 |
| Image text: "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. - MLK" Image source. |
In my post about the book "Slaves, Women & Homosexuals," I said that while reading the beginning part of the book, I felt surprised at the way it introduced its "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" and then claimed that this line of interpretation does NOT lead to acceptance of same-sex relationships- I was surprised because I've heard queer Christians and allies make an argument along those exact lines. How could the book say such an argument wouldn't work? (Turns out the answer is, the sections in the book on homosexuality are extremely shallow. There's a lot to be said, and the book just doesn't say it.)
In this post, I want to point you to where you can read about the "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" in support of queer acceptance. (Not just related to same-sex relationships, but acceptance of all queer identities.) For the most part, I've learned about this from the Slacktivist (Fred Clark), so I want to post a whole bunch of links from his blog here:
Overview of what it means to read the bible from this perspective:
‘Are We Capable Of Welcoming These People?’
Come hear the music. Come join the dance. "He heard the music and he wanted to join the party, but those 'scriptural prohibitions' wouldn’t let him. I’ve heard that same frustrated, constrained longing to dance in many other voices over the years."
Maybe God Is A Better Person Than You Think
"You can't pick and choose people":
‘You Don’t Get To Pick And Choose’ "I simply do not agree with those who say that love is not the fulfillment of the law. They’re simply wrong. Paul said they were wrong. Jesus said they were wrong. The entire church in the book of Acts said they were wrong."
Jesus Is Not At All Like That (My Video For The NALT Christians Project)
J.R. Daniel Kirk On The Heart Of The Gospel (This Is Not An Official Statement Of A Stance On An Issue) "The gospel means that no one is excluded. The gospel means that everyone can be a part of the people of God."
Peter's vision of the sheet full of animals:
‘God Has Shown Me That I Should Not Call Anyone Profane Or Unclean’ "'Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?' Peter asks. LGBT Christians have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. To withhold the water for baptizing them, to call them profane or unclean, is wrong — it is disobedient, unloving, hurtful, harmful, unbiblical. It’s a sin."
‘God Has Shown Me That I Should Not Call Anyone Profane Or Unclean’ (No. 2) "'It is unlawful,' Peter said, 'but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.'"
Selfish Gentiles And ‘Shellfish Objections’: Timothy Dalrymple Vs. The Apostle Peter "Peter says that God sent him a vision telling him to welcome the outsiders that his Bible told him should be shunned as 'unclean.' Dalrymple says, No, God was merely telling him that a narrow portion of dietary Mosaic law was henceforth nonbinding for Christians."
Evangelical Alliance Responds To Simon Peter’s Dangerous Sermon In Acts 11
Slavery, Seafood, Sexuality And The Southern Bible "But Peter unsettles things by changing those words, saying instead that, 'God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.'"
The Ethiopian eunuch:
I’m Guessing It’s Named After The Other Philip "'So, OK then,' the man says to Philip. 'I’m a queer black foreigner who works for the government of a Gentile queen. Is there any reason I can’t be baptized?' And Philip baptizes him."
Religious Gatekeepers Would Not Like Philip The Evangelist "Philip knew his Bible. He knew that there were dozens of clobber texts that would have authoritatively answered the eunuch’s question. 'What is to prevent me from being baptized?' But Philip did not recite those clobber texts. He hopped down and got in the water with his new friend."
Circumcision/ it's really rich when gentile Christians try to exclude people:
The Ugly Ingratitude Of The ‘Nashville Statement’ "Here’s the thing though: Paul’s opponents here were not wrong about what the Bible says. They insisted that 'the Bible is clear' in its teaching about circumcision, and it is. (Just ask Zipporah.) This was something that was never, ever optional. Everybody knew this. Everybody had always known this."
Titus Was Not Compelled To Reparative Therapy "The texts on circumcision are not ambiguous and they are too numerous to count. The Bible is eminently clear. It says that people like Titus cannot convert unless they are circumcised and pledge to follow the rules. Paul says no to that. He says people like Titus are his brothers and sisters, his full equals. Paul isn’t just contradicting a handful of obscure clobber-texts, he’s swimming against a powerful main current of scripture."
When Gatekeepers Attack (First-Century Edition) "If the gatekeepers of the circumcision faction and 'the biblical view of everything' had managed to bully Peter and Paul into submission, then Gentiles like myself would be in precisely the same predicament that LGBT Christians are today within evangelicalism."
‘I Would They Were Even Cut Off Which Trouble You’
---
Those are the links I have where the Slacktivist goes into detail about this argument. But I've also seen plenty of queer Christians and allies say things along similar lines, though not in as much detail. Basically, the idea that Jesus' message was about inclusion, especially among groups which were marginalized and rejected by society, and therefore in our culture that means acceptance of queer people.
I went to the GCN conference in 2017. (GCN is the Gay Christian Network- it later changed its name to Q Christian Fellowship.) And one of the songs we sang there was "Draw the Circle Wide," and, wow, that was really powerful, that was amazing. It was astounding to me to have a song about inclusion and acceptance of people be sung in a Christian setting like it was a worship song. That's... it's hard to even explain how different that is from my experience with worship songs, growing up evangelical. All the worship songs we sing in evangelical land are about how amazing God is and how we love God so much and we will do anything for God. Not really anything about, uh, the importance of treating people right, or anything along those lines at all. In evangelical land, they always say worship is "just about you and God."
Anyway, here's a youtube video of the song "Draw the Circle Wide":
My point is, queer Christians tend to believe that one of the most important foundational teachings of Christianity is love and acceptance, especially toward marginalized groups. This is the gospel, this is good news, this is the message Jesus preached, this is what Christians should proclaim to the world. This is, ahem, very DIFFERENT from how I understood the main message of Christianity when I was evangelical. And specifically, this is connected to the idea of a "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" because it's about continuing to expand the circle, continuing to accept more and more groups within society and welcome them into the church as full people.
---
One more note about "inclusion"
I always hear queer people talk about "we should accept everyone"- but actually, we shouldn't accept "everyone." We should not accept abusers, Nazis, etc... If some leader from the NRA shows up at your church, okay you should welcome them but they will need to repent or else they can't fully participate. You gotta "hate the sin, love the sinner" them.
When people talk about "accepting everyone" what they mean is, being accepting of people's differences *when those differences are personal identities/decisions that don't harm other people* (and/or when those differences are related to health/disability issues that require us to give some extra support so that people are able to fully participate). I guess this is assumed to be obvious, and that's why I don't hear people explicitly spelling it out. Personally, though, I feel that this is a step that is frequently missing in people's logical arguments about acceptance of queer identities, so I'm mentioning it here.
And anti-queer Christians often make comparisons that are along these lines- like "well if we accept homosexuality then we have to accept bestiality too" really missing the point that acceptance of queerness is about changing from a "we follow these rules because the bible says" paradigm to a "we should act in ways that support other people so they can live good lives, and not harm anyone" paradigm. As if it's about changing from a "here are the bible's rules" paradigm to a "whateverrrrr, there are no rules" paradigm. But, fair enough, because queer people and allies really do go around saying "we accept everyone" when they don't actually mean that- they mean "we accept that everyone can make their own decisions in their own personal lives about things that do not harm others."
And when I was evangelical and I first heard queer Christians presenting the idea that "sin" should be defined as *things that hurt people* (as Romans 13:9-10 says) rather than just *things the bible says not to do* that was MIND-BLOWING to me. The idea that "sin" could and should be defined that way was not on my radar AT ALL as an evangelical. (I believed that an important component of "faith" was following rules that somehow make sense to God even though they make no sense from a human perspective. Blah. No. Jesus said "by their fruit you will know them." MIND-BLOWING.) So I'm sorta inclined to cut them a little slack if they missed that implicit logical step when they heard people arguing for queer acceptance.
For Christians who accept queer people, a big component is DEFINITELY being able to see with your own eyes/ being able to read scientific research which says that accepting queer people's right to define our own identities and make our own decisions is so GOOD and LIFE-GIVING, while requiring us to repress ourselves is really terrible. I think this plays a huge role, but oddly it's not often mentioned in these arguments about why Christians should accept queer people.
The Slacktivist has some posts which address an aspect of this- specifically, the "why won't you tolerate my intolerance" nonsense. Here's a link: Shaving The Intolerant Barber (A Continuing Series).
---
Related:
"Slaves, Women & Homosexuals" (What is this book actually about?)
Why would it be bad news if ancient Romans had loving gay relationships?
No comments:
Post a Comment