RKJ replied to my previous post,
So Julie, I'm not sure you've given us much insight into the comparison between lepers and gay people. It seems many people are interested in taking a stand against hypocrisy in the church (or bigotry or stupidity) and who would like to be for any of those things? But how are gay people like lepers? Jesus was not afraid to touch lepers but he didn't leave them as lepers either. I understand your petition rebellion. Now what about the people. To call a gay person a leper is to invoke imagery of decay and disease which cannot be left alone if one is truly compassionate. Where does your analogy end?
No, I sure haven't given any insight into the comparison, and my word choice is potentially even misleading. At best it is a very loose analogy, because it means more to me, because of what I associate, than to the reader. This post is better thought out but at times I am frustrated, sarcastic, angry, impassioned, and very personal. I normally seek to be thoughtful and balanced. I don't want to make a pretty little neat argument in this post. I am tired of the status quo. Let's talk about turning over tables.
Most of this is "I don't know but there is something far more important." There's no stunning theological argument to be had here. There's just an argument about priority. I'd like to tell you, hey, this is just how I see things for myself and you're welcome to differ... but I'd be lying to try and avoid conflict. I'm convinced that this argument about priority is absolutely right for every single human being.
The argument is this: love comes first. I don't mean sissy love from afar without getting our hands dirty. I mean gritty, real, messy, beautiful, difficult love. (I could more easily show you than tell you, but this is a blog; please forgive my words for falling short.) Doing what Christ did in coming to earth. Sitting down and caring for people with no agenda whatsoever. To be one of those people whose qualities I mentioned in an earlier post:
... approachable, accepting, slow to anger, slow to judge, quick to pardon, seeking to understand, seeking to love, seeking to do right. They create a space where the tide of fear is held back, where no secret is too dark, no failure too deep, where any uncertainty is permitted. Where our humanity can be laid bare without shame or judgement.
In light of that, on to my comment about making lepers out of gays.
Before I start generalizing about "the church", I ought to tell the reader my background, because this is far from a balanced view, and there are plenty of churches and church people (hopefully) who differ from my primary experience. My family's Catholic and believes "you shouldn't show support for the gay lifestyle" such as by socializing with a gay couple (although just half the couple is okay, I guess). My friends in college were mostly Pentecostal and believed that homosexuality was something you needed healing or to be set free from. I also attended a 'nondenominational' Christian church that was nonetheless to the fundamentalist side a la Moody Bible Institute. These are my influences and views of the "Christian" "church;" again, I am aware that many individuals differ from the official views with which people have attempted to indoctrinate me. And so when I refer to "the church", it is some aggregate of these official groups, and much more about negative characteristics than positive ones.
What I was trying to express is that the church, by standing against gay marriage, is making gays unwelcome, casting them out. In a some ways, treating them the way 'good' people treated lepers, labelling them as unclean and somehow less than human. I don't like the spirit of the thing.
How does that model the love of Christ?
Well gee, what an effective way to drive people away from Christ! It's pretty darn easy to see condemnation written all over stuff like that to see "Christians" and thus God as hateful and condemning, not just of actions but of people. I'm not saying either of those are or are not the intended message of any person or of any church body, I'm saying that it's easy enough to receive that message from those actions.
How does that model the love of Christ?
RKJ wrote, "To call a gay person a leper is to invoke imagery of decay and disease which cannot be left alone if one is truly compassionate." That's another place where the analogy fits, to a point... so even while "the church" produces the clean-unclean relationship, individual Christians who "have it right" try to produce the Christ-leper relationship that RKJ has so nicely summarized. The difference here is that the leper knows he is sick... does the homosexual? And is there really anything wrong with him? And what are the effects of trying to help somebody that doesn't think they need help? And what if there really isn't anything wrong, and it's the splinter versus the log? Riddle me that!
How does that model the love of Christ?
Is there any argument being made today about homosexuality, to justify condemning people or behavior, to which we couldn't respond "the Pharisees said that about..." Does that scare anybody besides me?
How does that model the love of Christ?
To my family, I say, how would your friend and his partner feel when you refuse to go out to dinner together? Are they really going to believe it's just on principle? (Oh, it's just a misunderstanding? Well then who is going to take responsibility for making real communication occur?)
How does that model the love of Christ?
Of course the question is bound to come up, what do I think? I'm talking about it here on my blog and saying why gay marriage should not be outlawed, because it drives people from Christ, (I could also make an argument for discrimination), but that doesn't address the morality of homosexuality. These are two different conversations that most people do not separate or think should be separate.
If somebody asks me if I believe homosexuality is wrong, then I'll say I don't feel qualified to make a judgement on that. Because I don't, I'm not convinced that I know God's heart in the matter. If you press me? I'll say f*** it, if you will think I love you any less or any different because you think I have the audacity to think you are "living in sin" then no, it's not wrong. If anything at all stops me from loving extravagantly, than f*** it, that's gotta go. That is the pearl of great price. That is what it means to be willing to forsake everything to follow Christ.
12 comments:
Julie,
I must confess I suffer from a mild case of homophobia. That's the reason I didn't make any comment on your previous entry. I think people should understand this since I was brought up a Christian, and our culture is very
homophobic.
I do have friends who are practicing homosexuals or bisexuals. I have nothing against them; it's their business. And I trust them enough to let them come near me. They are also very good and kind people.
Oh, man, Julie, I feel your pain and love and compassion and confusion and everything. My heart goes out to you. My wife’s denomination is currently in the process of “dialogue” (read: civil war and probable collapse) over the “issue” of “homosexuality.” It’s agonizing, and it brings out the worst in everyone——me included, when briefly last year I decided to enter the fray——when we allow ourselves to talk about it in the narrow framework of identity politics, who owns God, and who’s right. I blogged about it a few times in May and June of ’05 (I’m not cool enough to know how to post links in the comment field, so you’ll have to get there by way of my archives) if you’re interested in reading some of my thoughts on the topic. (But be forewarned I’m not particularly proud of some passages that were composed in the heat of the moment with lots of self-satisfaction.) In the end, I had to get out of the conversation and just start relating to people on an individual level, because it comes down to exactly what you said: “If anything at all stops me from loving extravagantly, then f*** it, that's gotta go. That is the pearl of great price. That is what it means to be willing to forsake everything to follow Christ.” Many prayers as you engage the topic with people in your life.
Julie,
Only love is real. Hate is not a true emotion. Hate divides and segregates. Love enables communication and understanding. Your ability to love and not judge marks you as very wise. My own perspective is that these bodies are only clothes that enable us to live in this world. Our souls are the true children of God, not these bodies. Since souls are supposed to be genderless and only love is real, I doubt it matters to God who loves whom so long as the love is true between souls. That's just my way of looking at things.
Fight the good fight in the war against ignorance! Have a great weekend. Love and enjoy what God has given you. What more can One do?
John
Anything which prevents you from loving extravagantly “f*** it” is you theme and of course it is a popular them. No one wanted to speak up in the name of hypocrisy, stupidity or bigotry. Everyone wants to identify with love. Me too. Add me to the non-bigot, non-stupid, non-homophobic, non-hypocrite pro-love caucus. Let us love extravagantly…if you mean it the way Jesus meant it. Not in an eros drenched orgy of emotion or back slapping good old boy phileo, but in the high love, the agape. Jesus’s message of love was a love which demonstrated itself in an absolute commitment to the absolute best interest of another. It didn’t bail out when hard things needed to be said or done in order to act in another’s best interest. Jesus’ compassion is often associated with acts we identify as compassionate, like touching a leper, but his life was entirely compassionate, every moment, every act. Rebuking a friend and confronting a hypocrite were compassionate acts. He sought to move them from a falling short to a fullness of life. If you never rebuke or confront you are not loving extravagantly.
I am not homophobic, but perhaps I am a recovering homophobe in the most important sense – I am not interested in this characteristic as something with which to separate people from each other or from me. I do not believe anyone can tell someone whether they are gay or not unless that person is Jesus Himself. He can tell you who you are. There is an identity beyond any identity we embrace here and now. No marriage in heaven, no reproduction there either, could it be there is no gender too? Who you are in the highest sense comes down to finding an identity which transcends everything else. The question both gay and straight people must be prepared to ask is this: am I willing to give up every identity I claim and let only the real and living Jesus inform me of my true identity? This includes calling yourself gay. It includes calling yourself a mother or a husband. You cannot hide any identities behind your back and hold the rest out to Him. You have to give them all up if you want to know who you really are.
Personally I believe God will reveal to a person who owns a homosexual identity they are mistaken. I believe it is a falling short of the fullness of life. Obviously I have gay friends who disagree with me. I have actually had a friend say to me they would rather go to hell than give up being gay. I think if you are going to take a position such as mine you had better be prepared for both sides to unload on you. The classic ‘Christian” position which is going to insist upon immediate ‘straightness’ for the ‘repentant sinner’ attendant with a full blown monogamous hetero relationship and the ‘I am gay above all else’ position which is going to insist upon placing the homosexual identity on a equal plane with all identities attendant with everyone’s fully embracing the ‘gay lifestyle’ or ‘gay agenda’ (including marriage). I believe I am right, therefore I can afford to do things others can’t do – I can be gracious and I can be patient. It amazes me how all kinds of people seem to think they can make themselves more right by being louder and pressing harder. I don’t believe I will ever convince one person to abandon being gay, don’t want to. I want to see everyone embrace Jesus as the only true way to find out who they are – but I would be doing this under false pretenses if I didn’t say what I think it means.
It doesn't really matter what we call ourselves. Christian is a label. Buddhist is a label. Gay is a label. Male is a label. Woman is a label. What are they labels for? Roles, we play roles. Are these roles necessarily the real human being? Sometimes. One can't help being a male or female unless you happen to have gotten unlucky in the genetic dice roll. Perhaps that's happened to a few gays. However, it doesn't matter what role you identify with. What matters is, does that role enhance or detract from your ability to be a fully functional human being.
The word hypocrite is old Greek for actor. Ancient actors played roles and wore masks. Jesus was saying that almost everyone you meet is playing a role and hiding behind a mask because they identify too much with the roles they play in life. They forget that they are primarily a human being, same as anyone else. The role they think they are blinds them to their own and anyone else's humanity.
Some can look beyond roles and labels and see the person beneath. Some can't. The former have true compassion. The latter probably don't. This is how conflicts and wars start. Truth is not exclusive to Christians. Anyone has access to Truth if they can see beyond roles and masks to the human being underneath. If they can have true compassion for another. So, being a Christian can be a help or hindrance. Being gay can be a help or hindrance. It depends upon how deeply one identifies with the label and the role that person assumes or plays in the stage we call this World. Julie understands the essence of Christianity. She sees the underlying humanity in others. What about the rest of us?
hi, maybe catch my post at Resolution/Resolution blog? it is a risk, but there.
Thanks for stopping by over at my blog Julie.
Good on you for tackling some of the big questions over here.
William Blake said: "Opposition is true friendship".
So whether one approves or disapproves of homosexuality one can still love homosexuals.
Imemine; Thank you. I don't know what else to say.
Andrew; Thank you. People are very good at fighting each other instead of identifying and fighting a problem. Many prayers to you as well.
John; thank you. It's much easier to find something to quibble over than to truly make love the first priority. I still don't understand the official views of the Church and will have to pursue those as well.
Peishan; I'm sorry to have missed the movie (again). You know I'll tell you my thoughts on anything. If its never come up, I don't believe that non-christians will go to hell. :)
Hate not the sinner, but the sin. Peishan, I do tend to agree with you, perhaps not impossible but certainly very difficult.
Which is how RKJ's loooooong and thoughtful comment ties in - absolutely right, only agape can love the sinner and hate the sin. Thank you for expanding on what I said.
This comment was fantastic so I'm repeating it: You have to give [all identities] up if you want to know who you really are. I'm not sure the actual sacrifice is necessary, but a true willingness to sacrifice (a la Abraham and Isaac) surely is.
JBM, thank you for the commentary on labels and roles. Larry wrote an entry recently that touched on that, obtusely. (By which I mean, I see the connection, you may not.)
Jim, I replied to your blog entry. Naturally I disagree with you. (Joking, well half, about the naturally part.)
Nondualreality, glad to have found your blog.
Rob, wow, wish I'd been so succinct the first time. Found a fantastic essay today on having good fights. In sum: good communication is essential.
Where does this leave me? Is it a sin? Don't know. Is it *really* possible to love the sinner and hate the sin? Yes. Is it possible to do so in a way that somebody knows without a doubt and without condition that they are loved? ...I think so.
If I were to rewrite this blog entry now, it'd be much shorter:
Loving everybody is more important than approving or disapproving of their behavior. To my pain and dismay, that's something oft overlooked in discussions on the nature and morality of homosexuality. If, because I am human, either approval or disapproval changes love, then they must of necessity be let go. Cut off your hand? Cut out your brain! But I do not feel qualified to judge the issue, nor am I convinced of anybody else's qualifications or their arguments. Ask me to judge, and I will say, not yes or no, but, "love your neighbor." Since the answer is a non sequitur, perhaps the next sentence should read, "upon hearing this, the people were enlightened".
My favorite quote, I so far attribute to myself, is "Do you dare claim to know the mind of God?" I was having a moment when I read your comment about not being able to "judge God's heart in the matter."
Did I hear that correctly? You honestly think you can't speak for God? Well, damn, how refreshing! As a Wiccan, Julie, I am not a big fan of Christians period, but I must say, I am certainly glad to meet you. For a mortal who believes in an all-knowing diety (which I'm assuming you do), it is rare to discover one who perhaps thinks that God would be capable of speaking for himself, rather than sending coded messeges thru humans in order to enlighten us all.......all us sinners who need salvation so badly.
Since the written word conveys intent so badly, please be assured I have paid you the highest compliment I could think of.
Michael, I am honored by your comment. I hear your frustration, and your gladness; and share them both.
Post a Comment