When I was younger, this is before I turned 10, I had this
suspicion that the local TV channel would play all the cartoons that they cut
off prematurely towards the end of broadcast. No idea
where I got that from, probably one of those things my brother told me to test
how gullible I was. So whenever my parents would slip up and forget to tell us
to go to bed, which was very rare, they are as consistent as clocks my folks,
its borderline ridiculous. Anyway whenever they would forget I would sit
quietly looking at the TV hoping my theory was right, I was silent because any
noise and they would remember I was there and send me to bed. I distinctly remember how after the final
show there would be three things that would follow, that was the only thing
ZNBC, the local broadcaster, were consistent about. They were: Today in
Parliament, The Epilogue and The National Anthem. After these the screen would
go blank and there would be an annoying high pitched sound that would not go
away, to my utter disappointment.
As I was thinking of how to wrap up my Journey in Cyprus for
the summer break I remembered this slice of my childhood and decided to go with
that. For the few who have read my Journey in Cyprus and have noticed my
silence for the past month or so, I have been writing exams. I would rather
write during my next spell here than have this as my last instalment and go
home prematurely. That and I think my Dad would kill me if I failed, just
kidding he would just give me a mental beating, he has that down to a science.
So down to Today in Parliament: My conversations with a homosexual.
A couple months back I came across a man on the interweb who
was a pastor but after announcing his homosexuality to the congregation was no
longer a pastor. Now he runs a blog about a lot of things but the main point of
it is reconciling his homosexuality with being a Christian. After reading
through what he had to say, I was intrigued into seeing what he had to say
about the bible’s pretty much obvious anti-gay message. Below lies our
correspondence, it is ongoing but I will give you what is there so far. A few
things before you read the content of it. Firstly I will not disclose his name
or blog for personal reasons, a few of you will understand. Secondly, the way I
tackled the situation is my way of doing things and you might disagree but what
can you do, its my Journey in Cyprus. Lastly, and I will build on this more at
the end, the Bible will only ever speak to us if we prayerfully read through it
and look at it as what God wants to say and not what we want it to say. So here
you go
Mwansa: I found your
blog through a picture that I was searching for to illustrate my point on my
blog. Funny name you got for yours though. My question is how do you reconcile
your message with the bible's blatant anti-gay message? The closest I can get
to an answer would be you believe the bible but not all of it but I would like
to hear your answer
Other Guy: Hey Mwansa!
Thanks for the message.
Reconciling my faith
and my sexuality was a journey that took upwards of 15 years. I came from within
deep fundamentalism, and God brought me to the message of grace over the course
of years.
I would first respond
that, yes, I do believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I believe that
the Holy Spirit compiled all 66 books together. However, I do not believe it is
a Constitution. It has been translated numerous times, in numerous languages,
and if you read it at face-value, you aren't going to get to the heart of the
message therein. Everything must be contextualized in its proper language. So,
while in seminary, I went back to the Hebrew and Greek. This took years of
study, but I have compiled an abbreviated version if you're interested in
reading:
*left out for my own
reasons as stated above*
On this page, I take
the seven verses used against homosexuality, and go back to the original
language within context. Take a read of the articles if you're interested in
learning more.
At the end of the day,
it falls to this, though: Jesus always erred on the side of love when dealing
with religious matters. No matter where you land on this issue, theologically,
just remember that Jesus lived, died, and rose again, just for the purpose of
reconciling the world to Himself - Himself being love embodied (1 John 4:8).
So, always focus on this aspect of the message. Is my theology leading me to
love? Or leading me to exclusion? These are the questions I think Jesus would
have us ask. Always remember to test everything (1 Thess. 5:21). This includes
new teaching, and old.
Much love, and I look
forward to hearing from you again.
Mwansa: I have read a
couple of your clobber verses posts and I must say, it’s an interesting view of
things. I still don’t agree with you in the least. In my view homosexuality is
a direct assault on the institute of marriage and that is the one I would like
to hear you reconcile.
I’m given to
understand that marriage is a sort of metaphor or earthly example of Gods
relationship to the church, one man one woman. Now changing the principle of
marriage from one man to one woman to man and man or woman and woman is
changing the example that God left to us for us to see our relationship with
God. The paradigm changes completely.
My take on
homosexuality is that it’s not just a love/sex issue, it’s a lot more than
that. It's a direct contradiction to the marriage issue and a contradiction to
that is a contradiction to the entire idea of the church a couple steps lower
than that leads us to a domino effect if you will that alters the message of
the bible and I believe that to be impossible.
So my question is, how
is the homosexual "movement" not an attack on Gods principle of
marriage? How do you reconcile the two?
Lastly I wanted to
mention that the bible does not frequently speak against homosexuality because
it is frequently speaking for marriage. Speaking for one is in reality speaking
against the other
Other Guy: Sorry for
the late response. It's been a busy time. I will simply say that I don't
believe it's an "attack" on God's principle of marriage, because our
current understanding of marriage does not come from Scripture - it comes from
Victorian England. Scriptural marriage is, in fact, polygamy, with many different
facets. For example, if a man died, his wife was to be married to his brother,
etc. These mandates were even in place during Jesus' time. Even in the era of
the New Testament, marriage was about property investment, and had little to do
with love. Look into the history of marriage, and you may be surprised by what
you find. Almost every one of our marriage traditions come from this time when
a woman was "bought" by her husband from her father. Marriage is a
social contract that the church adopted.
Mwansa: Ahhhh.. Another
point where I disagree. The law given by Moses might not have expressly or
explicitly spoken against that but the new covenant is the one that explicitly
speaks of how the relationship between man and wife is a
replica/parable/metaphor of the relationship between God and the church. Hence
polygamy and homosexuality are direct attacks on Gods image of marriage. If you
make both parties male, the picture is skewed. Both parties female, once again
the picture is skewed. If you add another in the picture, whether male or
female the result is the same. A skewed picture.
Lastly, the ceremony
may vary according to one’s location but the principle behind Christian
marriage is the same, should be the same all over. Marriage should help us
picture and understand the relation of God with his bride, the church.
Am I making any sense?
Other Guy: I understand
the metaphor. I've taught the metaphor numerous times. But, Jesus used
metaphors every time he spoke. Just because he used a metaphor didn't mean he
was giving a direct command. Jesus also said that the Kingdom of Heaven is
like: A farmer (Matt. 13:24); A mustard seed (Matt. 13:31); A king (Matt.
18:23); A net (Matt. 13:47); A merchant (Matt. 13:45); Yeast (Matt. 13:33); A
barn (Matt. 3:12); A sower of good seed (Matt. 13:24); A treasury (Matt.6:19);
Father's house -Jn14:2. None of these - or any of Jesus' metaphors - are meant
to be taken as literal commands, but rather as ways of understanding God. When
Paul speaks of this in Ephesians, I think he is doing the same thing. He is
saying husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loves the Church. The same
goes for 1 Corinthians. As far as the verses in Revelation that speak of
"the Bride," surely you can't take those verses literally, either?
Not even scholars take Revelation literally.
The reason I speak of
metaphor and literality is because I want you to see that you are using *one*
theology - a theology that is not even explicit in Scripture - and you are
using it to further oppression of individuals that cannot help the way they
feel, and their feelings are just as natural as your feelings toward the
opposite sex.
There are a few things
I want you to consider, however. Many scholars believe David and Jonathan's
relationship was an intimate relationship. There are even verses that allude to
a sexual relationship, such as when Saul tells David that "his mother's
nakedness has shamed them," which is a phrase that means sexual shame, and
he uses it towards David and Jonathan's relationship. Also, when Jesus heals
the Roman Centurion's servant. The word the Roman uses (in the original Greek)
is not a word that translates to a common slave - it's a word that translates
to lover. We all know it was common practice for gay Roman men to have
relationships - intimate, deep monogamous relationships - with those in servant
hood. Jesus would have been very familiar with this common, social norm. Does
Jesus condemn him? No. In fact, he turns to his disciples and says that there
is no greater faith found in all of Israel than in this man.
These speak pretty
loudly, my friend, as to how God feels about homosexuality (whenever it is in
the context of intimate, monogamous relationships). But, just like you, I am speaking
about Biblical metaphors and allusions. There is one thing that the Bible is metaphorical
about, though: love.
1 John 3:23 (fun fact,
this is actually the Bible verse that is tattooed on me!): "And this is
his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love
one another, just as he has commanded us."
Furthermore, the one
thing Jesus prayed for before his death in the Garden in John 17 was unity of
the Church. This didn't mean that we all agree on everything. But, it meant
that in those disagreements, we learned how to love one another anyway, and
didn't force our views on one another. To further that, Paul spoke at the end
of Romans about those that thought different things about the faith. What did
he say to do? Agree to disagree. I believe that's where we are today, and what
we should focus on as we move forward. I do love you, brother, and I hope that
you get to a place where, even if you can't agree with the theology of LGBT
Christians, you will at least not allow your theology to further oppress
others, my friend.
Mwansa: I hear but I figure you misunderstood my point, particularly my phrasing of it. A parable tells
something about something not everything about something. For example when Jesus
equates the kingdom of heaven to a net he was concentrating on one aspect of
the net in fishing, that aspect being that the fisherman chooses which fish to
keep and which fish not to keep, if memory serves me right. It does not speak
of all aspects so it does not speak of how some fish can escape some nets
because of the size of the holes in it etc. So when marriage is being spoken of
in the New Testament, especially in the Pauline epistles it speaks of the
monogamous relation between the two in some cases and the sacrificial love in
others and a couple more other points, well more than a couple but I think you
get my point.
I personally doubt
that David and Jonathan’s friendship had sexual connotations but it was
described as love passed that of a woman. This to me signifies the level of the
bond or friendship between them, however I take caution in making it seem like
an everyday thing because such a friendship is only mentioned once in
scripture.
The roles of the man
and the woman in a marriage are different. It’s nothing feminist/sexist, it's all
biblical. And the major difference is seen in the relation between God and the
church and how the relation between them should be emulated by husband and
wife. If you make it man and man or woman and woman doesn’t that skew the
picture? The roles in the relation that I am speaking of are those mentioned in
Ephesians 5 vs 21-33. The whole wives submit and husbands love part
For those who have read this far I would just like to add on
a paragraph of me own thoughts on this. The entire conversation as at now is
before you but I can still only speak from my perspective. The bible should
always be viewed as what God is saying to us and a lot of the time what he is
saying is not things we want to want to accept. We all want to view God as a
God who does not hate anything or gives light spanking when we are wrong but
that is not what the bible says of him. Let us see God and all that is to do
with the Christian life through the lens of the bible and not whatever other
lens we choose because it is only then that we will ever really know the real
Jesus. A band called Downhere have a song in which they ask “Oh can anybody
show me the real Jesus?” the answer to that is yes, the bible can and your
answers are all there
No comments:
Post a Comment