The Anti-Manichaeist

God is not a Gay-Rights Activist nor a Homophobe.

Posted by DLW in Uncategorized at 3:20 pm | Permanent Link

21 Responses to “God is not a Gay-Rights Activist nor a Homophobe.”

1. Solly Says:
   The 25th of November, 2004 at 3:35 am

   Good post.
   Have you read The emphatic Christian Center by Pasewark and Paul (Abingdon, 1999)? It’s a good book, and very much into dealing with the divide between left and right in the US, but without renouncing one’s position.

2. Jon Says:
   The 3rd of December, 2004 at 10:28 am

   This post saddens me. I hear someone saying “I am sexist but not misogynist,” “I am racist but I do not have an irrational fear or hatred of people of color” or “I am anti-semitic, but only because the Bible tells me to be” — and these academic distinctions would only confirm for me that the speaker is in denial of the unconscious fear and hatred from which such statements come. You can do better.

3. DLW Says:
   The 3rd of December, 2004 at 10:59 am

   heterosexism is only a word. I accept it as a label because it reflects my belief that not all sexual orientations are created equal. But it is the orientations that are being judged, not the people, and I also believe that we should not put our sexual orientations at the center of our understanding of ourselves. And so if I am unfair and unloving in my treatment of any homosexuals then I am still very much at fault.

   dlw

4. Jon Says:
   The 4th of December, 2004 at 8:06 am

   A distinction without a differnce. Labels aside, however, the fact is that you have been misled by a hateful interpretation of the Word, the same kind of interepretation that others have made to “biblically” justify slavery and the opression of women.

   If gays, bi’s, and lesbians “center” their sexuality in their idenity, it is — ironically, Anti-M — because folks like you are trying to deny it and push it to the margins. Or do you belive that they would be just as “obsessed” in a world where one was not judged by one’s sexual orientation but by the quality of one’s character?

5. DLW Says:
   The 4th of December, 2004 at 10:28 am

   Why would it not make a difference whether or not one judges homosexual orientations vs. persons?

   Also Jon, I don’t think what is at exegetically at issue here is the rendering of something that was culturally specific to the OT and NT time into a universal statement. There were many forms of homosexual acts that were culturally accepted in NT times in gentile culture. Paul and the early church’s decision to continue the jewish proscription against such acts for gentile converts to Christianity, using very strong language was a very counter-cultural statement for their time. My contention is that it was made in ignorance that some people may have homosexual orientations and they may lack Paul’s gift of life-long celibacy. As such, I think we need not to judge these people for their orientation, but that doesn’t mean we accept that their orientation is equally good in God’s eyes, since to do that we would also have to accept the homosexual acts that were proscribed for Christian believers by the early church.

   I am not trying to deny that people have sexual orientations. Neither do I want to push people who have homosexual orientations to the margin.

   I’m afraid I didn’t understand your last question.

   dlw

6. Jon Says:
   The 4th of December, 2004 at 7:24 pm

   Er, I don’t understand why it wouldn’t.

   I suppose we could argue about the context of OT and NT statments, history, and such, but i agree that may not be the issue.

   I think the real theological issue is whether you think gays and lesbians who are in love do in fact love each other and, if they do, what relation that love has to divine love.

   what do you say? maybe then we can talk about sex.

7. DLW Says:
   The 4th of December, 2004 at 11:16 pm

   Um, because we are called to love each other, despite our shortcomings? Love the child of God, not the sinful situations we are born into.

   I do not deny that gays or lesbians can be in love with each other, similar to how heterosexuals may be in love with each other. I think that love needs to be more than a sexual attraction and entails a selflessness that values the other over ourselves. I believe that romantic love is meant to be an imperfect reflection of the agape love of God towards us humans and the world.

   I affirm Grenz’s statement that heterosexual marriage is the union of two who are sexually “other” into a bond that is inherently bilateral and meant to last. I disagree with Grenz in that I believe a similar sort of bond may be affirmed for people with homosexual orientations as making the best of a fallen situation, not unlike as is done when divorcees are allowed to remarry.

   I hope that makes my position more clear for you.
   dlw

8. Jon Says:
   The 5th of December, 2004 at 5:17 am

   “similar” implies the same in some way and different in some way. how same? how different?

9. DLW Says:
   The 5th of December, 2004 at 12:37 pm

   This post has been removed by the author.

10. DLW Says:
    The 13th of December, 2004 at 8:39 pm

    I personally am in favor of homosexual marriages within churches so long as it is made clear that a life-long celibate heterosexual marriage is still the ideal. I think this is an exception that can be made to the biblical teachings, inasmuch as they didn’t consider the case of people with homosexual orientations wanting to enter into a monogamous relationship.

    I oppose politically making gay marriages legal because of how such an act is associated with many other interminable questions associated with the cultural wars that shouldn’t disputed politically.

    I am warming up to the notion that we should consider taking Gov’t out of the marriage business and only having civil unions geared to promote longer-term relationships of the heterosexual or homosexual type. Marriage probably should be left to Churches/Synagogues/Mosques/Temples/etc.

    I think once we establish in the public’s mind that homosexuality is both chosen and not chosen and that civil unions are for those for whom it is not chosen then the issue’s political significance will be reduced and other issues will be more important in our future elections.

11. DLW Says:
    The 14th of December, 2004 at 12:06 am

    The short version of the above is that I believe a homosexual marriage can be a covenantal relationship between the partners and God, just as a heterosexual marriage can be. The difference is that the heterosexual marriage would be closer to the ideal. However, inasmuch as homosexuals do not choose their orientations, they should be held as above those many heterosexuals who get divorced and then remarry.

    Both fall short of ideal. The latter is accepted, even though they likely had much more of a say-so in what led to their sub-optimal situation. I think it is hypocritical to deny marriage to committed homosexual couples.

    As stated above, my reasons for opposing legal marriages is based on my pragmaticist belief that people’s associations will make it another political black-hole swallowing up political capital from both sides that would be better expended on a wide variety of alternative issues, including measures that will secure more protections for homosexuals against violence and mistreatment.

    dlw

12. Jon Says:
    The 15th of December, 2004 at 12:43 am

    D:

    Let me make an argument in what I take to be the spirit of this blog, one that desires communication across the cultural battlefield – and thus, I assume, must acknowledge the possibility of a change in positions. If your heart is hardened on this matter, I really have no interest in discussing it.

    I am not a Christian, of course, but I do not think it would make sense for me to make an argument that does not acknowledge your faith – “I don’t care what you believe in; you are wrong about homosexuality” – so I will try to make an argument that makes sense within Christianity.

    Indeed, I find much to admire about Christianity; at its best it speaks certain truths and espouses values I embrace dearly:

    – love
    – compassion
    – sacrifice
    – community
    – empathy
    – equality
    – freedom from oppression
    – anti-materialism
    – pacifism

    Obviously, this is a nutshell version of a certain tradition which, in my mind, finds its great expression in the work of Dr. King and others who have found in Christian ideals the basis for an active struggle for social justice. Obviously, Christians have no particular quarter on these values.

    In essence, my argument is that a good Christian would see this list as speaking the highest truths of his or her faith and, when approaching a question of doctrine, would turn to this list to resolve what are either ambiguities within the biblical text or differences of interpretation among fallible human readers. He would resist the temptation to get caught up in literalism (an impossible epistemology) or to be swayed by interpretations based in principles which contradict these highest values.

    To a Christian who said “I give the Bible authority over my worldview,” I would say that one cannot – must not — abdicate responsibility for one’s opinions and actions. The Bible may include some passages that seem to refer to homosexuality or same-sex acts or whatever, but the Bible does not say “the existence of people with homosexual orientations is due to the fallenness of the world, not God’s will” – that’s a human interpretation, an extrapolation, an expansion. The elision of Bible text and a particular human reading is not just a rhetorical ploy; it’s a dishonest and dangerous hermeneutic because: a) if one does it unconsciously, then one allows one’s own hidden motivations to inform one’s faith; b) if one does it consciously then one denies the possibility of one’s own error.

    We know that, on any matter of substance, you will find over history coherent arguments for the “Biblical truth” of many opposing positions. What leads you to choose one opinion over another?

    For me:
    1) I see with my own eyes and I affirm within my own heart that homosexual love is as wonderful and powerful and compassionate as heterosexual love. I am moved by it no less. I experience it as the *same phenomenon.* Insofar as the truth is revealed to our senses and our spirits, I tell you honestly that this is my experience.

    2) I can test this experience against the list I have made of “Christian” values. Thinking of my friends’ Sue and Stasa’s wedding, for example, I saw every “Christian” value I can ask myself: “Did this event manifest love?” yes. “compassion?” yes. And so on down the list, a series of resounding YES’s. Such would not be the case for every heterosexual wedding I have witnessed…

    3) I thus view with great suspicion any argument that causes me to set aside these values in favor of others. The idea that homosexual love is “less ideal” than heterosexual love because it does not “symbolize” a human yearning for wholeness in the coming together of sexual opposites,” for example, seems to me a rather convoluted rationalization that holds no power in the face of my commitment to equality, community, and freedom from oppression. It’s not rational for me to say “Ah, yes, these may be core principles of my faith, but I see that the Biblical text is so insistent on an “ethics” based in sexual difference, I must judge the latter weightier than the former.”

    Perhaps a simple way of putting this: If you realize that you are choosing among human interpretations, why do you choose the one that is more hurtful? Why not strive to chose the one that embraces love the most?

13. DLW Says:
    The 17th of December, 2004 at 9:13 pm

    This is my third attempt to reply. I hope its the charm.

    Let me start by thanking you for your thoughtful comment, Jon.

    I agree that we need to be open to change our minds about stuff, particularly peripheral issues like whether or not homosexual and heterosexual orientations are equally valid, which unfortunately has become unnecessarily tied in with a host of other issues.

    I can agree that those are a good set of values and truths that Christianity does possess. Yet, in Christianity they would fall under the Biblical meta-narrative of Creation, Fall and Redemption. We must see ourselves as fallen beings in a world that has become other than what God intended. We also must see ourselves as privileged to help in the redemption of the world and each other from the spiritual and material shackles that bind us. Although, we shouldn’t presume that that is what we’ve been doing non-stop up to this point.

    But from a traditionalist Christian perspective, we can’t take the meanings of the values you listed as ontologically-given. They too are subject to differing interpretations and so do not provide an infallible way out of the problem of the hermeneutical circle. Their meanings have to be worked out in a community that for Christians should include relevant factual understandings, personal experiences(not unlike yours), scripture and the voices of past believers through tradition. We must wrestle with God through scripture and tradition.

    In Christian, unlike Jewish, tradition, we allow for natural evil. As such, it is plausible that homosexual orientations may be naturally predetermined by the hormonal balances formed in our brains during gestation and still be judged an unfortunate development. Although, that possibility does not make it true. You are correct to point out that the Bible does not say the existence of people with homosexual orientations is due to the fallenness of the world, not God’s will.” That is an interpretation.

    I am sorry if I came across as conflating it with Scripture. I do not want to deny the possibility that I and the Christian Church can be in error with our traditions. I also do not want to deny your sensory perceptions about how uplifting and in accord with Christian values homosexual relationships can be. I don’t see any particular reason why having a “fallen” homosexual orientation would imply that one’s relationships cannot be uplifting. I mean we are all considered to be “jars of clay” that bear value in spite of our less than ideal conditions.

    I don’t see the belief that homosexual orientations are fallen in the ultimate sense as hurting even further homosexuals. I may be wrong in this. I acknowledge the implied argument that having a homosexual orientation does not harm others, cause a harmful lifestyle, and the fact that it potentially complicates child-birth and rearing does not negate it, either. I have written before that only homosexuals with homosexual orientations could best “judge” whether it is sub-optimal or not.

    I framed the issue as follows. Lets say we’ve proven that our sexual orientations are due to the hormonal balances formed in our brains while we are fetuses and, furthermore, we’ve discovered a risk-free way to intervene at the fetal stage that will prevent someone from developing a homosexual orientation later on in life. The question then could be posed,in a confidential survey whose results are not to be made public, to homosexuals as to whether they would advise the parents of these fetuses to have the operation done or not?

    I think the truth could come out then. Otherwise, people tend to rationalize their given conditions and read way too much into the issue for people’s responses to be trusted. One could add a variant on the question that would posit the existence of a homophobic-free social environment, as well.

    And so I am open to potentially having my faith-based prejudice, or prior to what would be the answer to the above question, changed and if my actions do hurt homosexuals then I am open to changing my actions. As I stated earlier, I do support religious marriages for committed homosexual couples and oppose legal marriages mainly for reasons of real-politik.

    So once again thankyou for your post and I hope my post clarifies my view some. I admit that they reflect a prejudice and tradition. I don’t think that prejudices are inherently wrong as I also think we inevitably rely on fallible traditions to make judgements about how we should best let our lights shine in this world. I don’t see many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians as struggling enough with the combination of the facts, testimony of experiences like yours, and what the Bible does and does not say, and the fallibility of their traditions on this matter and I believe that they are being poor witnesses of Christianity because of their lack of deliberation on the matter.

    dlw

14. DLW Says:
    The 18th of December, 2004 at 5:33 pm

    ps, Jon, the test I propose above is my “ideal-type” test. I’d be willing to learn and maybe change my views from less than optimal tests/evidence, as well.

    dlw

15. Jon Says:
    The 1st of January, 2005 at 11:11 am

    “We must wrestle with God through scripture and tradition.”

    1) Isn’t it more accurate to say “traditions” (and “communities”) when you reference the need to square your interpretation with thse of other Christians? The point I was trying to make is that there *is* a tradition out there if you want it. There are traditions and there are traditions, of course, so perhaps I could re-frame my argument as follows:
    a. sometimes you need to jettison a tradition of interpretation and fast (take anti-semitism as an example; *there’s* a tradition for you…)
    b. once you see a historical pattern of hurtful and misguided “traditional” interpretations, how quickly can you move to historicize a “new” conflict in the present. I.e. how will history judge you? Will you be a Las Casas or a conquistator?
    c. This kind of thinking (moving quickly against ‘mainstream’ traditions) *is itself already a Christian tradition* — that’s my main point. Tradtion doesn’t have to mean “going along with what has come before” if it’s a *tradition* of radicalism, so to speak. As you know, I think this is the best tradition Christianity has to offer, and it starts in the Bible, in my opinion, where “traditional” authority (in both mundane and spiritual matters) does not come off well. (Was Jesus a traditionalist?)

    2) What need is there to square your interpretation with the rest of us who aren’t Chistians? (Whose opinion counts more, Ghandi’s or Pat Robertson’s?) There’s a tradition for that, too.

    ”In Christian, unlike Jewish, tradition, we…”

    Just a rhetorical point here: there are a lot of people in that “we” — too many, I think; is that “all Christians who have ever lived?”

    “it is plausible that homosexual orientations may be naturally predetermined by the hormonal balances formed in our brains during gestation”

    Well, “predermined” is too strong. I’d be happy to say that homosexuality is *as natual as* heterosexuality, but both – along with the very concept of delimiting sexualities into categories — are cultural artifacts.

    “the fact that it potentially complicates child-birth and rearing does not negate it.”

    Hey, come on! heteros do a *great* job of fucking up their kids! Seriously. They do. Did you see that nice article in the NYT magazine about kids of gay parents?

    “only homosexuals with homosexual orientations could best ‘judge’ whether it is sub-optimal or not.”

    No need for the conditional here; they already have.

    Re: your survey idea.
    I’m confident about the outcome, of course, but why would this kid of poll affect your thinking on this matter? It’s not scripture or interpretation.

    ”if my actions do hurt homosexuals”

    They do because, even given your political positions, they are part of the general social prejudice against them.

16. DLW Says:
    The 2nd of January, 2005 at 4:05 pm

    Happy New Year Jon,
    I agree that it is more accurate to say traditions. Yet, one can also compare traditions with scripture and what was the teaching of the earliest church and how that counterpoised with the prevalent culture of their time.

    sometimes you need to jettison a tradition of interpretation and fast (take anti-semitism as an example; *there’s* a tradition for you…)Anti-semitism can be decisively rejected by appreciating the cultural jewishness of Jesus and Paul and others who wrote the Bible. One can read of how they sought to counter the Anti-Gentilism of their day. Then, one can trace the tragic history through which anti-semitism became institutionalized into the Christian church.

    My response is that heterosexism is not the same as with anti-semitism. This is because of the dual understanding of homosexuality as both chosen and not chosen, with the notion of a homosexual orientation having emerged relatively recently. I do agree with you that it would be of great value and importance to go back and review Christian traditions that accepted homosexual marriages. I have wanted to read, “Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe” by JOHN BOSWELL for some time.

    However, we can’t presume that these past traditions will fit nicely into our modern day categories and conflicts. They dealt with a period when Church and State were not separate. Today, the issues of state and religious marriages are separate issues. I would ideally like to be a member of a church that accepts homosexual marriages under conditions analogous to what they accept for heterosexual marriages. As I’ve stated before, my opposition to state homosexual marriages is based largely for pragmatic reasons rather than a belief that they would have apocalyptic negative effects.

    once you see a historical pattern of hurtful and misguided “traditional” interpretations, how quickly can you move to historicize a “new” conflict in the present. I.e. how will history judge you? Will you be a Las Casas or a conquistator? As I understand it, tradition is ideally supposed to be a repository of deliberations based on experiences. Clearly the perception that people are being hurt by teaching and practices should lead to more deliberation on what changes may be made to tradition. As I understand it, prior to the Protestant-Catholic schism, traditions were seen as fallible and subject to change and more legitimate disagreements among equally committed Christians. Although, this may be, in part, wishful thinking and selective perception on my behalf. I’m going off of my recall from reading Stanley Grenz’s “Renewing the Center”. After the Schisms, many protestants read their newly-formed traditions into scripture and the RCC elevated their traditions to the same level as scripture.

    Hence, the need is to return to the way things were prior to the schism. I can maintain continuity with tradition, by considering how it was not understood at that time that homosexuality is both chosen and not chosen.

    This kind of thinking (moving quickly against ‘mainstream’ traditions) *is itself already a Christian tradition* — that’s my main point. Tradtion doesn’t have to mean “going along with what has come before” if it’s a *tradition* of radicalism, so to speak. As you know, I think this is the best tradition Christianity has to offer, and it starts in the Bible, in my opinion, where “traditional” authority (in both mundane and spiritual matters) does not come off well. (Was Jesus a traditionalist?)Yes, I agree that we should not elevate our traditions and we should prioritize loving the other as of highest importance. Jesus was both steeped in Jewish tradition and radical. We need to do both. My problem with liberal forms of Christianity, like Cornel West and others, is that they don’t seem to struggle enough with scripture and tradition on this issue. It is just accepted as a datum that the gay-rights movement is a modern day analog with the civil-rights movement. I think that such an analogy needs to be qualified.

    What about squaring with non-Christians? Who is more important Ghandi or Pat Robertson?I think dialogue is important. I consider Ghandi as a non-Christian who was dialoguing with Christianity, not unlike you. I consider Robertson to be a modern-day pharisee, whose voice with others I would like to see undermined.

    ”In Christian, unlike Jewish, tradition, we…”

    Just a rhetorical point here: there are a lot of people in that “we” — too many, I think; is that “all Christians who have ever lived?” please try to read my intent with some generosity, I agree I should have qualified it some. I was trying to speak of some general differences as I’ve come to understand them from my interaction with Jewish people.

    Well, “predermined” is too strong. I’d be happy to say that homosexuality is *as natual as* heterosexuality, but both – along with the very concept of delimiting sexualities into categories — are cultural artifacts.I don’t see predetermined as having a normative connotation. People do not have to have homosexual orientations to engage in homosexual acts. But the best theory out there right now, IMHO, is the one based on the hormonal balance formed while we are fetuses.

    It is also a cultural artifact for some to view what is natural as inherently good. I don’t think it is purely cultural. There is a continuum, on which we impose cultural categories. I know it is natural for people to feel some same-sex attractions when we grow up at some point. I can remember when I went to swedish language camp as a 10 year-old and went to my first dance ever. I was nerve-wracked about asking a female to dance and so I asked my male counselor to dance with me. I later danced with females, but I’m guessing my family found out about it, inasmuch as sometime later I had several concerned members asking questions about whether I was attracted to a particular female or not. It turned out I was just a late-bloomer.

    “only homosexuals with homosexual orientations could best ‘judge’ whether it is sub-optimal or not.”

    No need for the conditional here; they already have.

    Re: your survey idea.
    I’m confident about the outcome, of course, but why would this kid of poll affect your thinking on this matter? It’s not scripture or interpretation.I’m not convinced. Like I said before, people tend to rationalize the status quo and can you say that for everyone with a homosexual orientation?

    We both have our priors. The poll idea is meant to be a means to adjust them in a situation where what they said would have a concrete consequence and be sheltered from the politics of the manner.

    ”if my actions do hurt homosexuals”

    They do because, even given your political positions, they are part of the general social prejudice against them.I don’t see how a prejudice against the homosexual orientation necessarily parlays into a prejudice against people with homosexual orientations. There are some who justify prejudice on that basis, but such does not follow. I think it would only follow if homosexuals made such an orientation as central to their self-identity.

    I am arguing that we should not make our sexual orientations or gender even as central to our identities. For at the resurrection, we will be like the angels in heaven and neither marry or be given in marriage(Matthew 22:30). Our sexuality reflects our incompleteness. When we are made complete with new bodies then we will not be sexual beings. That’s why discrimination against females and homosexuals is wrong. It privileges distinctions that are not ultimately all important. But it is not one of the rights of homosexuals to have their orientation, or all points along the continuum, viewed as equally valid.

    You cannot derive an ought from an is without an intermediary normative premise. We disagree on the normative premise, not on the need to secure the rights and to love people with homosexual orientations.
    dlw

17. The Anti-Manichaeist » Heterosexual Marriage Amendment Dialogue Says:
    The 27th of February, 2006 at 2:19 am

    […] I also think it is critical to qualify some the analogy commonly made among Liberals between Civil rights and Lesbian Bisexual Gay Transgendered rights.  In the latter case, we’re dealing with complex, heterogenous phenomena that we are still learning more about.  This is illustrated by the extensive search for the gay gene that has been disproved by twin studies.  And so I think there is a big difference between opposing homosexuality out of an irrational fear/hatred of people with homosexual orientations and opposing homosexual acts because of Scriptural teaching and maybe an incomplete understanding of the intrinsic difficulty of modifying one’s sexual orientation.  I’ve found from personal experience that many Liberals both over use the term homophobia(My heterosexist position was labelled as homophobic by gay rights activist friends.) and neglect the issue of the increasing rates of sexual libertarianism that are better described as metrosexuality, or “it’s all good”.  […]

18. The Anti-Manichaeist » I’m a little disappointed in Equality Ride Says:
    The 18th of April, 2006 at 11:03 am

    […] But I persist in my heterosexist views as I didn’t hear my heterosexist position addressed.  I guess if I had any critique, I didn’t like having exactly the same position restated over and over again, though I very much appreciate the personal stories, although I perceive their significance somewhat differently.  I frame the conflict as being primarily about how we shd minister as Christians to people with homosexual orientations or who are transgendered.  […]

19. The Anti-Manichaeist » Blog Archive » I Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment! Says:
    The 3rd of June, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    […] But from a Christian theological perspective, what is very disturbing is the presupposition that what matters is what is legal, rather than the reign of the Word of God over individual hearts.  I’ve been open about my heterosexist belief that not all sexual orientations are equal, though in God’s eyes all human beings are of equal value regardless of their sexual orientations.  But this deals with God’s ideal for marriage, not the legal codes surrounding marriages that inevitably must accomodate human sinfulness.  We must keep those two distinct and Bush is caving in to those who conflate them, for no good reason other than politics. […]

20. Ted Gossard Says:
    The 3rd of June, 2006 at 5:56 pm

    DLW,

    Good post. I agree about your/my position on homosexual activity not being synonymous to a homophobia.

    Christians who are hitting the political trail so hard to promote laws that seem aimed against the persons who are homosexual, undermine their calling from God to promote a kingdom that welcomes homosexuals and everyone else. That takes such in, as they are. But in Jesus, leaves none of us where we are, as we begin the transformational process into his image.

21. The Anti-Manichaeist » Blog Archive » Dialogue on Homosexuality/Mohler’s Final Solution Says:
    The 7th of March, 2007 at 8:58 pm

    […] Blame it on procrastination, but it shows how hard it is to hold to a heterosexist position like mine without being alluded to or smeared as homophobic. […]

Leave a Reply