The Beautiful Heresy- Christian Universalism

I was having trouble coming up with a title for this post.   The titles from two books I've read, Reading The Bible Again For the First Time (Borg) and Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism (Spong) came to mind and both apply equally for me.  The last several weeks at church we have been discussing Matthew.  Specifically, last week Matthew 24 and this week Matthew 25, the chapters many Christians takes as "last days" prophecies and the final judgment at the end of the world where the sheep go to "eternal" reward and the goats to "eternal" punishment.

When I heard Mike would be covering these chapters, I had mixed emotions.  As an aside,  I recently learned that emotions actually come from a part of the brain before the thinking part of the brain.  So, while emotions are extremely efficient at influencing our thinking, our thinking brain is pretty lousy at controlling our emotions.  These particular parts of Matthew are the ones that caused me migraine headaches for about 8 years and panic attacks for almost another 30 on top of that. So, just hearing that we're going to be talking about them in church triggers old emotions that I have spent the last 8 years or so trying to work through.  Emotions of fear, judgment, wondering whether I'm a sheep or a goat, etc.  When I hear these topics are going to be discussed at Nexus, I always have to remind myself that it's likely to be in a way I've never heard them discussed before.  I have to try to enter with "beginner's mind" as if I'm hearing them discussed for the first time.

Mike did a great job with the sermons about the wise and foolish virgins, the servants given the talents and the sheep and the goats stories.  In each of his sermons, I learned something I didn't already know, which is pretty impressive to me.  I don't mean that to sound as arrogant as it might.  While I'm not Bible scholar, I have read an awful lot about the Bible for a lay-person and I typically don't learn a lot anymore from your standard sermon.  I've even read an entire book dedicated solely to Matthew 24  because that is an extremely important chapter for people trying to predict the "last days".    For some reason, I have a need to "rescue" the Bible from the fundamentalism of my youth.   Some, who I engage with, accuse me of not taking the Bible seriously.  Nothing could be further from the truth. I cannot simply let the Bible go.  Even though, at one time ,I would have thought these stories to be just beyond redemption (even as I was once thinking Christianity was beyond redemption for me).

As usual, I had a lot to say about the stories during our "talk back" time.  I could go on and on (and usually do).  I agreed with everything Mike pointed out- as I usually do.  Mike is an excellent preacher, well researched, animated and engaging.  But, I always have more to add.  And, of course, I have to give my ex-fundy perspective on everything.  I wonder if the people of Nexus get sick of me saying "When I was a kid, I was taught this meant...". However, after church someone approached me and said he appreciates hearing my perspective because it helps him understand fundamentalists.  That was really helpful for me because I was afraid maybe I was starting to come off as competing for attention or trying to show off how much I know (which is very little).  I only want to share what I think might be helpful.  It's actually very bizarre for me to be in a place where most of the people there can't even understand the fear and the judgment I was taught was in the Bible.  They find it odd that I believed the things I did for so long.  But, I think my perspective helps them understand that many people who do believe those things have not chosen to believe them but feel they have no choice.  It's either take the entire Bible literally and inerrantly or literally have no guide in life for morality or truth.  When fundamentalists and former fundamentalists object to the more progress view of things, the objection I hear more than a refutation of the perspective is one of fear.  Fear that if they don't take the whole Bible literally and inerrantly, that they will lose their way in the world and will have no way of know the "will of G-d".

BTW, on the sheep and goats thing there are many fascinating interpretations.  Some say it's about G-d judging the Gentile nations (due to a reference at the beginning of the story).  Some say we're all a little sheep and a little goat.  I think an interesting read would be  that the judgment was based on actions, not faith.    Perhaps some of the goats were believers who had hidden their talents under a rock and done nothing with them.  They were surprised that the requirement went beyond mere "belief" and they were being judged based on their actions.  Fundamentalist Christian churches that teach this story is about final salvation.  And, OTOH, teach that salvation is by "faith" not by works seem to overlook the fact that, in this story, faith isn't mentioned at all.  It's possible that those who did the works were Buddhists, Muslims or even Atheists.  In actuality, I believe the story is just that, a story.  Just like the other parables weren't meant to be taken literally, neither was this one.  It conveyed a principle (that your faith must be put into action).  But, it was not a telling of a specific future event.

If you've read my blog for any amount of time you know over the last couple of years I've really struggled with the whole idea of church.  Where do I fit in?  Do I fit in? What's the point?  What do I get out of this?  Am I contributing enough to make it worth my while?  My real community has been my on-line friends for the most part.   That's where I can learn and grow.  But, I have to say that I see things at Nexus as really coming together. It's so nice to finally have someone I can discuss my new view of the Bible with face-to-face.  

My last post on homosexuality drew more comments than any in the history of my blog.  Interesting...  Some of the comments and a couple of articles I've read recently have prompted me to feel the need to post a little more about this.  I was taken to task by a couple of commenters about my lack of understanding of the lack of choice that homosexuals have.  Of course, I think they're wrong about my lack of understanding.  I'd like to expand on my thoughts concerning what choices and lack of choices we all have.  I think partially in an effort to be sensitive and politically correct, I may have overstated my feelings about this saying homosexuals have less choice than I think they do.  I'd like to clarify where I am on this issue.  But, more importantly, I'd like to talk about why I don't think the "choice" in the matter is all that important. In fact, the attempt by gays and lesbians and their supporters to find a biological cause for homosexual orientation can even backfire, as I will show below.   

I want to thank Carrie for sending me the link to the OrthodoxyToday.Org article "Judaism's Sexual Revolution:  Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality" I found a lot in that article that I agree with and I suggest that Christians and Jews wrestling with this issue add it to your reading list.  But, I also found a significant amount of the article that I take exception with.  As you read my post, keep in mind I am trying to address this issue not only from the point of view of a citizen, but as a Christian.  Christianity is deeply rooted in Judaism.  As a Christian, I am obligated to strongly consider the traditions of my faith- but not to blindly agree with them.

Dennis Prager, the author of the Judaism's Rejection of Homosexuality, makes several great points.  First I'd like to talk about the parts of the article that I agree with.  He says that human sexuality, especially male sexuality is utterly wild. Yes, I agree.  Most religions acknowledge that we must constrain or channel our lower natures.  It's what separates us from animals and the striving to control/channel our instinctive drives makes us more god-like and less animalistic.  It's something all of us have to do, men, women, straight and gay.  Men will (and have) had sex with just about everything that moves (and many things that don't move).  Judaism, rightfully so, saw the need to constrain men's sexual activity because unbridled sexual passions are not good for society. Judaism put several restrictions around sexuality, limiting it to a man and a woman and limiting it to the confines of marriage.  In doing so, Judaism rejected male-male sex (there is no mention in Torah of female-female sex), rejected bestiality, rejected incest, etc., etc.  This was a huge step forward and differentiated Jews from the people around them.  Torah (the Jewish scriptures) always promoted life over death,  promoted procreation and promoted family, because family is the building block of a successful society.  The author says that Judaism may have invented the notion of homosexuality because, up until that time, sex was thought only of as penetrator (active partner) and penetrated (active partner).   Sex was something men did to something or someone.  It was not thought of as interactive.  Judaism was the first society to specifically prohibit sex between a man and another man.  The author claims that the Bible is unambiguous in its condemnation of homosexuality.  He says if we're going to affirm homosexuality, we must say Torah is wrong.   Here's where I do not agree.   But, I will say this, the Bible can be wrong.  While I agree that Torah and the Christian scriptures are inspired, miraculous in how much they have right and are the cornerstones of our society, I do not think they are inerrant.   We know more today than the Jewish writers of Torah knew and more than the writers of the New Testament knew.  God is still speaking is the slogan of the United Church of Christ and it's one of the major things that attracted me to the UCC.   Paul said he saw through a glass darkly and I agree with him.  Hopefully, we, thousands of years later, see a little more clearly.  Judaism and Christianity had no concept of sexual orientation as we do today.  Heck, even today, we haven't got it all figured out (as I'll go into later).

Judaism condemned homogenital sex because it undermined the normal family unit.  Men having sex with other men were not procreating. They were not producing more Jews (which was very important to Jewish survival).  Society had a vested interest in men having sex within the bonds of marriage.  I'm not going to claim that Jews did not think homogenital sex was an abomination (for both Jews and non-Jews).  I think they did and they condemned homogenital sex strongly.  I'm saying it's important we understand the reasons why they thought it was so wrong.  We reject many Jewish laws and customs because they don't apply to us today and/or because we have a clearer understanding of certain things.   I don't think the Jews had a specific intent to condemn committed homosexual relationships.  I wonder if they even had a concept of what that would be. I think the intent of Torah was to stop men from penetrating everything that moved.  Also, in that society, the rights of the individual were much more subject to the interests of society than they are today.  While I think we have gone overboard in America today  with "individual rights", we have to acknowledge that the balance of the rights of an individual versus the interests of society have shifted more to favor individual rights than past societies did.  And we have to be much more sensitive to the rights of the individual than ancient societies were.

The overall theme behind Torah is "choose life". This I agree with the author on 100%.  That's why so many Jewish laws separate things that represent life and death.  Meat (death) is separated from milk (life); menstruation (death) is separated from sexual intercourse (life).  It can be argued that since homogenital sex cannot produce life, it is the equivalent of choosing death. I disagree with this assessment though.  For someone homosexually oriented, homogenital sex can be life-giving.   The author claims that men must channel their sexual passions for the good of society.  I agree.  Men running around having sex with any and every thing and any and every one is not good for society (or for individuals).  I think, as a society, and as Christians we have a right, and even an obligation, to promote that which is life-giving.  But, if someone tells me that he is sexually oriented to be attracted to men, how can I make the claim that a committed homosexual relationship is not the best thing for him?  It's not going to produce children.  But, in today's society, is that really important? The last thing we need are more people on this planet.  There are heterosexual couples that choose not to have children.  We don't condemn them and call their marriages meaningless.  Some people choose to remain single, we don't reject them or try to take away their civil rights.  God said it is not good for man to be alone and he created a woman for him. Many say God did not create Adam and Steve, He created Adam and Eve.  That's all true.  But, Adam was physically and emotionally attracted to Eve.  Can we really deny there are men who are attracted to Steve?   Is it better to not give those men a way to channel their sexual and emotional needs into productive relationships?  Isn't that choosing life?

BTW, the article says a lot more really good stuff about the elevation of women by the prohibitions  gainst male infidelity and some other things that I won't go into here.  I do recommend you read the article.

Here's where I am really going to open a can of worms and I'm sure I'll be accused of "not understanding".   But, please try to hear me out.  There is a significant portion of the gay community and of people who want to gain empathy for the gay community by claiming homosexuality as an orientation, and therefore homogenital sex are not choices. You're either born straight or gay and that's it. The logic seems to be that, if it is not a choice, that we in the straight community should have more empathy and sympathy for the plight of homosexuals.  Therefore it would be a no-brainer to see their homosexual relationships as acceptable.  I don't think the issue is nearly as cut-and-dried as many try to present it.  And, even it if it were, Christians (and Jews?) still wouldn't accept homosexual behavior as normal or moral based on this fact alone. 

I think the reality is that sexuality is much more complex than we have even understand at this point in time. While it seems to be popular now to say that homosexuals were born that way (either due to genetics or hormonal influences), the reality as far as I know, is that just has not been proven.  I don't think it will be proven any time soon.  And, I suggest that is it really not all that important when it comes to giving homosexuals equal rights.

The research I've seen on human sexuality seems to indicate there is a range of sexual orientations.  There are those who are only attracted to those of the same sex on one end of the scale.  And there there are those who are only attracted to the opposite sex on the other end.  In the middle there are many (most?) who could adapt to have sex with either sex.   It may be that people who are actually biologically exclusively homosexual or heterosexual are the exceptions, rather than the rule.  The research of Kinsey is often discussed when talking about this range of sexuality.  A quick Google search turns up many results.  There have been several studies that show many men who identify as heterosexual have had homogenital sex (some of them lots). And the majority of gay men have had intercourse with women.  A four year study of 128 gay men revealed that more than 92% of the gay men had dated a woman at some time and 2/3 had had sex with a woman.  Many gay people have been "successfully" married for many years and fathered children.  Once they come out of the closet, many say they always knew they were gay and simply performed to live up to society's expectations. One could claim they are pressured by society to conform and that's why they were able to grin and bear having sex with women.    I think that accounts for a lot of this behavior.  Social pressures are extremely strong and could enable someone to repress a biological desire to the level of subconsciousness.

But, there are also many gay men who say they could not have sex with a woman.  No amount of social pressure will make them have sex with a woman.  Most straight men (from my own non-scientific survey) will say they could not have sex with a man.  It may not surprise you to find that so many gay men have had sex with women.  The statistic I find surprising though is the number of straight men who have had homogenital encounters.  A survey of New York City men found that among the men who admitted to having sex with other men over 70% identified themselves as straight. I've heard up to 1/3 of boys experiment with homosexual sex.  10% of married men in this study reported having had sex with another man in the past year.  Societal pressure does not account for why straight men would have sex with other men.  Many gay people would tell us these men are simply gay men repressing their true sexual orientation. But, I don't think that's true. The adage "You're either gay, straight or lying." may not be true. Is it possible that most of us are at least somewhat bisexual and choose to suppress one or the other part of our sexuality?  Societal pressure would account for why the vast majority chooses heterosexual relationships and heterosexual sex.   Then, many of those who are are closer to the middle of the range choose to cheat with those of the same sex. A range of sexual orientations rather than a binary either/or sexuality would also explain how some people can pass as "straight" for so many years while some could never even consider it. 

Another thing that a range of sexual orientations would explain is the severity of homophobia, particularly among men.  Is it possible that so many straight men fear homosexuals because, if they were unable to control their urges, they would be engaged in the very same behavior?   Is it possible they are so repulsed by their own repressed urges that they take it out on gay men, violently opposing the a part of themselves they have been taught to hate?

I think this view of sexual orientation as a range rather than a binary thing explains a lot.  But, it is unpopular among heterosexuals because we don't want to believe we could become the very people we've vilified.  And, it's unpopular among homosexuals because they want to claim they cannot control their behavior.  As I said earlier, the fact is we all have to suppress some urges. It's part of living in a civilized human society.  We also have to suppress urges for our own good.  We have so much food that we are literally killing ourselves by eating too much.  We have to overcome laziness to get up off the couch and exercise.  And, even us heterosexuals have to control our sexual urges.

Am I saying homosexuals could simply choose to be straight or only to have straight sex?  Absolutely not!  I said I think there is a range of sexual orientations.  I don't think that that we choose our orientation.  I do think though that no matter what our orientation, we do have to choose our behavior.  For most of us, we can easily choose heterosexual sex and relationships.  We're nearer to one end of the scale and it's and easy choice. And, when make that choice, we have an acceptable outlet for our urges.  So, there is an incentive to act heterosexually.  However, for those on the other end of the scale, they cannot make that choice as easily. They could, with some struggle, commit to a heterosexual relationship.  But, there are greater homosexual urges in them.  It would be more difficult for them to channel their actions into a heterosexual lifestyle.   I think these are the "success stories" from ministries like Exodus Ministries.  It explains Annie's brother-in-law who, after leaving a gay lifestyle, has been married for 30 years.  At the other end of the scale, there are some who are so far on the homosexual side of the scale that living a heterosexual lifestyle is not even possible.  No amount of struggle is going to allow them to lead a heterosexual lifestyle.  I think the idea of a range of sexual orientations with most of us falling somewhere between the two extremes explains a lot.   

Even if straight people were to accept the idea that homosexual orientation is not a choice, it is not the holy grail many seem to think it is.  A recent blog post by Albert Mohler "Is Your Baby Gay?  What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?" does an excellent job of explaining why.  And, I've had many conversations (from both sides of this argument) that show why many will reject homosexuality as an "alternate lifestyle" even if science proves that people are born gay. 

The argument of  Mr. Mohler and many Christians is this.  Just because you are born with an orientation doesn't mean you  have to give in to it.  We are all tempted into many types of sin and we have to struggle with them. I've had this conversation with many heterosexual people.  We know we have to wrestle with many temptations every day, including sexual temptations. Alcoholics cannot take a single drink for risk of falling back into an excessive, destructive lifestyle.  Heterosexual men must channel their seemingly innate desire to roam into a single partner.  Homosexuals claiming that they must have sex with others of the same sex is not convincing for many people.  If homosexuals rights advocate rely solely on the fact that homosexuals have no choice but to have homosexual relationships I think they are making things more difficult for themselves.

Far from being a holy grail, the discovery of a genetic or hormonal cause for homosexuality could lead us back to days when homosexuality was thought of as a psychological disorder- only worse.  Now, it would be seen as a medical disorder, perhaps treatable by gene therapy, a hormone patch worn by the mother or (heaven forbid) abortion.  This could lead to an increase in abortions (probably slight) and to homosexuals being encourage to submit to treatment.  Those pushing to find a biological cause for homosexuality, I think should really be careful what you ask for.  Martin Navratilova saw this when she heard about the research on "gay rams" and how scientists were trying to determine if they could change their sexual orientations.  And  PETA has called for an end to the sexual testing of the "gayness"of sheep.  If we find a biological cause for homosexuality, the search for a "cure" will come hot on its heels.

This is a post I've been working on for a couple of months.  I kept hoping I wouldn't have to post it.  I've been putting it off in hopes the urge would just pass.  But, instead of it going away, the issue keeps coming up over and over again. So, I guess I have to make the post and face the consequences.  The issue is homophobia in the Christian community.  On one of my message boards, we have been discussing "acceptable" scapegoats.  Homosexuals, for many of us, are one of the last few acceptable scapegoats.  This article will be rated PG-13.  If you're sensitive about language or "sex-talk", you'll want to skip this one.

Why Now?

The prompting for the timing of this post has, I guess, been my joining an "open and affirming" church in the past few months.  What I have been faced with since joining an open and affirming church is this.  While many churches are (at least somewhat) open, very few are actually affirming, when it comes to homosexual relationships.  The Vineyard (where I used to attend) had a Sunday morning service a few years back where homosexuality was one topic in a series where we talked about the "really tough issues".  While the Vineyard was "open"- saying that homosexuals were welcome, it was quite clear by the presence of Exodus Ministries that the Vineyard was not affirming of homosexuality or homosexual relationships. Exodus Ministries helps gay people go straight and they were there to let the homosexuals among us know there was hope to change to live the "right way".  In the next several
paragraphs I want to talk about my journey as it relates to struggling with this issue, look at both sides
of it and tell you where I stand on it now.  As I do this, I'm sure I'm going to offend many on both sides of the issue.  So, I apologize in advance for any offense.  None is intended. But, I think it's time for some frank, politically incorrect talk about this.  Pussyfooting around it doesn't do anyone any good.  I'm going to be brutally blunt about this in hopes that it causes some people to think and rethink (as
I've had to do about this).

Some Life Changing Events

When I was younger, there was very little talk about homosexuality.   Ironically, I was a very shy, sensitive kid who liked to dress well.  And I didn't have a girlfriend or date until late in life.  But, when I did hear about homosexuality, I was taught, as any "good Christian",  I started out thinking that being gay was a sin and certainly homosexual sex was a sin. I think at one time my parents (and maybe others) thought I was gay.  I was teased about being effeminate (about the worst things you can do to a boy).  The culture I grew up in taught and reinforced homophobia.  Honestly, to this day, I have trouble with how to deal with very effeminate men. From a Christian point of view, I thought it was clear that the Bible says that a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman.  Then there's Sodom and Gomorrah.  And there's Paul talking about homosexuals. Come on.  What could be clearer than the verses in the Bible about homosexuality?  All six of 'em.

Now, I could write a book on what the Bible says (and doesn't say) about homosexuality.  But, then one of those life changing events happened.  The issue became real for me when my uncle (who was gay) was murdered several years ago.  Honestly, I have to just assume my uncle was gay.  No one every talked about it.  He and I were very close.  We never talked about it.  He was my mother's best friend.  But, to this day, almost 20 years since his death, I've never heard her or anyone in the family talk about him being gay. After he died, I just could not accept the thought of G-d eternally torturing him either for being gay or for not being a part of a church that wouldn't have accepted him the way he was.  This was my first real crisis in dealing both with my feelings about homosexuality and about the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT).   Being faced with that put a face on two issues that I had only had to deal with in the abstract before. It made me realize how absurd what I had been taught really was and forced me to look for a new way to think. 

A few years later, I met a woman on-line who was (is) a lesbian.  She had been married, had a child and had been a Christian.  But, when she "discovered" she was a lesbian, the treatment she got from the church caused her to re-examine her Christianity and she ended up becoming a Wiccan.  She just could not deal with a church that could not deal with her (or any femininity in G-d, but that is another story).  I became very good friends with Edie.  We used to debate religion incessantly.  I learned so much from her.  I wish I could tell her that now.  But, we lost touch a few years back.    I assumed that since she had a few failed relationships with men, she had turned to women out of frustration.  Surely she had "converted" to being gay out of brokenness. I can understand how this could happen.  Who would want to deal with men? Men are neanderthals.  I much prefer the company of women (and not just sexually).  Over the years that Edie and I corresponded, I really got to know her and her partner (as well as you can get to know someone via email) and I was forced to really look into the homosexual issue and Christianity.  Why did her being a lesbian drive her out of Christianity? If "we" were telling her she was wrong, there had to be a good reason.  I wanted to deal with Edie compassionately.  But, I couldn't condone something that the Bible clearly condemned. 

Homosexuality And The Bible

One day when I was in the bookstore, a book title jumped out at me "Straight & Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexual Debate" by Thomas E. Schmidt.  I jumped at it.  It promised me compassion and clarity on this issue- from a Biblical perspective (which was very important to me at the time).  I have to say it is a very good book (not great). The author examines the scriptures concerning homosexuality and seems to reluctantly come to the conclusion that homosexual sex is wrong based on scripture. But, it is no more wrong than any other sexual sin or any other sin.  I could tell when I read the book that he was compassionate towards homosexuals.  But, he still called them out of homosexuality and condemned homosexual sex as a sinful act.   Just as unmarried heterosexuals sin when they have sex, homosexuals sin when they have sex, outside the bounds of marriage.  Since marriage isn't possible for homosexuals (biblically speaking), all homosexual sex is sin.  Interesting position we put them in, isn't it?

The author points out the dangers of homosexuality- namely the prevalence of promiscuity amongst gay men, the increased risk of drug abuse, suicide, pedophilia, etc.  And, he discusses the great Nature versus Nurture debate coming down on the side that homosexuality is not in-born, is caused by environmental factors and therefore is "curable".

Compared to anything I had read to this point, this book was extremely compassionate and it is the view I held for many years.  Before you're too hard on me, I think this is probably a necessary step along the road to us homophobes accepting homosexuality.  I guess it's a step some might be able to skip over.  But, it was where I was for a while and I've recently seen others making this first step. We who have moved beyond this need to be patient and remember where we were at one time.  Let me explain the position to those of you who might not be familiar with it.


This is the open but not affirming position.

The Next Step

What I didn't realize at the time was that many of my arguments against homosexuality were based on the flawed logic so many people use to assume a cause and effect relationship from circumstances.   I assumed since so many people (especially men) living a homosexual lifestyle were involved in other destructive behaviors, there must be something about homosexuality that caused those other behaviors.  The reality is that often when we see two things coincide statistically, the causes are much more complex than we'd like to admit.  For example, the fact that more gay men are prone to suicide and other self-destructive behavior is often cited as an example of how the "homosexual lifestyle" is self-destructive. But, given the fact that homosexuals are often treated like dirt in our society, is it really any wonder they have a higher incidence of these problems? The promiscuity of so many homosexual men (the bath houses, one night stands, anonymous sex through peepholes, etc.) is often taken to be a given when it comes to homosexuality. But, what would it be like if we were affirming of homosexual relationships? Would so many gay men still lead this lifestyle?  I suspect the answer is "no"; not so many would live the dangerous, destructive lifestyles they are living now.  Having said that, surely there are some gay men who just are plain-old horn-dogs.  Let's face it, most men will have sex anytime, an where with anyone.  Most heterosexual men, if given the opportunity and no consequences would have sex with just about any woman who didn't say "no".    So, you get a bunch of men together who can have sex with each other and, you've got a problem.  It does seem (I don't have current statistics on this) that most gay men are not in monogamous relationships.  And, many mmonogamous relationships among gay men are short-lived. But, that does not mean that is a necessary characteristic of the "gay lifestyle".  While I don't think our being more affirming of homosexual relationships would end the craziness among so many gays, I think it's worth considering.  And, let's look at it the other way.  Could our being affirming of men (or women) in committed homosexual relationships do any harm?

I wasn't satisfied with the open but not affirming position. So, I had some more wrestling to do.  The next book I read on the Bible and homosexuality was Daniel A. Helminiak's "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality".  Again, this was when I really cared about what the Bible said about this issue and I guess I was looking for a way to be a little more compassionate than I thought the Bible allowed me to be.  Don't get me wrong.  I still care very much about the Bible. But, if the Bible is wrong about something, I'm not scared to say so (like slavery, women's rights, stoning smart-aleck children and wearing blended fabrics).  This book is excellent in examining each of the (very few) passages in the Bible where many people think the Bible condemns homosexuality.  If you're one of those people who thinks the Bible is clear on the issue of homosexuality, I highly encourage you to get this book.  I think if you approach this with an open mind, this book will convince you the Bible is silent on homosexuality.  The book examines each passage from its historical and social perspective and looks at the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) to try to discern the author's true intentions.  I have discussed this book in great detail with those wishing to cling to the notion that the Bible condemns homosexuality and that homosexuality = brokenness = sin.  What this book does not even claim to do is to say the Bible affirms homosexuality.  The bottom line is that the Bible is basically silent on the issue of same sex relationships largely because the idea of homosexuality as we understand it today was not known back in biblical times, before the advances we have made in human psychology.  But, even setting that aside the passages in the Old Testament that talk about homogenital sex are largely in the chapters with the Jewish purity codes (the same boring, weird passages that tell people not to plant two types of seed in the same field, or to wear clothes made of blended fabrics).  The passages in the New Testament (Paul) are referring to dominant, unequal relationships of men having sex with young boys and the like. There is not a single mention of God's disapproval of committed, equal relationships between two men or two women.  My position currently on the Biblical
view of homosexuality is this:  I don't think Bible says a word about committed, caring homosexual relationships.

Drawing A Line

Some people, in an attempt to be "compassionate" think we should be accepting and affirming of all types of lifestyles.  I'm not one of those people.  I've known three gay men in my life (known on a deep personal level).  One of them was murdered in what was probably a drug related murder.  He lived a short life and never had a committed relationship that I'm aware of. He was murdered in his early 40s.  I remain convinced he was involved in the subculture he was involved in because of his lifestyle.  While I think we contributed to his death (contributed a lot), I remain convinced it was because of his lifestyle that he was in the situation he was in when he was murdered.  This man was my uncle whom I loved dearly   Another  gay man I knew died in his mid-30s of what I'm pretty sure was AIDS.  I say pretty sure because his family would never admit it.  He was never in a committed relationship either.  The third is still out there living a promiscuous and dangerous lifestyle and is miserable doing it.  He's not happy with either himself or with his life.  His lifestyle is making him miserable.  Hopefully, it's not killing him.  I don't affirm this type of lifestyle and I don't think the Bible does either.  Many straight and homosexual people (gay men especially) seem to equate being gay with living a life of danger and of self-destruction.  Multiple, anonymous sex partners is wrong on so many levels.  I wouldn't be a loving, caring compassionate person if I didn't say so. I will not tell people this type of lifestyle is OK.  I think it is sinful. It's harmful to mind, body and soul.  It harmful to yourself and others. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals should avoid promiscuous, dangerous sex in uncommitted relationships.

The Debate

The debate rages on in the Christian community and in society at large. But, the reality is it's just a matter of time before gay marriage is approved. I said it first about ten years ago and I'm more sure of it now than I was then.  If it doesn't happen in our generation, it will happen in the next.  Other than Christian homophobia, there's just not much reason against it.  Defense of heterosexual marriage doesn't require a ban against homosexual marriages.  It's not like we're all going to switch to being gay just because we can get married to someone of the same sex.  There's this irrational fear that homosexual marriage will somehow damage heterosexual marriage. Actually, I have never thought that.  My reasoning against homosexual marriage was that, as a society, we place marriage between heterosexuals as a desired state because it leads to a more stable society.  So, we offer incentives for that by giving people who are willing to stay in a committed relationship certain advantages.  I still think that argument makes sense.  I think we should promote things that good for a stable society.  But, if it makes sense for heterosexuals, it makes sense for homosexuals, too.  Even if we don't see homosexual relationships as the ideal, certainly a committed homosexual relationship is better than what we are driving many people to now.  And, let's face the reality that we heterosexuals are doing a pretty good job of destroying marriage all by ourselves.  The divorce rate is crazy high.  People live together before marriage like marriage means almost nothing.  Having a child before marriage is often
a conscious choice now.  Allowing homosexual marriage would have zero-impact on heterosexual marriages.  What it could do is bring more stability to homosexual relationships.  What it could do is raise the self-esteem of homosexuals and begin helping some of the problems cited earlier in this post.  What it could do is teach us all to be more compassionate and tolerant of those who tastes are not exactly like our own.  I must confess, I mistakenly voted for the protection of marriage thing on the ballot in Ohio a while back.  I will not do that again.

A Couple of Distractions

There is something I wanted to say to those fighting for gay rights.  As an African American, I have to tell you that equating homosexual rights to the civil rights struggle of Blacks in the 60s just doesn't work on so many levels that, I think, it just hurts your cause.  It leads to us pointing out to you the differences between your struggle and ours rather than focusing on the issue at hand.  It is just a distraction.   Let me tell you what I mean.  Being born Black is not a choice, it's not even debatable.   I'm Black whether I choose to perform an action or not.  It's obvious I'm Black when I walk into the room.  Being a homosexual is (arguably) a choice.  But, what is not debatable is that you have to declare yourself a homosexual for anyone to know.  And, others define you as a homosexual based on the actions you take.  Again, we can slip into the unimportant debate of nature versus nurture on this issue.   This is the second distraction. I say we let this go.  Let's move on.  It's one that homosexuals can't win.  If we determined that homosexuality is a congenital trait, straight people would to look for a cure.  Recently a Southern Baptist leader made the bizarre statement that while homosexuality might be genetically predetermined, it's still a sin and that he would be in favor of trying to find a cure.  This led to condemnation from both the religious conservatives, who want to insist homosexuality is a choice, and from the homosexual groups, who want to claim that homosexuality is not a choice and therefore cannot be a sin.  Frankly, I think it's a moot point.  But, my personal opinion is some people are born homosexual and I think some people may become homosexual due to life experiences.  I think some (particularly gay men) are broken in many ways as is evident from their behavior. But, again, we have a chicken-or-egg thing here and I don't think debating about the cause of homosexuality does us any good when it comes to how we should treat homosexuals.

A Reason For Hope

I like the growing compassion I'm hearing in the Christian community (it's better than things were).  As I mentioned earlier, I think a lot of people are taking this necessary first step to being open and affirming.  Brian McLaren wrote in January 2006 about the subject and encouraged us to speak with wisdom and love- which I really liked.  But, he failed to take a stand, which I didn't like.  He said:

     I just finished Martin Zender's "The Really Bad Thing About Free Will",(subtitled A Critical Look at the Salvation Doctrine).   I'd like to discuss this idea of free will, give a quick review of the book and encourage you to pick it up.  First, I think we have to address the idea of what is "free will" and is there any such thing?  I've been 'round and 'round with people on this- and I'm no philosopher.  This seems to be a never-ending debate.  I listened to a broadcast where Martin Zender laid into one of my favorite Universalists (Thomas Talbott) about something Talbott had written about free will.  The hang up seems to come from the word "free".

I think in common language when people say free will they mean the ability to make a choice free from undue constraints or influences and with clarity of mind.  What free will does not mean is that we can make choices free of any influences or that we can choose to do things we are incapable of doing (like flying for example).  I see arguments against free putting up and knocking down straw men all of the time.  Of course we are products of everything that has happened to us in the past, of our genetic presdispositions and our personalities. We are influenced by those around us.  I don't know anyone who would deny that. (Do you?).  I have found  I don't have the free will to do things that my own personality constrains me from doing.  Sometimes, I'll get an urge to do something but because of others' expectations of me, I feel just can't do it.  The Buddhists talk about this fact that we are products of our environment as interdependence.  Nothing and no one is truly independent.  Everything is a product of something else and its actions are influenced by and influenced everything it is touched by and it touches.  And of course, this is true.  None of us can make any choice free of any influence.   The debate about free will seems to be really about whether or not we have true choice.  It seems some would say choice is merely an illusion and any decisions we make are based solely on influences beyond our control.  I think the free will debate really resolves around whether we have true choice or not.  Is there a point where the true "me" (whatever that is makes an independent decision?)  From my perspective, this is a moot point because regardless of whether we are just sophisticated robots or true moral agents, we have to live (as Martin would say in the relative) as though we do have choice.  We have to decide whether we're going to get up in the morning, what we are going to do today, etc.  And those choices have real consequences. So, while the philosophers might enjoy debating this issue, when the rubber meets the road, we do have "will".  We do make choices.  And we do have to live with those choices and their consequences.  God might or might not be the ultimate "strongest influence".  But, if He is, there's not a damn thing we can do about it or any way we could possibly detect it.   Now back to the book...

With that long preamble, this book is not really about free will in that general sense.  The book is about the doctrine of salvation by our own willpower.  Churchianity teaches a self-contradicting set of teachings in almost every tract and any sermon on "salvation".  They teach two key points  1.) There is nothing we can do to influence or earn our salvation.  2.) If we can just believe the right things, we become "saved".  Churchianity is very careful to not use the word "earn" in the second part of this.  This could just as easily be worded "If you believe, you will have earned your salvation".  They know if they did, people would see right through the contradiction immediately.  So, they clean it up a bit.  Outwardly, they say they did not earn their salvation. But, in their heart of hearts they believe that if you could just muster up the belief they mustered up, you would be saved.  This is the Arminianian group in Christianity anyway.  These are the people who think God wants all to be saved, offers salvation to us.  But, then God sits back and waits for our decision.  Somehow God is not quite capable of pulling off salvation for everyone.  He tried.  But, his hands are tied by our "free will".  At least Calvinists realize the contradiction in this "believe and be saved" doctrine and are consistent in this regard.  Calvinists believe that God predestined who would believe and we have no ability to believe, apart from God individually giving us that belief.  Of course, they also believe for those who God hasn't chosen, Eternal Torment is a fitting, just and glorious (to God) end.  How they reconcile that contradiction, I'll never understand.

Martin points out the absurdity of believing that Jesus died to merely made salvation possible. Traditional Christianity teaches Jesus did not save anyone.  Jesus only made it possible to be saved.  Jesus paved the road. But, we have to walk down it.  We have to believe to be saved.  Since the belief is our choice (God would never violate our "free will"), we are actually responsible for our own salvation.  Yes, they say, Jesus died on the cross for all your sins, past present and future.  Yes, they say, Jesus made it possible for you to be saved.  But, you must believe to be "saved".  This is just a fancy way of saying you save yourself by your power to believe.

Martin points out that traditional Christianity teaches that Jesus took away each and every sin.  But, they say, Jesus did not take away the only sin actually capable of damning me to hell, the sin of unbelief.  Martin proceeds to do an excellent job of tearing apart a standard Christian tract and points out the folly of it (including many scriptural references to back up his points).  This idea that we must trust Jesus and only Jesus completely to be saved (and if we don't trust Jesus only we're not saved) is a self-contradictory idea.  To do that, we have to muster up the belief to trust Jesus.  So, in actuality, what we are trusting is our belief, not trusting Jesus.  This is what had me on the verge of panic for years.  Was my faith real? Was my faith good enough?  Was I fooling myself? I didn't have confidence in my faith, my belief (and I shouldn't have). That's what I was counting on for salvation, not God.

Martin gives a great example of a military liberating people to make them free (similarly to the way Christ freed us).  When the military makes you free, you are free whether you accept it or not. You might not realize you are free. But, you are.  The church tells us Christ is less effective than the army that frees a people.  Christ's freedom isn't real and we still suffer the consequences of the occupation, until we perform our own act.

Next Martin points out how the church while rightfully calling us helpless and dead (apart from God), tells us to act on our own behalf to save ourselves.  He gives a great description of relative versus absolute.  And he points out how, even though all are saved, it is up to us to accept our salvation to begin actually live like we are.  That should be the message of the church.  Not come and get saved, but come and accept the salvation you have already been given, realizing you are already saved. Until we look at the cross and see what Christ did for us, until we realize and accept our forgiveness, we will still live in condemnation. But, the condemnation is not from God, it's from us. 

Martin then gives one of the best and simplest descriptions of the cross I have ever read.  It's simply beautiful.  Yes, God did force Himself on us.  Thank God He did!!!!  You have to read this. 

My friend Arthur has been questioning me on the idea of free will and who is responsible for our sins, our unbelief and our eternal salvation.  While I'm not the scriptural literalist Martin is, I believe Arthur is, as are so many of my friends who believe the same thing that Arthur does.  What they believe is that God has given us free will and Jesus has died to give us the opportunity to be saved.  But belief, and therfore salvation, is our choice. Martin gives a ton of scriptural references that shoot that whole idea full of holes.  According to scripture (ask any Calvinist and they'll back this up), God purposely does not allow many (most) to believe. He purposely withholds belief from them (so much for God not violating free will). I'm not going to list the scriptures here because I really want you to get this book. If free will is God's gift to me and I can use my free will to condemn myself to eternal torment, that's the gift I don't want to accept.   Here God, you can have it back. Take my will and give me salvation.

All in all, this is another excellent little book from Martin. I highly recommend getting it.  It's a very quick read at less than 80 pages.  It's written in plain language with cartoons and Martin's unique sense of humor.  It's available from Martin's website at: http://www.starkehartmann.com/free_excerpts.htm (this link will take you to excerpts of the book at the publisher's site where you can also purchase it).   In fact, buy several copies and hand them out to your evangelical friends.

Someone asked me (rather sheepishly- she did not want to be politically incorrect) how Black people feel about the election of Barack Obama. Are we proud? Are we thrilled? The answer is most of us are both proud and thrilled. However, maybe not for the reasons you think.

Before I get started I need to point this out. No ethnic group is monolithic.  And it minimizes us to think that we are. There are a few conservative black Republicans. Many of them were torn by this election. They wanted to be a part of history. But, they felt they had to stay loyal to their conservative views. They were not going to vote for a candidate that didn't represent their view just because he happened to have a father from Kenya. And, I say "good for them." They need to have their heads examined for being black conservatives. But, they stuck to their principles and they should have.

But, as to why most of us are thrilled, proud and encouraged, you might think it's because we have proven that black people can qualify for the highest office in the land. Barack Obama was the first black person to be the President of the Harvard Law Review, too. Something else to be proud of. But, the reality is that there have been dozens, hundreds dare I say thousands of Black men and women with the qualifications to have done the things Barack Obama has done. Not to take anything away from his brilliance. But, while he is uniquely qualified (among both black and white people), he is not the first black man to be the smartest person in the race, the most passionate person in the race, the smartest guy on campus. I don't want to start naming all the exceptional black people in history because I don't have the time or the names and you don't want to read all of them. And listing them will give the impression the list is all inclusive. The point is we have been qualified for all types of jobs for a long time before this past Tuesday and even before the civil rights movement. The election of Barack Obama is not cause for celebration because black people achieved anything. That is anything other than finally being given what we have been qualified for for a long time.

The reason to be thrilled about Obama, the reason to have pride about this result is that we have finally reached a tipping point where the promises made in the constitution, the dream of Martin Luther King and the things we tried to legislate in the Civil Rights movement have finally been taken into the hearts of the majority of our country. The pride, for me, comes in the fact that America has matured enough to reach the point where we judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin. The civil rights movement laid down the law. But, until there is a fundamental change of heart, no law can truly provide equality in a land. There are covert and subtle ways to continue to oppress a minority as long as the majority holds power. An election is the ultimate popularity contest. Kind of like American Idol. Paula, Randy and Simon can sit and pontificate as much as they want about who is the best singer.  It might even be clear in their performances. But, when it comes down to it, Americans, in the privacy of their homes, can choose the absolute worst for any reason they want. No matter how qualified a candidate may be, in the privacy of the voting booth, I don't have to give my reasons for voting for the other guy. That is the thing that scared so many of us about this election. We are elated to have been proven wrong about what Americans would do when no one was watching over them.  Earlier, I said, we had reached a tipping point.  It doesn't mean race is irrelevant anymore.  It doesn't mean we don't still have struggles ahead.  But, I think rather than an uphill battle, we are on the downhill side of this struggle now.

So, my pride, my joy is not in what black people have accomplished.  Black people have accomplished so much more than most whites and many blacks even know.  I'm not proud of Barack Obama because he's black.  Being black is an accident of birth.  It's nothing to be proud of.  My pride and joy is in what America did on Tuesday.  My pride, my joy is for the fact that we showed the world that we are progressing and we have progressed. I've always believed a black man could be qualified to be President.  What I didn't really believe is he'd be given the chance, this soon. 

I have to admit, the election of Barack Obama will elevate the self-esteem of black people tremendously. Even though technically he is bi-racial and he is not descended from slaves like most of us, he has been categorized as one of us. A black man raised by a single mother who worked his way through Harvard and into the Oval Office will be an inspiration for millions of young black men (and older black men). I cannot wait to see the impact it has on this generation.  This is a fringe benefit of his election.  A big fringe benefit that will pay dividends for year and generations. Already, black men have a little more pride in their steps.  Already they are using words like accountability and personal responsibility a little more.  There are those who need role models, who need to see it done to believe they can do it.  For them, this is something much needed.  But, it's not the primary reason black people are thrilled with this outcome.

As an aside, I want to talk about the "racism" of Obama getting over 90% of the black vote.  Yep, I've heard that claim.  It's racist that Obama got most of the black vote.   Of course there were those who voted for Obama simply because he was black.  There were those who registered to vote simply because a black man was in the election.  But, keep in mind that the vast majority of black people voted Democratic in the first place.  This goes back to the debt of gratitude we owe the Democratic party for including us in the vote in the first place.   That's the beginning of it.  Then, you have the modern Republican party who has basically told us it doesn't want any minorities.  And there are other reasons.  But, anyway, the Democratic candidate would have gotten the bulk of the black vote no matter who they ran.  Personally I would never give a candidate my vote based solely on the color of his skin. I would not vote for Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton to be the head of the  local PTA. But, in voting for Barack Obama, I knew I was voting for the best candidate when he ran against Hillary and when he ran against John McCain.  The fact that he is black was just a bonus.

So, yes, today I am full of pride and joy.  Not pride in my race, but pride in my country.  Not joy just for the fact that this was a leap forward for black people.  But, mostly joy because it is a major leap forward for all people in America.  What brings me the most pride and joy about this moment in history is something we can all share, black, white, latino, etc.  This is not just a day for celebration by black folks but by all Americans interested in true equality and the end to our racist history.

In the heat of the battle, I think some may have gotten the wrong impression of my impression of John McCain. I want to say this clearly and unequivocally. I think John McCain is a good man, a true American hero and I hope he is remembered as such.

John McCain served his country in Vietnam. He endured torture for us. He has served in Congress for close to 30 years. He has voted his conscience on several issues, bucking his party. I believe that he ran for President not for his own ego but because he truly felt that was the best way he could serve his country during this time.

Like all of us, John McCain is human and has made some mistakes. I believe the mistake he made during the campaign was instead of just being John McCain and going with his gut, he allowed the base and the pundits to turn him into something he was not. I think he was uncomfortable with the level and tone of rhetoric coming out of his campaign and I expect one day he will apologize for that. I understand politics are politics and you have to do what you have to do to get elected. Obama's campaign did things I'm sure he's not proud of too. Unfortunately, though John McCain went too far in the campaign pulling a few "stunts" that simply backfired. I think if he had stayed the course and run on experience and patriotism, we might have had a different result and he might be the President elect.

During the campaign I said things about John McCain that were critical.  I don't think I criticized him unfairly.  I was merely pointing out the differences (and similarities) between the candidates, as I saw them. I was shocked by the lack of judgment he showed at times.  And, I saw a herky-jerky quality in his temperament that was not appealing in a President.  But, I never questioned his patriotism or his character.  It's kind of funny that when I posted some things about him being a socialist or a redistributor that a couple of my readers thought I was "bashing" him.  Not at all.  I was merely pointing out that he actually took the mainstream American approach to taxes which is that a progressive tax is fair and that those who do not pay income tax still deserve relief. 

I was especially moved by John McCain's concession speech on Tuesday evening. It was the John McCain I thought I knew. He seemed as relaxed as he did during the entire campaign. His words flowed like he had the speech down pat. Even during the unscripted debates, he never seemed quite comfortable with what he was saying or even where he was. He threw his support behind the man who for months and up until a few minutes prior had been his "mortal" enemy. He called on his supporters to do the same. I hope he will continue to lead the "base" to work with the duly elected President to heal this nation and get us back on track. Barack Obama and John McCain have buried the hatchet. I hope their supporters will to.