An Evangelical Approach to Homosexuality - A Proposal

There is a lot of talk among Evangelicals about whether homosexuality is "right" or not. There are people on both sides of the debate, each quoting their Bible. I don't know if this will ever really be resolved, but there is one thing that I think we all can agree on:

We as the church ought to demonstrate love and grace towards people who are gay.

At this point in the argument, however it is common for someone to say, "Yes, but there is a difference between accepting someone and condoning their behavior."

It is at this point that my proposal comes in. Let me begin with some very sobering facts: Statistically, homosexuals have a higher rate of drug abuse, mental illness, and suicide than the larger population. Alarmingly higher in fact. This is well known in the LGBT community, and the reason is quite clear: the rejection they experience - being kicked out of their homes, hiding who they are, being threatened and hated, and so on can easily make a person sick, depressed, broken, and even drive them to suicide. So when gays talk about the importance of being accepted, this is not just political, its something very very close to home for them. It is quite literally, a matter of life and death.

Because of that fact, I think it is rather clear where our priorities should be, and where the priorities of Jesus would be. In his time he was known for "fellowshiping with sinners". Religious folks saw how he welcomed sinners, and concluded that he must not be a prophet. And what did Jesus do? Did he defend his reputation? Did he make sure not to give people the wrong impression? No, he went out of his way to reach out to these people on the margins, often causing open confrontations between himself and the religious leaders of his day. That is our model. Jesus who cares waaaaay more abut loving people than he does with if that looks proper or not.

So based on that model of asking "what would Jesus do" taken together with the severity people in the gay community have of hearing more than anything "you are loved," I propose an indefinite moratorium on pronouncements of the morality or immorality of homosexuality. Let's put that on hold for something much more important.

Regardless of where we stand on the rightness or the wrongness of being gay, I think we should all realize that none of that matters much when people are dying. We need to change our priorities and focus on the critical issue of communicating love and acceptance to these people. Communicating it to a fault, communicating it so completely that we are "misunderstood" and get a "bad reputation," because that is exactly what Jesus did. I want to hear sermons only on how we should love and welcome gay people into our churches, and I want those sermons to be completely unbalanced.

We have spent so much time being "balanced" in the other direction, so much time worrying about "giving the wrong impression" that it is time to shift our lopsided boat the other way. Because as long as our priority is in looking moral rather than in showing compassion and grace to those on the outside, we simply do not have the priorities of Jesus. And when we do not reflect Christ, we are giving the wrong impression. So let's change that.

Victor Hugo on Slavery and Prostitution

The following is a passage from Les Misérables. Hugo here is describing Fantine who has sunk to prostitution in her poverty,

"What is the story of Fantine about? It is about society buying a slave.

From whom? From misery.

From hunger, from cold, from loneliness, from desertion, from privation. Melancholy barter. A soul for a piece of bread. Misery makes the offer; society accepts.

The holy law of Jesus Christ governs our civilization, but it does not yet permeate it. They say that slavery has disappeared from European civilization. That is incorrect. It still exists, but now it weighs only on women, and it is called prostitution.

It weighs on women, that is to say, on grace, frailty, beauty, motherhood. This is not the least among man’s shames.

At this stage in the mournful drama, Fantine has nothing left of what she had formerly been. She has turned to marble in becoming corrupted. Whoever touches her feels a chill. She goes her way, she endures you, she ignores you; she is the incarnation of dishonor and severity. Life and the social order have spoken their last word to her. All that can happen to her has happened. She has endured all, borne all, experienced all, suffered all, lost all, wept for all."

I can't help here but think of the words of Isaiah:

Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

Hugo's chapter here is called Christus nos Liberavit - Christ our Liberator.

Romans & "all have sinned"

I'd like to share a new take on Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

As an evangelical the interpretation that I had always been taught for this verse is that it means that everyone has done something wrong, we all have lied for example, and because God is holy this means that we need to be punished with Hell, even for one small infraction. Anyone who has grown up in Evangelical circles as I have will instantly recognize this line of argument.

Now I don't deny that sin and separation from God is a reality, and that we as humans need to be reconciled into a personal relationship with God. I wholeheartedly affirm that as an Evangelical. But reading through Romans, I do not think that Paul here was intending to present this verse as a kind of moral score card.

Let's back up and look at Paul's line of thought in Romans: The book of Romans is primarily addressed to a Jewish audience (that is, to Christians coming out of a Jewish rather than a pagan background). This becomes abundantly clear in chapter two when Paul directly addresses his readers as Jews "Now you, if you call yourself a Jew..." Paul begins his argument by looking at pagan temple prostitution. Verse 27 reads "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." This is one of the passages that is frequently brought up in debates about homosexuality. But Paul here is not speaking about a mutual committed relationship between two people with a homosexual orientation here (a concept virtually unheard of in his day), he is speaking about sex with a temple prostitute outside of any sort of relationship, and regardless of ones orientation. More to the point he is citing this as an example of a religious practice. This is not an example of 'wild living party people', this is an example of religion gone wrong. The purpose of these orgies in the mystery religions was to connect with God through these rituals. Paul here is putting forth an example of people who are trying to lead moral lives and get close to God, but getting it horribly wrong. It is an example that any Jew at the time would have found appalling, perhaps comparable to how we might react towards the story of some Kool-Aide suicide cult.

Paul then turns this around in chapter two, saying: see how messed up their religion is? well, yours is just as messed up! He challenges his audiences tenancy towards self-righteous judgmentalism, and points out their own hypocrisy. Paul's argument here is that God looks at our heart and life, not at our religious affiliation. It is an extremely radical argument that must have been shocking to hear at the time. Take for example this passage:

"Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God." (Ro 2:25-29 NIV)

Now let's imagine what it must have sounded like in their ears by replacing some of the words here with our own terminology:

"Baptism has value if you observe God's Word, but if you break God's Word, you have become as though you had not been baptized. If those who are not baptized keep the requirements of God's Word, will they not be regarded as though they were baptized? The one who is not baptized physically and yet obeys God's Word will condemn you who, even though you have the Bible and baptism, are a sinner. A man is not a Christian if he is only one outwardly, nor is baptism merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Christian if he is one inwardly; and baptism is baptism of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God."

Now I realize that there is not a direct parallel between baptism and circumcision, so take the above with a grain of salt, but I think putting ourselves in their shoes like this does help to bring out how radical and challenging Paul's message is - both then and now. It is a message that challenges religious self-righteousness and pride.

Paul then in chapter 3 asks if being a Jew does not exempt one from being a sinner what advantage is there then? I think we are on pretty solid ground if we include ourselves as Christians in this, so we might ask the same question: if being a Christian does not mean that we are blameless and perfect, what does it mean? Paul's answer is that having God's word makes us aware of the reality of our brokenness and need so that we can hopefully respond with a bit of self-reflective humility.

This all brings us to Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." Paul continues

"...and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

I've said a lot in the past about the meaning of verse 24 "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood" which you can read here, here, and here. Right now I want to draw our attention the part after that where he says "He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished"

The original Greek for this reads:

"εἰς ἔνδειξιν (in order to demonstrate) τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ (the righteousness of His) διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν (accounting for ignoring) τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων (the previous sins).

So a pretty literal translation would be that God presented Jesus... "in order to show His righteousness in ignoring previous sins." The NLV puts it like this "This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past." In other words, in the eyes of his Jewish audience, God's not judging and punishing sin was seen as unjust. As a people long in exile, living under pagan oppression, they wanted God to come in wrath and judge the Gentile sinners. God judging sin meant for them that the victims would be avenged. So when God did not come in wrath, this seemed in their eyes to be unjust - similar perhaps to how we might feel it unjust to not respond to an act of terrorism. They saw it as an inaction, and cried out with the Prophets "How long, O LORD, must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, 'Violence!' but you do not save?"

What I think Paul is saying here is that because we all are sinners, this wish for God to wipe out the "bad guys" means we would be wiped out too. That's why he says God held back (πάρεσιν), because God wanted to show his righteousness and justice in a different way, though Christ now making us right (v 26). This is what Luther called "God's alien justice" making us right with him though God's righteousness. It's not a quid pro quo payback justice, its a justice that justifies - that sets us aright. This new way in Christ is the way of redemption instead of wrath. That means that in this context, Ro 3:23 is not some sort of judicial score card, it is a statement of non-violence. Paul is saying: look I know you want to see people being judged, I know you want to see those who have oppressed and hurt you get hurt back, but that way is a deathtrap because we all are guilty, we all have hurt and been hurt. This vicious cycle of blame will only perpetuate injustice. It's not just them over there, it's all of us, and so we all need mercy and redemption.

That's Paul's message here in its original context. Not one of petty accounting where the smallest infraction has the most severe consequence, but a recognition of our own brokenness and need - even as religious people, especially as religious people - to live in mercy and grace.