Just as I was getting started on my career as a Southern Baptist pastor in 1995, our denomination celebrated its 150th anniversary by taking a bold step at its annual convention. Delegates ratified a resolution that officially apologized for Southern Baptist participation in the historical evils of slavery and segregation. This laudable (if somewhat tardy) stand came to mind last week when the California Supreme Court overturned a law prohibiting same-sex marriage, almost certainly igniting a fresh battle with the religious right. No one knows when such battles will end, but I have a sneaking suspicion that sometime between now and the 300th anniversary of the Southern Baptist Convention, a new resolution will be needed that apologizes to the gay community for past sins. In anticipation of this need, I offer the following as a first draft: Of course, I may be jumping the gun a bit here. But it never hurts to be prepared.
WHEREAS, Since its founding in 1845, the Southern Baptist Convention has been an effective instrument of God in missions, evangelism, and social ministry, albeit with a few missteps along the way regarding our African-American brothers and sisters, women, and other folk like that; and
WHEREAS, The Scriptures teach that Jesus was the sort of fellow who welcomed lepers, tax collectors, and the aforementioned women into his presence with open arms (Matthew 9:10), and that he was criticized as a drunkard and friend of sinners rather than as some sort of “stuffed shirt” (Luke 7:34); and
WHEREAS, We have learned from hard experience that, on occasion, the “plain teaching” of Scripture can be used to justify some pretty lousy positions, and that it is entirely possible that Moses and the Apostle Paul did not have in mind, say, a modern, loving relationships between gay persons who just want to be recognized as a family like the rest of us; and
WHEREAS, Our relationship to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters has been hindered by our efforts to deny them “special rights” like access to health benefits and hospital visitation privileges; and
WHEREAS, Many of our Baptist forbears made numerous “less than kind” public statements about these same brothers and sisters (to say nothing of some of the stuff we wrote on picket signs);
Be it RESOLVED, That we apologize to all gay, lesbian, and transgender people everywhere for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic bigotry in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of any bigotry of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27).
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Be It Resolved
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
What makes you think that loving homosexuals who just want to be recognized as a family were unknown to Moses and Paul?
Based on your comments, apparently you don't believe that God got written into the Bible what he wanted. In other words, the Bible is wrong about homosexuality. Would that be a fair assessment of what you believe?
Gary - These are good questions. To save time on the first one, I will direct you to some online resources from Evangelicals Concerned that demonstrate how modern homosexual relationships are not addressed by the Bible, which is dealing instead with temple prostitution, pederastry, and other ills of its time.
On the second question, I do not believe that God dictated the Bible to humans in some infallible way. In the unlikely event that he did, we no longer have access to the original infallible manuscripts. Our current Bibles are the result of fallible humans copying the original texts, deciding which copies are most accurate, deciding which books to include in the final canon of Scripture (some 300 years after Christ's death), and, finally, translating those books into English. So, yes, I believe that human cultural trappings and biases are present in the Bible as we know it.
Steve,
The Bible does not address modern homosexuality? Consider this: In Matthew 19: 4,5 Jesus said "Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleve to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" Jesus was referencing Genesis 1:27 and 2:23,24. That is an endorsement of opposite sex marriage.
In Matthew 15: 19-20 Jesus said, "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, ADULTERIES, FORNICATIONS, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man;"
Adultery is sexual relations between two people, at least one of which is married. Fornication is sex between people, neither of whom is married. Jesus is condeming as sinful all sex outside of marriage, which, according to Jesus, is heterosexual only.
Given these facts, where does that leave room for homosexual marriage, or homosex of any kind?
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. The Greek word usually translated as "fornication" in the New Testament (porneia) referred primarily to cultic prostitution and was not a simple denunciation of all sex outside marriage.
Quoting Scripture doesn't really help, since I can quote dozens of verses that allow for (even promote) slavery. Yet no Christians own slaves today. I can also quote numerous verses that prohibit usury (loaning money at interest). Yet most Christians have hefty mortgages. Clearly, interpretations of Scripture change over time.
Oy! This will probably become a big mess, but here is hoping it doesn't.
Steve, you are correct, Jesus never mentioned the topic in clear unambiguous words. There are two possible exceptions.
2. Eunuchs.
a. Mt 19:12a "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth," IF in fact (and this is a big if) Jesus means what we would call a homosexual by His term eunuch, then He is rather blandly stating that "they" are born that way. That would be a "neutral" statement, in my opinion.
b. There is then the centurion's servant in Matthew 8 & Luke 7.
In Matthew the word "pais" is used for the servant. This word means "boy" as well as "servant" and was commonly used for a younger male lover/servant. In modern English, the word "pederasty" derives partly from "pais". In Luke the word describing the servant is "doulos" which means "servant" or "slave" and removes any implications of same gender activity. If these guys were in fact lovers, Jesus ignores that portion of their lives (and certainly He would know) and praised the faith of the centurion. That would be a positive statement.
Centurions having younger male slaves that served them sexually as well as otherwise was as common as Okies owning pickups, a part of society that was expected and 'normal'. Jesus could not have been ignorant of this.
Yes, Jesus clearly used the Scriptures to support heterosexual marriage, but that is not the only conclusion possible from this argument. He simply may have meant that particular teaching for another time, we can not know that. Basically the absence of evidence in this case, can not be taken as evidence of absence.
Monk - I had the same "Oy!" feeling as you when I posted my little resolution. In fact, my dear wife read it and said, "Brace yourself." But these issues have to be discussed openly because they're not going away. Thanks for raising some thought-provoking points--I definitely want to examine them further.
Post a Comment