Again, the homosexual act is in a list of sins, and is “contrary to sound teaching.”

Jude—Sodomy as a sin due to their fornication (sexual sin) and going after “strange flesh”, meaning not the opposite sex.

View #2—New View: New Testament Morality is Love, not bans against certain kinds of sex

In Bible times, homosexuality is used in the contexts of rape, pedophilia and violence.   Homosexual acts as a part of a loving relationship is new, and so not discussed in the Bible passages at all. 

Sexual immorality isn’t defined clearly and to apply Leviticus 18 to that word isn’t biblically necessary.  We can see that sexual mores have changed, even in Bible times.  From the beginning to the end of the Bible, monogamy, incest, and other sexual mores have changed.  In today’s mores, having sex with a woman on her period is common, and having sex doesn’t make one unclean (at least no more unclean that a quick wash can’t fix).   Thus, the term “fornication” changed from the OT to the NT, and it has changed with the times.  “Fornication” is never applied to a heterosexual couple before marriage, nor specifically applied to sex with children.  How we use fornication is different today than how they did in the Bible.  Clearly adultery is always wrong because it is an act of unfaithfulness.  But if two men or two women are faithful to each other, then they do not commit adultery, and they do not commit fornication, according to the definition we now use.

Paul specifically was speaking to a Roman context in which homosexuality was common between older , men and children whom they were tutoring.  Is it the kind of sex that is offensive, or the abuse and lack of love?  It is just as likely that the lack of love is the worse offense, as the objective act itself. 

The sexual mores of the NT all have to do with love.  The act of sex between two men or two women aren’t a sin in a faithful relationship, even as they are not in a heterosexual faithful relationship.  The importance of the NT moral code is that  of love and faithfulness, which both heterosexual and QUILTBAG relationships can have.

Abbreviated Discussion between the two views:

1. OT Law
New View: Leviticus is the Mosaic Law, which is set aside by Jesus
Traditional View: However, Jesus also rejects fornication (porneia) and this is based on Leviticus 18.
NV: Does Jesus also then reject having sex with one’s wife during menstruation?  Shouldn’t you also be decrying that sin, according to the definition of Leviticus 18?
TV: If we were consistent in our interpretation, I guess we would.

2. Romans 1
NV: Is Paul really making a claim against homosexuality himself, or is he making an argument from a judgmental point of view against Gentiles and then decrying it with his words in Romans 2: “Who are you to judge?”
TV: Even if Paul is quoting someone else (which there is no evidence of), then it doesn’t mean he disagrees with what is sin.  Yes, Paul speaks against judgment, but this means that anyone can be set free by the power of Jesus.  Paul speaks of judging under the law, which condemns one to death.  The lack of judging happens only under Jesus.
NV: But if we are freed of judgment, then how can we judge QUILTBAG Christians?
TV: We are freed of judgment, but, as Paul argues in Romans 6, we are also freed of participating in sin.
NV:Assuming that the homosexual act, in and of itself, is a sin.
TV: Yes, assuming that.

3. Jesus
NV: Jesus says nothing about the homosexual act, of either good nor ill, so it cannot be declared to be a sin.
TV:First, it is enough for us that Paul says it is a sin.  But we do not think that Paul said this of his authority.   Jesus spoke against fornication, which, we have shown, includes the homosexual act.
NV: But Jesus approves of marriage, and so if a sexual act is done in marriage, then it must be approved by him.
TV: But Jesus defined marriage as being between a “man and a woman” in Matthew 19: 4—“For this reason he made them male and female” in reference to marriage.

4. The term arsenokoitai
NV: I Timothy 1 and I Corinthians 5, in their vice lists, use the term “arsenokoitai” which is modernly translated “homosexual”.  However, it is better understood to be homosexual offenders, such as pedophiles and male prostitutes, not homosexuals in general.
TV: There is no evidence that Paul would have used a different term for homosexuals in general.
NV: Since the word and idea of “homosexual” is only used in the last two hundred years, I think we can.
TV: But the term certainly refers to men having sex with each other.
NV: But not two women, and the word “homosexual” implies both men and women.  Paul is clearly talking about a different idea than we have today.  And in his context of an almost universal practice of noble men having sex with their students, it makes sense that this would be what he is speaking of.  Not having a homosexual orientation and being faithfully married within that orientation.  That wasn’t even an idea.
TV: No, just the sexual activity was, no matter what the context.

Three conclusions:

a.       What we cannot agree on:  whether the act of homosexuality is a sin.

Since there are two interpretations, one based on strict textual analysis, and one primarily based on cultural context, both are viable interpretations.  Thus, we need to learn to live together with the two interpretations.  In the past, the church lived with different views of the divinity of Jesus, with different views of pictures of Jesus, different views of worship, different views of the last days.  We can live with two views of whether the act of homosexuality is sin or not.

Paul laid down the basic principles of how we live with different interpretations under Jesus.  First, that we do not judge each other.  We will have disagreements and different actions based on our different ideals, but we still must accept each other as believers.  Just because someone reads the Bible differently than we doesn't mean they are stupid, immoral or not listening to God.  They just disagree.

Second, we must not cause others to stumble.  This means that if we have the freedom to participate in an activity, that doesn’t mean that we should convince someone else to participate in that activity if they think it is a sin.  If a QUILTBAG person believes that participation in homosexual sex is sin, then they must not be convinced otherwise.

b.      What we must agree on:  That we must love QUILTBAGs

We have no right to judge or condemn those who commit the act of homosexuality.  We must love them and encourage them, just like every other person.  We should allow them to have rights and to have decent lives.  We have no right to persecute them or take away their rights, just like any other person.  We must welcome homosexuals into our churches, and treat them like God’s children, as they are.

If a church group or Christian chooses to condemn or judge homosexuals as somehow being apart from God’s love, or the love of God’s people, that is in opposition to the Bible, no matter what our view of homosexuality in the Bible is.

c.       What we need not agree on: How to love QUILTBAGS

If we think getting drunk is a sin, we will encourage an alcoholic to stop drinking.  That is loving and right.  We will not abuse the alcoholic, we will not gossip about them and we will not ask them to leave our church.  Rather, we will encourage them to love and good deeds.

If we think getting drunk isn’t a sin, but that people can sin while drunk like any other activity, we  will encourage moderation, but we won’t necessarily think that denial is the only option. 

If someone takes a different viewpoint on how to love a person based on their definition of whether something is a sin or not, that is to be expected.  The important thing is that both sides love, without abuse, in full gentleness and peace, in the best way they can.