America: Now With 50% Less Gay!

When I first saw the research findings a few weeks ago, I knew it would cause a stir.

The National Health Interview Survey is a CDC administrated survey of the population of the United States, one with an unusually large and representative sample.  This was science for the sake of understanding population dynamics, with no agenda.  It was solid, meticulously-designed empirical research, geared to answer an array of questions about our society.

Among the questions: do you self-identify as gay, lesbian, or with a non-traditional sexual identity?

The return on those particular data-points:  About one point six percent of the American population self-identify as gay, or lesbian.  About point seven percent are bisexual.  One point one said they were "other" or did not answer.  Ninety six point six percent were straight.

This is a robust finding, and that worries activists for those who differ from the norm sexually.  Why?  It's less than half of the percentage typically claimed or found in less rigorous studies, and vastly lower than popular perception.

The worry is bluntly political: if there are fewer gay people, that's a problem, because that means fewer votes.   Fewer votes reduces political influence, and reduced political influence will embolden reactionary forces in our culture.  "Look how few gays there are," right-wingers will shout.  "We should be able to oppress them with impunity!"

Or so the thinking goes.

There is a temptation here, no doubt, for advocates to attack the messenger, to pick through the research for flaws in methodology in an attempt to discredit it.  Or to look for ad hominem ways to attack the research team.  But that's dangerous ground, because when you start attacking science, it means you've ceased to be interested in reality.  The researchers involved are already viewing this critically, examining the study themselves without concern for political points.  Because, you know, that's what good science does.  But in the meantime, it's the best available finding.

How can there be so few?  Our culture spends a huge amount of energy on this issue, and...it's that little?

It seems to change the flavor of the issue, taking it from whole-milk to two percent.

It also doesn't *feel* right.  I know so many more LGBTQI folks than that, you say.  I know so many, I even know what all those letters mean.  But your observations are anecdotal, and particular to a subculture.  If you're a creative, and hung around with the drama crowd in high school, sure, you knew more gays and lesbians than that.  If you live in an urban, progressive area, sure, you know more than that. This makes sense.  If you're not actively toxic and hateful towards a certain group of people, you'll tend to know more of them.  They won't lie to you about who they are, or just avoid you altogether.  That's how that works, kids.

This finding reminds us that none of our immediate, local realities is quite as representative as we think.  That's why science is so very useful, eh?

I don't think this is much of a worry, though, for two primary reasons.

First, sure, the number is lower.  We're talking about a smaller minority.  Why does that justify oppressing that minority, or refusing basic human rights to that minority?  It does not morally strengthen the hand of the ultra-conservatives.  If anything, it weakens it.

Here, a small group.  Why are you so insistent on repressing them?  Why is every other sermon your pastor preaches focused on hammering on those sinful gays, if there's a tiny number of them?  Why do your organizations spend all this time going on about what a huge threat tolerating this tiny minority will be?  Perhaps that's a sign that something's gone seriously wrong with the priorities of the people shouting at you.

Second, the number still works, and it works tribally.   What do I mean by that?

Two percent means the odds are there's one in every fifty.

More significantly, there are three in every hundred and fifty.

One hundred and fifty is an important social number.  It's Dunbar's number, the rough number of individuals that make up organic human social networks.  The number of people you know personally, and are part of your sense of the world and your place in it?  That's around 150 total souls.

Even with the social sifting in our culture, everyone will know someone who was just...um...born that way.  Within every American's network of belonging, there will be one or two or three people--a friend, a co-worker, a cousin, a child--who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or some other orientation.  We know them.  They are our friends and our family, and we love them, and now that we know how much our culture has hurt them, we want that to change.

Because, as Horton said, a person's a person, no matter how small a demographic percentage they represent.

Or something to that effect.

On Not Eating Gay Chicken

I'm not eating at Chik-fil-A lately, but that's nothing new.  I just don't eat chicken.

As a vegetarian, I try not to be one-a them annoying folks who smugly beam out at the Morally Inferior Flesh-Munchers around them, as I wanly gnaw on my semi-edible organic tofu jerky.   I succeed most of the time.

I've been known to grill meat on occasion for my boys.  Well, on frequent occasion.  In the summer, that's every other day.  I  love grilling, because 1) Me like fire. Fire good! and 2) There's a reason YHWH preferred Abel's burnt offering to Cain's.
 Man, does that kalbi smell good, truly an odor pleasing to the Lord.

But if I ate meat, I'd have an issue with Chik-Fil-A.  Not that they're different from KFC, mind you.  Or Burger King.  Or Wendys.  Or most of the meat we buy and eat.

To be utterly honest, every once in a while the kids do go to BK.  But when I prepare meat for them at home, I try to get stuff that's locally sourced and/or humanely raised.  It costs a bit more, but if I'm going to prepare food, that's the way I want to roll.

Chik-Fil-A chicken is...well...only the finest-quality factory-produced fast-food-standard chicken.  Which means it meets all the self-imposed standards of the factory-farming industry.  Its website also proudly announces that the chicken at Chik-fil-A meets all legal standards...which...um...is heartening, I suppose.

A quick look at the National Chicken Council lets us know that what is most industry standard are "genetic improvements,"  "automation," and taking advantage of new "pharmaceutical, biological, and production technologies."  There's also a large section on their website hailing the merits of "vertical integration," which is buzzword-speak for "the multinational conglomerate that now so generously lets you still work your family-farm which it now basically owns."

Checking out Chik-Fil-A's  own materials on the subject, we hear that their producers only give antibiotics to their chickens to prevent illness. But their chickens are raised in...um...highly packed conditions, which makes illness easily spread.

It also means, if some old studies about significant overcrowding in animal populations are to be believed, that most of the hens could well be lesbian.  Such studies aren't definitive, of course, particularly cross-species.  But that is sort of ironic, in a horrible way, given the subject at hand.

The long and the short of it is that they pump 'em up with animal drugs, which we then ingest.

We also hear that they only feed their chickens a carefully selected mix of grains, chemicals, and animal byproducts.  Meaning, bits of whatever happens to be left over in the rendering process.  Yum!

And then, of course, having raised these creatures by the hundreds of millions in remarkably unpleasant conditions, they're killed and breaded and served to us, the apex predator.

This, for me, raises another interesting irony.

Here we have a chain that espouses biblical values, yet is as a business by necessity entirely governed by the values of industrial meat production and distribution.   Those latter values...which leave no sabbath for the creatures they create and destroy, and which treat animals not as vessels of the Creator's breath just as we are, but as inanimate objects...are utterly alien to scripture.

Such strange, strange ironies, our culture serves up.  With waffle fries, no less.

The Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians

When the Presbyterian Church (USA) recently moved to open the door for the ordination of gays and lesbians, it was inevitable that those for whom this action was a line in the sand would seek ways to distance themselves from the denomination.

So when a gathering of conservative Presbyterians coalesced in Miami, the output of that event seemed inevitable.  There was much praying.  There was much worshipping and preaching.  After it all, to no-one's great surprise, there is now yet another denomination.  Or sort of a denomination.  A denominish?  Denominette?  It's a bit difficult to tell yet.

What was formed at the Miami gathering has been called, somewhat opaquely, the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians.  This name has the advantage of sounding a bit like the campus ministry at Hogwarts, or better yet, a league of oldline superheroes with a secret subterranean sanctuary.   "To the Bat-Nave, Robin!"

For branding purposes, they're going to call themselves ECO.  Coupled with an appropriately leafy-growthy logo, it feels rather more contemporary than the blockish and fusty logo of the PC(USA).

Getting into the meat of this movement, though, there are a few telling things.  As has been noted by others, there's almost no indication of the "why" of the creation of this entity.   For example, as a "covenant order," there is a covenant that you need to affirm.   Reading through the covenant, I can see little in it that I wouldn't be able to affirm in both practice and/or principle.   Nor, quite frankly, do I see much in it that a practicing, open and married lesbian teaching elder couldn't affirm.

Going more deeply into their theological statements, I'm there with the exception of one or two sentences out of many, many pages.  This I can say as someone who stands on the other side of the fence they're in the process of teetering on top of.  If your raison-d'etre is the Divine Nyet to gays and abortion, it's a bit odd that this isn't more evident.

This highlights something of a conundrum for the fledgling ECO.  They are positioning themselves as a back-to-the-roots conservative movement, one embracing eternal biblical truths while being open to new forms of being church.

But they are not the conservatives who believe that the universe is 6,000 years old.   They are also not the conservatives who reject global warming and climate change as a Wiccan/Democrat/Bilderberger plot to contaminate our precious bodily fluids.   They are also not the conservatives who reject women's roles in leadership.

ECO is only fundamentalist when it comes to gays and abortion, and those positions are hedged and hidden by indirect language.  They'd slide into the denominational continuum to the right of the PC(USA), but just a smidge to the left of the EPC, and several notches more to the left than the PCA.

Further, while ECO seems to be taking on the form of a denomination, that form seems remarkably close to the thing they've just left.   Or rather, left-ish.  A tremendous amount of depresbyribonucleic acid is still evident in the ECO genome.  For example, their constitution includes in its entirety the PC(USA) Book of Confessions.  Their materials indicate that a congregation can can be both PC(USA) and ECO at the same time.  They focus a great deal on the pensions and benefits for pastors, an odd thing for a movement.  I'm fairly sure Luther didn't include a benefits package rate sheet underneath the theses he nailed to the door in Wittenberg.

The challenge for this group would seem to be the Aesop's Bat Conundrum.  That classic fable describes the Bat, who claimed himself neither beast nor fowl in a war between air and earth.  Are you a bird of the air? Are you a beast of the ground?   

As much as I like the via media myself, claiming to be both often gets you neither.  

Still and all, I can appreciate the positivity with which ECO seems to be trying to launch.  They're not fulminating or raging, which is a welcome thing in our binary, demonizing culture.  For those who choose to participate in whatever this new thing proves to be, I'd hope PC(USA) folk will choose to be as gracious as our Master calls us to be towards them as they semi-depart.

Those Who Walk Away

As anticipated, the Presbyterian Church USA yesterday set aside its absolutist ban on the ordination of gays, lesbians, and sexually active singles.  With now a majority of our Presbyteries supporting the inclusion of GLBT folk,  I'm relieved.  It's a good thing.

Gays and lesbians should, if they order their lives in ways that honor the Heart of the Gospel, be completely included in Christian fellowship.  They should be welcomed into churches.  If they feel God's calling, and the church tests and affirms that calling, they should be eligible for ordination to all church offices, including that of pastor.  Period.

I am greatly pleased by this, and think it's the right thing for the PCUSA.  And all Jesus folk, to be frank.

But I also know that there's going to be pushback.  As part of that pushback, folks on the conservative side of the spectrum are going to leave.   In the same spirit that a cohort of outspoken conservatives at the recent Presbytery meeting up and wandered off rather than share in the Lord's Table with those they viewed as sinful, there will be a split.

From the model of the early church, I also know this is not the only response when one party is convinced that  Torah law must be maintained.  Jewish and Gentile Christians stood, early on, on either side of just as yawning a chasm of the Law.  The Acts of the Apostles tells that story, of how some Christians felt that the whole of the law must be maintained, and how others...led by the Apostle Paul...taught the primacy of grace.

This was not a minor squabble.  Kosher laws and the mandate to circumcise are non-trivial parts of the Deuteronomic Code.  Or, as it might legitimately otherwise be called, the "unchanging and infallible Word of God, King James Edition."

Yet the ultimate spread of the Gospel was contingent on setting aside those laws in favor of the radically inclusive and transforming love we know in Christ.  If the Jerusalem Christians had succeeded, and Paul had failed to convince folks that inclusiveness and "local option" was key to the spread of the Good News, the Jesus Movement would have died.   What's happening now is a good thing.

As the split happens, though, there will be hurt feelings.  People will leave.  For those who remain, there will be the temptation to demonize and name call, to mutter, snark, or shout "Good Riddance!"  For some of the fiercer partisans in this argument, this is probably already happening.

But demonizing and cursing those who mistakenly stand on flawed principle does not reflect the complexity of those souls.  Neither, honestly, does it reflect the central mandate and teaching of Christ to remain gracious, even to those who have stood against you.

My hope, for those of us who have "won," is that we remember that.  The integrity of this new and hopeful day in our fellowship is contingent on the presence of that grace.

Once Again Into the Breach

I've spent chunks of time here and there over the past few days continuing the migration of my old xanga site to this little bit of blogosphere real estate. Xanga being what it is, I can't do that as a simple xml export/import. It's cutting. It's pasting. Whee. It's not tedious at all. No sirree. Then again, that means that I have to do some reading. I have to pick and choose. What's important? What's worth bringing over here? It's an interesting opportunity to reassess and examine some of my own theological babbling.

One of the things I'm most interested in having here is my perspective on the hot-button issue that has driven such a deep divide into so many of the oldline denominations: homosexuality.

My own little corner of the Christian faith is about to go back at it within the next month or so, as a proposal to re-change our Constitution to be more open and affirming of gay and lesbian partnerships comes before us. On the one hand, it's a good thing to be talking about this. On the other, I think it's easy for these conversations to become shout-fests, as the opposing sides lob mortars at one another from their deeply entrenched positions.

A while back, I compiled all of my thinking on this subject at a topical mini-blog entitled "Pastor Strangelove," which I've now re-re-updated to reflect my new location in the blogosphere. As I read through my thinking on the subject, that I find myself agreeing with myself is no surprise. We're all great at agreeing with ourselves.

The greatest challenge as we move into these exchanges is to remember to be open and gracious to those who disagree with our stance. We're going to have some difficult conversations...but if those conversations aren't governed by grace, they're going to serve no purpose. It's far too easy to demonize, to condemn, and to curse. But if we're to move forward on this issue, and do so according to the Spirit, we're going to need to show grace and forbearance...even to those with whom we vigorously disagree.

Therefore...

So what’s Paul doing rhetorically in Romans 1? In terms of ethos, logos, and pathos, Paul starts, appropriately, with ethos. Remember, Paul hadn’t yet visited Rome. This letter was his best foot forward, a sincere effort to establish himself and his authority in a church that didn’t really know him yet. It was like that sermon a pastor preaches the very first Sunday in their new church. You pull out the stops. Read through Romans 1:1-17, and you see him establishing common ground, and presenting his spiritual credentials.

When we reach verse 18-32, Paul moves to pathos. He’s trying to evoke a sense of indignation at the sin of idolatry, which is the root sin expressed in Romans 1:22-23. It is idolatry that drives human beings to fall from God. The link between idolatry and the practices that Paul cites is cemented by his use of the Greek word dio, which we see translated as “therefore.” One thing happens, therefore another follows on.

According to Paul, what follows on from idolatry is twofold. First, there is degradation of desire (Romans 1:24-25), and second, the degradation of the mind (Romans 1:28). As an example of the first, Paul cites the giving up of phusiken kresin, or the “natural function” between men and women. As an example of the second, Paul runs through another one of his naughty lists, in verses 29-30.

Let’s set aside for a moment the argument about the root cause of homosexuality. Most people who are so inclined will tell you that they knew they felt same-sex attraction from childhood. Very few of them—at least in the survey and scientific data I’ve seen—indicate that they began feeling same sex attraction after they set up a small shrine to Regis Philbin in their basement. The causal link between worshipping idols and gayness is, shall we say, tenuous.

But I’m willing to spot Paul that point of fact, for two reasons. First, he’s using this as an example of fallenness—and idolatry as a concept, not a practice--based on his own observations of Roman Imperial culture. Second, it’s not his purpose. This section isn’t the point of his message. It serves much the same function as that cheesy canned anecdote your preacher uses to get you laughing before he gets around to the real message. The clear effect of Paul’s use of pathos is to make his listeners nod their heads at these wretched, godforsaken souls. They lived in Rome. They knew what went on. It would have lead some of his hearers, perhaps, feel a little more sure of their own righteousness under the law.

So when Paul continues on to the point of his argument in chapter two—an argument that will be sustained through to Romans 8:39—his listeners may well expect the “Therefore..” that begins chapter 2, verse one to lead to more of the same. They’re expecting Paul to lay in to a familiar list of known sinners in a way that would do Ann Coulter proud. Instead, having used pathos to stir that feeling, Paul switches to a formal rhetorical style known as diatribe, and they get this:

Romans 2:1-5 Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. You say, "We know that God's judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth." Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

Paul's point--and a core theme of Romans--is that all of us are sinners, and that all fall short of the demands of the law. If we only nod along to the pathos, and fail to hear the sharpness of Paul's challenge to our graceless judgments that this pathos establishes, then we've missed that point.

Back to Pastor Strangelove

Will and Grace are Pauline Theological Concepts

Romans, Romans, Romans. It's the very pinnacle of Paul's theology, a complicated and passionate letter that establishes how we as Christ's people understand what it is that Christ has done for us. Here Paul lays the foundation of our understanding grace as triumphing over the condemnation of the law. Here Paul *defines* the saving power of faith. This essential book also contains--in Romans 1--the most explicit condemnation of homosexual behavior in all of scripture.

In a speech given several years ago to a group of evangelicals, conservative Bible scholar Paul Achtemeier asserted that if the church is to meaningfully wrestle with this issue, it first needs to come to terms--honestly and openly--with what Romans 1 is actually saying. So...what does it say? Here are the specific verses in question:

Romans 1:21b-27 "...although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 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."

There we go! Here we have Paul clearly--clearly--telling the church at Rome that being gay is a "shameful lust." Case closed. Right? That was the point Paul was trying to make, right?

But Romans is not a book that can be understood verse by verse. It isn't a series of pithy little proverbs and aphorisms. It isn't a *simple* book, to be easily grasped by a casual reader. To understand it, you have to read it as a whole, following the arguments as they develop. Then you scratch your head, pray, and read it again. And again. The whole book is a carefully assembled and complex argument for the necessity of Christ's grace, crafted by a brilliant, passionate, and Spirit-filled rhetorician.

For in addition to his rabbinic training and his part-time camping supply business, Paul was also clearly a master of the art of Greco-Roman rhetoric. Rhetoric gets a bad rap nowadays, but it was an essential part of any educated person's training in the ancient world. To succeed in life, you had to be able to persuade people with the spoken and written word. That's exactly what Paul is doing with the whole letter of Romans. He's persuading Rome--and us--of the saving grace of Christ, using all of the tools in the classical rhetorician's toolbox. In classical rhetoric, the many tools of a speaker or writer fell into three primary categories: ethos, logos, and pathos.

Ethos is, in essence, laying a common groundwork with a listener. It establishes the authority of the speaker. Ethos helps an audience understand who you are, and why you're someone to be trusted.

Logos is a particular type of argument, using data and the application of logical proofs as evidence for the rightness of your position. Understood simply, it is an argument from reason, the Mr. Spock school of persuasion.

Pathos is another type of argument, which is intended to stir an emotional response in it's listeners. You stir a crowd to laughter, you move them to tears, you goad them into anger, you cajole them into uncontrollable flatulence, and having evoked that feeling in them, you lead them to agree with your position.

The educated and erudite church in Rome would have expected--needed--Paul to approach them with a letter that showed a mastery of rhetoric, and Paul did not disappoint.

So what point is Paul making, and what place does Romans 1:21-27 have in his argument?

Back to Pastor Strangelove

Beavis and Butthead Snicker When They Interpret This Verse

1 Corinthians 6:9 gives interpreters and translators something of a challenge. It's a list of sins--Paul loves firing off lists--but what exactly are those sins? Particularly, what are the last two sins listed in the verse? The King James and its updates in particular render the verse in a marvelously obtuse way...heaven is forbidden to the "..effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind."

You're damned if you're effeminate? But...Alberto Gonzales is such a nice man otherwise.

In the Greek, the last two items on Paul's naughty list are "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai." Read literally, the verse condemns the "soft ones" and the "man-bedders." While Paul coined the word "arsenokoitai" from the Levitical injunction against homosexuality, the term "malakoi" was actually used in the Greco-Roman world to describe a young man who sells himself, typically to older, more powerful men. So why the repetition? Is Paul saying: "I condemn homosexuals, and homosexuals, too!" Or is it the professional gay v. amateur gay distinction? "It's a sin if you get paid for it, and a sin if you don't!"

Some have suggested that it refers to the passive versus the active role in the relationship. Others have interpreted it as specifically condemning homosexual practices at the time, which usually involved wealthy and powerful men indulging themselves with young men-- "arsenokoitai" and "malakoi" referring specifically to that dynamic.

But whichever way you slice it, both of those words are really tangential to Paul's point. He's not talking about sexual sin here. 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 deals with the issue of lawsuits among believers, not sexual immorality. He's just firing off a list of commonly known vices, to reinforce to the Corinthians that they're being wicked when they go after each other in court. Paul's fond of "vice lists," because they make for a good, punchy spoken argument. For another example, look to Galatians 5:19-21, where Paul seems to leave being gay off the list entirely. Relying on this verse, or the deutero-Pauline 1 Timothy 1:10, just doesn't give you enough of a solid theological grounding to oppose committed same-sex relationships. 1 Corinthians is a pastoral letter, dealing with pastoral issues in the church at Corinth. Homosexuality just isn't one of the issues that Paul is centrally concerned with in Corinth. It isn't. To argue otherwise is to violate the plain and evident purpose of the text in service of a pointless and idolatrous literalism.

Not that I have any opinion on the subject.

That leaves us with only one passage left to explore, the Mac Daddy of the scriptural teachings on homosexuality, Romans 1.

Back to Pastor Strangelove

Arseno-What? Malaka-Who? Looking at Pauline Theology

Moving into the Epistles...'cause the Gospels have nothing to say to this topic directly...we find ourselves looking at three verses that deal with same-sex relationships. Two are very similar to one another, so we'll look at those first. In both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 , homosexual behavior is specifically included in lists of wrongdoing.

In each of these two verses, the Greek word arsenokoitai is used. This has given conniptions to interpreters over the years, as it appears to be a word that Paul himself made up. The variance in translations of the word among the different Bibles is evidence of this. The King James renders it "abusers of themselves with mankind," and the New Revised Standard has it as "sodomites." The NIV folks can't seem to make up their minds, as in 1 Corinthians it is translated as meaning "homosexual offenders" and in 1 Timothy it is translated as "perverts."

As arsen means "man" and koitai means..well.."bedders," the most literal translation would be "man-bedders." Paul appears to have coined the phrase by combining two words that appear in the Greek Septuagint version of Leviticus 18. Although some progressive scholars have tried to suggest that this word doesn't refer to the love that dares not speak it's name, their arguments are not convincing. Paul is specifically referring to homosexual behavior here, using the Levitical codes as his clear inspiration.

In interpreting this passage, however, a more legitimate question is whether Paul is condemning any same-sex relationship, or--as some have claimed--a specific type of same-sex relationship. For that, we need to look more closely at 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Must it be chapter 6, verse 9? God's sense of humor sometimes surprises even me.

Back to Pastor Strangelove

Leviticus? We Don' Need No Stinkin' Leviticus...Or Do We?

So Sodom isn't the answer? What about elsewhere in the Old Testament? Here, I'm not talking about indirect references. It has to be directly talking to the issue. The answer here is that--well--there's not much. We've only got these two passages:

Leviticus 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Puts a whole different spin on ex-gay ministry, eh?

Of course, we don't stick to the Levitical codes now. We don't mind if women come inside a church when..uh..Red Skelton's payin' 'em a visit. So to speak. There are countless verses--whole chapters--dealing with the Monthly Messiness. There are entire chapters explaining how priests are to assess and treat skin diseases. Yet another duty that would now get turned over to the youth pastor, no doubt.

We just don't use Leviticus as our guide. We don't kill adulterers. That'd seriously cut down on membership. We don't kill kids who sass their parents. Tempting though that may sometimes be.

So we just toss out Leviticus, right? We've got Jesus, we don't need no stinkin' Leviticus. It's superceded. It's out of date. Read Leviticus 19:9-18. Are we ready to dismiss those verses as irrelevant, archaic laws? Verse 18 in particular. What about the proclamations of Leviticus 25, which prohibits us from being in debt slavery to one another, and calls out for us to care for God's creation? What about the prohibition of adultery? If you can't hear God speaking in these verses, then you're not listening very closely.

As we approach Leviticus, we need to use Christ and Christ's love as our measure. We accept those portions that are magnified in Christ's teachings, like his perspective on wealth and care for the poor, or of love of neighbor. We change our interpretation of those sections that Jesus modifies, like his willingness to forgive--not kill--adulterers. We reject those portions that seem either in opposition to his teachings or irrelevant to his teachings.

Jesus, of course, says nothing about homosexuality at all. Not a peep in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Nada. Zip.

So can we rely on Levitical codes as the foundation of Scriptural disapproval of homosexuality? You make the call.

On, then, to the Epistles.

Back to Pastor Strangelove

What Happens in Sodom, Stays in Sodom

Beyond the story of Sodom in Genesis 19--which leaves some ambiguity as to what the problem in Sodom actually *is,* where else in scripture do we find reference to that unpleasant little burg? Perhaps that'll clear things up a bit. Or not...

In the Old Testament, we hear only two references that try to explain what happened in Sodom, both times in prophetic literature.

Isaiah 3:9-15 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves. Tell the righteous it will be well with them, for they will enjoy the fruit of their deeds. Woe to the wicked! Disaster is upon them! They will be paid back for what their hands have done. Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. O my people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path. The LORD takes his place in court; he rises to judge the people. The LORD enters into judgment against the elders and leaders of his people: "It is you who have ruined my vineyard; the plunder from the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing my people and grinding the faces of the poor?" declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Here, neither Isaiah or Ezekiel use Sodom as an example of God condemning same-sex relationships. In fact, sexual immorality doesn't come into the equation at all. If you read the plain, straight-up text itself, it just isn't there. Sodom, for both of these prophets, is used to symbolize those who oppress the poor, as they lay a theological whuppin' on the self-absorbed Judeans around them.

Well, what about in the Gospels and Epistles? There are nine references to Sodom itself in the New Testament, and two uses of the word "sodomite."

The term "sodomite" is used in some English translations (not the NIV or KJV) to render the Greek term arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10). That word comes from colloquial English, and does not indicate any original textual connection with the city or what went on there. We'll talk about what it means later.

So what of the nine specific references to Sodom? Of these, eight don't talk at all about the nature of the sin of Sodom. Only Jude 1:7 speaks to it, and what it says varies depending on your translation:

NIV: Jude 1:7 "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion..."

New Revised Standard Jude 1:7 "Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust.."

King James Version Jude 1:7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh..."

Clearly, Jude presents Sodom's crime as sexual sin. The challenge for translators comes with the words that are in bold. What sort of sexual sin is being referred to here? What the NIV translators refer to as simply "perversion" is actually an entire clause in the Greek. "apeltheousai spisou sarkos heteras." The King James comes closest to giving us a literal translation, as what Jude is saying is "going after strange flesh" or, as heteras is in every other location rendered "another" in the Bible "going after another's flesh."

Again, there is no direct reference to same sex activity here. If this verse--as it occurs in our most ancient manuscripts--is read as it was written, then the sexual sin Jude is referring to is better understood as describing their attempted violent assault on the strangers in their midst. If we take scripture as a guide, the sin of Sodom is twofold: 1) They oppress the poor and are selfish, and 2) They engage in predatory sexuality.

If you're looking for scriptural justification to condemn homosexual behavior, you're going to have to travel beyond the Sodom city limits, and travel elsewhere. Let's stick with the Old Testament for a bit. Where else in the Torah, the Prophets, or the Writings can we find talk of gayness or..um..what's the term...lesbiosity?

Back to Pastor Strangelove

Pastor Strangelove: Welcome To Sunny Sodom!

Given my ongoing desire to explore only the simple, non-controversial issues, methinks it's time to talk a bit about scripture, the essentials of our faith, and homosexuality.

Whenever I start one of these conversations, I always feel a bit like Slim Pickens in the classic Cold War movie Dr. Strangelove. You know that delightful scene--simultaneously rousing and horrific--where Slim pounds away at a nuke that's jammed in the bomb bay door of his B-52. It comes loose while he's on top of it, and down he goes, riding it like a bronco, hootin' and a-hollerin' and waving his stetson like a rodeo cowboy. With that in mind..."Yeeeee HAW!"

The obvious starting point of any discussion of homosexuality in scripture is Genesis 19. Welcome to sunny Sodom! This little story--part of the ancient histories of the Hebrew people--is conventionally interpreted in a pretty straightforward way. The folks of Sodom were all overly light in the loafers, so God sends in an angelic rescue squad, extracts the one straight arrow and his family from the city, and then lays in with a divine game of smear the queer. This is nice, simple, Fred Phelps theology.

But there's much more complexity to the story of Sodom than first meets the eye. The angels that visit Lot have just visited Abraham and Sarah, where they were granted generous hospitality. Being welcoming to the stranger in your midst was a core principle in the Semitic world, and when the angels arrive at the gate of Sodom, Lot insists on feeding them and putting them up.

That evening, every single man in Sodom shows up at Lot's door to have a go at his guests. That's a pretty impressive turnout--I don't think even San Fran breaks down that way demographically.

Lot's reaction is--well--interesting. He offers the rapacious mob his virgin daughters instead. "Gee, thanks, Dad." Why? Why is he willing to toss his girls to the crowd?

In his attempts to persuade the assailants to back off, what does Lot say? He doesn't say "don't do anything to these men, because gay sex is unnatural, and God hates fags." He says, "...don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." The primary issue here, as articulated by Lot, is that the basic principles of hospitality and care for the stranger are being cast aside by those seeking to do sexual violence to others. Violating a guest was..by the unfortunate standards of ancient Semitic culture..far more shameful than violating a female family member. Women were, after all, little more than property.

From this passage, that willingness to do violence to another for one's own gratification seems to define Sodom's wickedness far more deeply than same-sex intercourse.

As the text itself doesn't really provide much support for the popular interpretation of why God trashed that town, we should ask ourselves: what does the rest of the Bible have to say about "the sin of Sodom?"

Back to Pastor Strangelove