The official position of Feasts of God Church on LGBTQIA+ Inclusion
Before I begin, I first want to state that this blog post is in response to Rev. Dr. David P. Gushee’s book Changing Our Mind. Second, I want to make sure we are talking about the same things as you read and respond to my words. There are already baptized believers who identify as having same sex or other sex attractions. There are also mainline Protestant denominations who have LGBTQIA+ person as full participants in liturgical worship and that perform same sex wedding ceremonies. There are also already many baptized believers who are LGBTQIA+ and, in one way or another, are active in the life of the church. This all despite the fact that, “until very recently the Christian church in all of its major branches included as part of its 2,000-year-old sexual morality a rejection of the moral legitimacy of sexual acts between persons of the same sex” (David P. Gushee, 9). The first question, then, becomes, “What is LGBTQIA+ inclusion in the liturgical life of the church?”
Rev. Dr. Gushee makes reference to the response of the church that is clarifying of this issue. “When the first major call for social equality for gays and lesbians began to be heard in the United States in the 1970s, Christian resistance was fierce” (30). Later Gushee acknowledges that the culture war has largely been won on LGBTQ issues, but the statement above and the acknowledgement of some success suggest that it is not enough. What I believe is meant by LGBTQAI+ inclusion is for the Church is have a reformation on sexual morality, driven largely by liturgical worship and lifestyle, that would lead the church to advocate, not just for inclusion but, for full acceptance of LGBTQIA+ persons and relationships as agent of virtue and as a matter of restorative justice to the community. Thus, what is at stake here is not inclusion but embrace, by both progressive and evangelical communities, around LGBTQIA+ persons, relationships, and issues. It is the dignitary difference between tolerance of and activism for another.
In chapter 7, Gushee offers six optional responses for churches wrestling with this issue that I will list in brief since the titles are relatively self-explanatory:
The “ask no questions” option.
The “who are we to judge?” option.
The “dialogue for discernment” option.
The “pastoral accommodation” option.
The “exclusionist” option.
The “normative reconsideration” option.
As a pastor, I confess that I have not done well at enforcing a standard of holiness within our community. At times I have been all of these. I have always striven to teach biblical truths as I understood them. However, out of convenience, I am ashamed to say that, I initially exercised a, “who are we to judge” option. I spent years trying to simply grow our gathering and was afraid of alienating policies and procedures. Besides, I have heteronormative couples within the ministry who struggle with a number of complicated issues. My thinking was that we were all ‘pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus’ (Philippians 3:14). At that time, I saw same sex attraction as another sin that we needed to die to like adultery, hardheartedness, or pornography just to name a few. We all have our cross to bear and LGBTQIA+ persons were members of the same club as me. “Welcome! I’m glad to have you.” Then I got my first openly lesbian and gay members and I exercised the “pastoral accommodation” option. They were loving, compassionate, biblically literate and Spirit filled. I felt called to pastor them and they were openly embraced. I even reached out to asking how a church like ours might open dialogue with the LGBTQIA+ community to discern if there was a way forward together under the restraints of biblical Evangelical Christianity. The last three words of the previous sentence kept me from exercising the, “dialogue for discernment” option. I was always clear about what the scriptures say on this issue, even if I was wrong, so I was not attempting to discern God’s position. I was trying to discern how much relationship was possible and, therefore, how much discipleship was possible. As far as I am aware, they eventually left for reasons not related to openness and inclusion. I always wanted to exercise the “ask no questions” option but that was never actually an option. My people tell me everything (Did I say everything?), even when I say I don’t want to know. Their sins and their gifts are ever before me. Strategic ambiguity was never really a possible. Wisely, Gushee describes options 1 - 4 as, “a temporary terminus point”, for any church that holds to them, and I now agree (41). They each in their own way leave critical issues on the table that eventually demand resolution for theological clarity and biblical consistency sake if nothing else.
The option we now exercise is the “exclusionist” option. I refuse baptism and church membership to anyone who is not prepared to repent from sin in it’s entirely. That does not mean that we are perfect. Instead, I have learned to appreciate the wisdom of Paul’s letter to the Philippians when he wrote the following:
…complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (2:2, 12-13)
I will reflect more on this later but, suffice it to say for now that, a healthy body should be of one mind. We welcome all persons who have repented of their sins and wish to walk in their new Christ-life. We welcome the opportunity to die to our sinfulness and become children of the light together. We welcome LGBA individuals who are committed to a life of celibacy as we call for all baptized believers to work at abstaining from sin. I am very open to “dialogue for discernment” with intersex (I) believers. I do not yet know what to do with TQ+ persons but I am happy to work within the “who are we to judge” space as we figure it out together. The church is a field hospital for all who would consider themselves sinners and, as a sinner saved by grace, I am chief among them.
My reason behind this position is simple. Inclusion in the way that I defined in the first paragraph is not consistent with my interpretation of the biblical text. I consider the biblical text the foundation for theological understandings of ethics, including sexual ethics, and here is what a straightforward reading of the Bible presents. In chapter 12 of his book, Gushee quotes Leviticus 18:22 which states that, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Then, in chapter 13 he interprets this as referring to, “”kidnappers or slave dealers (andropodistai) acting as ‘pimps’ for their captured and castrated boys (the pornio, or male prostitutes) servicing the arsenokoitai, the men who make use of these boy prostitutes.”” (79) This interpretation of the text directs us away from the prohibition of homosexual contact in general to a prohibition of forced or coerced sexual contact such as kidnapping, sex trafficking, prison rape, and the like. It agree with that! The flaw in Gushee’s logic, however, is his use of the Greek to interpret a passage that we have readily available in its original Hebrew. Critical scholar, Dr. John J. Collins in his third edition of Introduction to the Hebrew Bible summarizes the Hebraic handling of this passage.[i] “The biblical prohibition of male homosexual intercourse is unique in the ancient world” (153). “They seem to be quite unequivocal, however, in their condemnation of male homosexuality. Attempts to restrict their application (e.g., to intercourse with close relatives) seem misguided” (154). I echo Collins’ expert opinion. Attempts to restrict Leviticus 18:22 to sex trafficking, egregious though it may be, is misguided and inconsistent with a plain reading of the text from the Hebrew. Taken together, incest, adultery, pedophilia, relations during menstruation, homosexuality, and bestiality appear to all classify as sexual immorality to be avoided. These types of unethical sexual behaviors were the ruin of Canaan and should have been avoided at all cost to spare Israel from that same fate.
To further clarity this point the Bible states the Old Testament penalty for perpetrators of this crime. “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). Incidentally, the Torah, though heteronormative in nature, offers no heteronormative or male privilege here. “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10). If these laws were still active today and taken to their logical conclusions, there would be more heterosexual persons on death row for adultery and electronic adultery than there would be homosexuals.
In the New Testament, the punishment for sexually immoral acts is less severe but are more strongly condemned:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. (Romans 1:18, 26-28)
There is no indication that these acts are anything less than consensual in nature since both participants are, “consumed with passion for another.” Thanks be to God that Jesus paid the more severe penalty of death! I do not quote these passages to be mean spirited or a guilt-monger but to demonstrate the seriousness with which the Bible takes them. I believe these reflected God’s heart at the time they were written. I believe they still reflects God heart today. However, I do not believe, that death or even ostracism is the due penalty for LGBTQIA+ sexual immorality. The Bible states that, at least part, of the Old Covenant has been replaced by a different law.
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4)
So the New Testament penalty, according to Romans 1:28, is that God gives, “them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” For this reason, I consider the exercise of the “exclusionist” option to be an act of Godly love. Referring back to Philippians 2:2, 12 and 13, Paul urges the Philippian community to be loving, of one mind, obedient to their apostle, and always working out their salvation with God. This is what I envision when I think of a healthy biblical exclusionist church and I consider working together, as if we are of one mind, so that God does not turn any of us over to our personal debased minds as the ultimate expression of a loving Christian community. I consider the restoration of a brother or a sister to mental clarity as it relates to biblical morality as the ultimate act of restorative justice. Further, I shudder at the thought of my LGBTQIA+ members leaving me to the mercy of my own debased heteronormative desires. My God have mercy on all of our souls!
At the top of a fair list of questions is, “What am I offering?” That is the hard question. Why would an LGBTQIA+ person attend my church? Why would the parent(s) or siblings of someone with LGBTQIA+ attractions and inclinations join our faith community? What makes our position so special? By that I mean, if we are honest, everything that I have outlined has been characterized as hate and I have not found a way around that yet.
But before I resolve that I will be called a homophobe for the rest of my life, I think there is a third way. The LGBTQIA+ community is not a monolith. Very few communities are. Also, practically, I do not really think that it matters whether is person was made that way or born that way. According to a quote that is attributed to, the known adulterer, King David, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). We are all born in ways that create distance between us and God so I am trying to avoid the mistake of making LGBTQIA+ persons a special class, as has been done in the past. What we offer is community for us to all live out our baptism in repentance, fear, and trembling. I recognize that this will not be appealing to everyone but I also recognize that there may be some for whom this is very appealing!
Why do LGBTQIA+ persons have dignity and worth but no special class? Thinking about it, I believe that much of the current friction between LGBTQIA+ persons and the church is not all theological. It is personal. Reading and hearing the stories of persecuted LGBTQIA+ persons is disheartening and sickening. As it relates to this issue, the only thing that turns my stomach more is thinking about how I contributed to that hurt in the past. Thinking about all the ways that I was homophobic and insensitive is too much to bear some days. The reason why it was so easy for me to be homophobic was because I saw them as different from me not just like me. I do not think I ever said that but that was exactly how I acted. Some of it was probably the ignorance of youth and some of it was probably arrogance. My insensitive words and actions started when I was young when I had not even seriously thought about having sex so I did not have a bucket called sexual immorality. Everything was binary. Homosexuals bad, heterosexuals good and I’m a heterosexual so I am good. I gave them a special class that they did not ask and did not deserve. I made them an-other. They did not do that to themselves. I did not beat them up or harass them but I did not have their backs and that is just as bad. That means I do not have the luxury of forcing them to un-become a special class but I can invite them out of special class-ness and into a larger community. My larger community.
What makes my community so special? Nothing really. We are just a regular old church in many respects. I say this intentionally because I am trying to avoid the mistake of creating more special classes. That said, there is something unique about us. In an article entitled, Age of Acceptance: Community and Inclusion in Sue Thomson’s the Coming Back Out Ball Movie, for Metro Magazine Stephen A. Russell writes about the struggle many LGBTQIA+ older adults are having going into assisted living facilities.[ii] They call it going back into the closet. According to the article, “Research also reveals that some LGBTI elders conceal their sexual, gendered or cultural identity or variation(s) when they access aged care services--because they believe they are not safe.” These are individuals who have very likely experienced some of the same traumas that I have spoken here and still bear the scars. “Approximately 34% of people who identify as LGBTI reported hiding their sexuality or gender identity when accessing services.” Having pastored individuals who live outside of the system, I know firsthand that it can be challenging dealing with the trauma of previous experiences with the police, being homeless, being food insecure and having poor mental health issues. People will hide anything to get what they need.
What can I do? What I now propose is a church that teaches biblical truths and the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ but, simultaneously, attends to the special needs of its LGBTQAI+ members as we work out our salvation together. For me, this is similar to the African descendants of slavery in America. While it is true that the only sustainable goal for African Americans is to be a part of the larger American community it would be foolish to suggest African Americans did not leave slavery with special needs. After years of subjugation and abuse would some not require spiritual and psychological therapy to restore soundness of mind from PTSD? After having been chained, beaten and starved, would not some require proper medical attention? At the very least medical checkups, dental care, prescriptions and prenatal exams. After years of manufactured contention between the house Negros and the field Negros would not some need mediation and conflict resolution? After years of being denied the privilege of learning how to read would not some need tutoring and literacy? After years of being denied to right to vote would not most need a lesson in civics? After years of kidnap, rape, all forms of deception and trafficking would not some need legal assistant? After years of family separation would not some need investigative services?
My intent is not to equate being LGTBQIA+ with being enslaved for hundreds of years. Further, while the experience of LGTBQIA+ persons is, as a whole, less severe, I also to not mean to minimize the LGTBQIA+ experience within the church. I hope my point is well taken. I now see the need for, at least temporary, heightened support. My inspiration came from Russell, who quotes Nance Peck’s contribution this way.
[Peck] also helped set up multiple women's support groups and refuges in Brisbane, despite the oppressive reign of then-Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen. With federal funds made available by then-prime minister Gough Whitlam--to support young people at risk of offending, people facing homelessness and women fleeing domestic violence…
I read this and thought, what if the church created a support group for their LGTBQIA+ members committed to living out their baptism and working out their soul salvation. Churches have men’s group and women’s group. What about an LGTBQIA+ person’s group to address their specific needs within the community? Would new members need mental health counseling to cope with past traumas and rejects? Would they need reliable and supportive Christian resources to address food or housing insecurity? Would they need some time to adjust to being in a loving, supportive, and godly community that calls them “toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus”? I am confident that this is not an exhaustive list, and may not even be a good list, but hopefully it demonstrates a serious, loving, and likeminded commitment to making everyone a member of Christ’s one body.
Who would join such a crazy community? Truly, I do not know. I ask myself the same question every Saturday and Sunday and yet people continue to tabernacle with us. It makes me tearful just thinking about it. That said, Gushee, from Changing Our Mind identifies a group called “Side B” Christians. “Side B folks [are LGBTQIA+ Christians who] believe God does not ever bless same-sex relationships”, so they commit themselves to lives of celibacy, as befits their Christian doctrine (35). As a heterosexual African American male in a marital relationship with my wife I understand this is a hard ask for any person who has experienced the pleasures of sexual intimacy but if this is what you believe God is calling you to, we have your back.
Finally, I want to briefly address charges against the Black church tradition. Rev. Dr. Kelly Brown Douglas, in her article Homophobia and Heterosexism in the Black Church and Community published by Claremont School of Theology states that, “It must be made clear that participation in a biblical tradition of terror and allegiance to a biblical tradition that supports freedom are absolutely incompatible and hypocritical” (64). Brown argues that, within the Black church, homosexuality has often been viewed as relics from the White man and as a threat to the existence of the family. I want to state clearly that my position on this issues comes from, what I interpret as, a clear reading of scripture and a love for LGBTQIA+ persons, not antipathy or allegiance for the White community. It think it is reasonable for people of good will to disagree on theses issues but our sincere desire is not to terrorize LGBTQIA+ persons but to disciple them to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and a loving relationship with the body of Christ. We do that by focusing on the Holy Bible and with the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit. As a member of the body, we want you. Will you join us?
[i] John J. Collins, eds, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018), 153-54. [ii] Russell, Stephen A. “Age of Acceptance: Community and Inclusion in Sue Thomson's 'the Coming Back Out Ball Movie'.” Metro Magazine: Media & Education Magazine 200, no. 200 (2019): 114–17. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A589800054/AONE?u=upl1179&sid=AONE&xid=d38a8133
Comments