WHITE FLAG
Prominent British evangelical Steve Chalke surrenders to the Zeitgeist:
I feel both compelled and afraid to write this article. Compelled because, in my understanding, the principles of justice, reconciliation and inclusion sit at the very heart of Jesus’ message. Afraid because I recognise the Bible is understood by many to teach that the practice of homosexuality, in any circumstance, is a sin or ‘less than God’s best’.
I think you know how the rest of this is going to go.
Some will think that I have strayed from scripture – that I am no longer an evangelical. I have formed my view, however, not out of any disregard for the Bible’s authority, but by way of grappling with it and, through prayerful reflection, seeking to take it seriously.
Translation: making it say what I want it to say so the secular left will respect me.
Promiscuity is always damaging and dehumanising. Casual and self-centred expressions of sexuality – homosexual or heterosexual – never reflect God’s faithfulness, grace and self-giving love. Only a permanent and stable relationship, in which respect and faithfulness are given and received, can offer the security in which well-being and love can thrive.
Told you.
One tragic outworking of the Church’s historical rejection of faithful gay relationships is our failure to provide homosexual people with any model of how to cope with their sexuality, except for those who have the gift of, or capacity for, celibacy. In this way we have left people vulnerable and isolated.
When we refuse to make room for gay people to live in loving, stable relationships, we consign them to lives of loneness, secrecy and fear. It’s one thing to be critical of a promiscuous lifestyle – but shouldn’t the Church consider nurturing positive models for permanent and monogamous homosexual relationships?
Congratulations, Chalkie. You just lost me.
You have be me to understand why that is one of the most offensive things I’ve ever read. Because for as long as I’ve thought about sex (because that’s what this is really all about), a guiding principle of my life is that God’s directive on human intimacy is the correct one and to violate it was literally unthinkable.
And do you know what that stance got me, Chalkie? Forty years all by myself. Granted, I kick ass at intense shyness. And early on, I let a lot of really great women get away because I was waiting for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit model that I was going to marry. Plus, librarians aren’t chick magnets.
But in my case, wanting to do things God’s way rather than the world’s way has given me a life with periods of a loneliness the likes of which few of you can possibly comprehend. How have I handled it? Not well (that would be Chalkie’s “secrecy and fear” part). Have I failed to live up to God’s standard? More times than I can count.
That doesn’t mean that the standard is wrong; it just means that it is very hard if not impossible. But thanks to the Cross, my Father in heaven is infinitely forgiving. Because I haven’t created any universes lately and because I know who God and His Son are, the idea that God needs to lighten up is unthinkable.
But not to Chalkie. Evidently, the loneliness of homosexuals, and only the loneliness of homosexuals, is so much more important that the loneliness of me and others like me that Chalkie thinks that the Church needs totake those stupid anti-homosexuality verses out of the Bible treat Scripture “seriously” in order to let homosexuals feel better about themselves and start sending us pledge checks.
Excuse me if I have trouble giving a crap, Chalkie.
For many, a central issue is the exegesis of the second Genesis Creation Story (Genesis 2:4 – 3:24), which is the one that Jesus later refers to, as recorded in Matthew 19:5: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24).
Was the author intending to enshrine the view that all lifelong sexual unions should be exclusively heterosexual because this is a ‘creation ordinance’? Or, is this simply the normative illustration, whereas the critical truths of the story lie elsewhere? If it is the former, then it is perhaps legitimate to refer to practicing homosexual sex, even within a lifelong relationship, as having ‘fallen short of God’s ideal’ and to state that those who are not heterosexually orientated are ‘in need of restoration’. But, if it’s the latter, then does the ‘norm’ necessarily infer the ‘ideal’? Or is it like the ‘norm’ of being right-handed, which never implies any failing of those who are born left-handed? If so, then neither of the earlier negative definitions is appropriate, but instead cause a great deal of unnecessary pain and, sometimes, terrible tragedy.
Uh…what?!! I don’t know, maybe it’s me, but one would think that God Incarnate would say what He means. Then Chalkie trots out the usual Christian left talking points.
Most Christians are properly wary of using the story of God’s judgement on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) which is now widely understood to be about the indulgence, indifference to others and social injustice of their inhabitants, rather than a proof text against homosexuality.
Is Jude 1:7 not in your Bible, Chalkie?
Then there are the New Testament injunctions (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11) which, depending on the commentaries you choose, are read negatively or more positively in relation to faithful (as opposed to casual), same-sex relationships. In fact, a growing number of evangelical scholars argue that what the New Testament writers refer to as homosexual practice could not have been the stable same-sex unions of the sort that exist today, of which they knew nothing, but promiscuity associated with wild occultic orgies.
The Bible writers didn’t know about stable, homosexual relationships. Which suggests that the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Bible, didn’t know about them either. Which is even stranger considering that the Holy Spirit is…you know. And then there’s slavery.
The Old Testament not only endorses slave keeping and trading, it sets out terms and conditions for its practice (eg. Leviticus 25:44-46). Although the New Testament proposes a more humane form of slave keeping, it fails to deliver a clear cut protest against it. Of course, Galatians 3:28 explains “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” However, this passage is no more a call for the abolition of slavery than it is of the sexes or of national identities and cultures.
Chalkie? You have read the one about Jesus and divorce, right? Now show me anywhere in the Scriptures where anyone is commanded to own a slave. Because I can show you lots of places where people are commanded not to do what Gene Robinson, Susan Russell, Elizabeth Kaeton, Louie Crew, Mary Glasspool and others are commanded not to do what they enjoy doing in their off-hours.
How then did Wilberforce and friends reach their conclusions? It was their view of the proper interpretation of scripture. They saw that the biblical writers did not take blind dictation from God, instead, their personalities, cultural and social understandings all played a part in the formation of their writing. So, rather than basing their approach on isolated proof texts, the abolitionists built their stance around the deeper resonance of the trajectory of scripture – the compass for which is Jesus who was radically inclusive of women and other social outcasts of his day, challenging social norms and perceived orthodoxy.
That would be the same Jesus who used the word “repent” a lot. He declared that “social outcasts” like the tax collector Zacchaeus had been saved only after they had brought fourth fruits worthy of repentance. But teh gheys seem to be the only people in the whole world whose experiences matter these days.
Why am I so passionate about this issue? Because people’s lives are at stake. Numerous studies show that suicide rates among gay people, especially young people, are comparatively high. Church leaders sometimes use this data to argue that homosexuality is unhealthy when tragically it’s anti-gay stigma, propped up by Church attitudes, which, all too often, drives these statistics.
Wrong, dumbass. The Church’s responsibility is to tell the truth, not to make the “truth” as inoffensive as it possibly can. Otherwise, what would be the point?
I feel both compelled and afraid to write this article. Compelled because, in my understanding, the principles of justice, reconciliation and inclusion sit at the very heart of Jesus’ message. Afraid because I recognise the Bible is understood by many to teach that the practice of homosexuality, in any circumstance, is a sin or ‘less than God’s best’.
I think you know how the rest of this is going to go.
Some will think that I have strayed from scripture – that I am no longer an evangelical. I have formed my view, however, not out of any disregard for the Bible’s authority, but by way of grappling with it and, through prayerful reflection, seeking to take it seriously.
Translation: making it say what I want it to say so the secular left will respect me.
Promiscuity is always damaging and dehumanising. Casual and self-centred expressions of sexuality – homosexual or heterosexual – never reflect God’s faithfulness, grace and self-giving love. Only a permanent and stable relationship, in which respect and faithfulness are given and received, can offer the security in which well-being and love can thrive.
Told you.
One tragic outworking of the Church’s historical rejection of faithful gay relationships is our failure to provide homosexual people with any model of how to cope with their sexuality, except for those who have the gift of, or capacity for, celibacy. In this way we have left people vulnerable and isolated.
When we refuse to make room for gay people to live in loving, stable relationships, we consign them to lives of loneness, secrecy and fear. It’s one thing to be critical of a promiscuous lifestyle – but shouldn’t the Church consider nurturing positive models for permanent and monogamous homosexual relationships?
Congratulations, Chalkie. You just lost me.
You have be me to understand why that is one of the most offensive things I’ve ever read. Because for as long as I’ve thought about sex (because that’s what this is really all about), a guiding principle of my life is that God’s directive on human intimacy is the correct one and to violate it was literally unthinkable.
And do you know what that stance got me, Chalkie? Forty years all by myself. Granted, I kick ass at intense shyness. And early on, I let a lot of really great women get away because I was waiting for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit model that I was going to marry. Plus, librarians aren’t chick magnets.
But in my case, wanting to do things God’s way rather than the world’s way has given me a life with periods of a loneliness the likes of which few of you can possibly comprehend. How have I handled it? Not well (that would be Chalkie’s “secrecy and fear” part). Have I failed to live up to God’s standard? More times than I can count.
That doesn’t mean that the standard is wrong; it just means that it is very hard if not impossible. But thanks to the Cross, my Father in heaven is infinitely forgiving. Because I haven’t created any universes lately and because I know who God and His Son are, the idea that God needs to lighten up is unthinkable.
But not to Chalkie. Evidently, the loneliness of homosexuals, and only the loneliness of homosexuals, is so much more important that the loneliness of me and others like me that Chalkie thinks that the Church needs to
Excuse me if I have trouble giving a crap, Chalkie.
For many, a central issue is the exegesis of the second Genesis Creation Story (Genesis 2:4 – 3:24), which is the one that Jesus later refers to, as recorded in Matthew 19:5: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24).
Was the author intending to enshrine the view that all lifelong sexual unions should be exclusively heterosexual because this is a ‘creation ordinance’? Or, is this simply the normative illustration, whereas the critical truths of the story lie elsewhere? If it is the former, then it is perhaps legitimate to refer to practicing homosexual sex, even within a lifelong relationship, as having ‘fallen short of God’s ideal’ and to state that those who are not heterosexually orientated are ‘in need of restoration’. But, if it’s the latter, then does the ‘norm’ necessarily infer the ‘ideal’? Or is it like the ‘norm’ of being right-handed, which never implies any failing of those who are born left-handed? If so, then neither of the earlier negative definitions is appropriate, but instead cause a great deal of unnecessary pain and, sometimes, terrible tragedy.
Uh…what?!! I don’t know, maybe it’s me, but one would think that God Incarnate would say what He means. Then Chalkie trots out the usual Christian left talking points.
Most Christians are properly wary of using the story of God’s judgement on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) which is now widely understood to be about the indulgence, indifference to others and social injustice of their inhabitants, rather than a proof text against homosexuality.
Is Jude 1:7 not in your Bible, Chalkie?
Then there are the New Testament injunctions (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11) which, depending on the commentaries you choose, are read negatively or more positively in relation to faithful (as opposed to casual), same-sex relationships. In fact, a growing number of evangelical scholars argue that what the New Testament writers refer to as homosexual practice could not have been the stable same-sex unions of the sort that exist today, of which they knew nothing, but promiscuity associated with wild occultic orgies.
The Bible writers didn’t know about stable, homosexual relationships. Which suggests that the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Bible, didn’t know about them either. Which is even stranger considering that the Holy Spirit is…you know. And then there’s slavery.
The Old Testament not only endorses slave keeping and trading, it sets out terms and conditions for its practice (eg. Leviticus 25:44-46). Although the New Testament proposes a more humane form of slave keeping, it fails to deliver a clear cut protest against it. Of course, Galatians 3:28 explains “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” However, this passage is no more a call for the abolition of slavery than it is of the sexes or of national identities and cultures.
Chalkie? You have read the one about Jesus and divorce, right? Now show me anywhere in the Scriptures where anyone is commanded to own a slave. Because I can show you lots of places where people are commanded not to do what Gene Robinson, Susan Russell, Elizabeth Kaeton, Louie Crew, Mary Glasspool and others are commanded not to do what they enjoy doing in their off-hours.
How then did Wilberforce and friends reach their conclusions? It was their view of the proper interpretation of scripture. They saw that the biblical writers did not take blind dictation from God, instead, their personalities, cultural and social understandings all played a part in the formation of their writing. So, rather than basing their approach on isolated proof texts, the abolitionists built their stance around the deeper resonance of the trajectory of scripture – the compass for which is Jesus who was radically inclusive of women and other social outcasts of his day, challenging social norms and perceived orthodoxy.
That would be the same Jesus who used the word “repent” a lot. He declared that “social outcasts” like the tax collector Zacchaeus had been saved only after they had brought fourth fruits worthy of repentance. But teh gheys seem to be the only people in the whole world whose experiences matter these days.
Why am I so passionate about this issue? Because people’s lives are at stake. Numerous studies show that suicide rates among gay people, especially young people, are comparatively high. Church leaders sometimes use this data to argue that homosexuality is unhealthy when tragically it’s anti-gay stigma, propped up by Church attitudes, which, all too often, drives these statistics.
Wrong, dumbass. The Church’s responsibility is to tell the truth, not to make the “truth” as inoffensive as it possibly can. Otherwise, what would be the point?
2 comments:
You had me... this was a great bit of commentary, and the reference to Jude 1:7 was brilliant. But then you lost me, in the final paragraph, with "You're wrong, dumbass".
Haven't you ever read ALL of the first chapter of Jude, including the part where it says,
"Yet these men are defiling their bodies by their filthy fantasies in just the same way; ....But I would remind you that even the archangel Michael when he was contending with the devil in the dispute over the body of Moses did not dare to condemn him with mockery. He simply said, the Lord rebuke you!"
And, so here I am again, sitting on a very uncomfortable fence... I KNOW that the liberal homo-apologists are wrong, but their conservative opponents keep showing themselves to be JUST as wrong.
Standing against perversion is a very good thing, but if it comes at the expense of Charity, what does it gain you?... for remember, God's FIRST Law is Love. Without Charity, you can be straight as a plumb line and pure as the driven snow, and still be as barren as a dry well in the desert.
Cynthia, please send your comment directly to Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative. You make a Biblical and legitimate point.
Post a Comment