Monday 16 June 2014

Today In Parliament: My conversations with a homosexual


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