6-Mar-93 2:26:46-GMT,8770;000000000001 Received: by andromeda.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA04842; Fri, 5 Mar 93 21:26:45 EST Date: Fri, 5 Mar 93 21:26:45 EST From: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) Message-Id: <9303060226.AA04842@andromeda.rutgers.edu> To: lcrew Subject: Great Essay on Bible and Homosexuality Reply-To: >Subject: Great Essay on Bible and Homosexuality >Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 12:35:21 -0500 >From: An Anonymous Sender I clipped this out last fall from the New York Times. It addresses very clearly the various sections of the Bible that are often quoted in our faces. The author goes on to talk about reading and interpreting the Bible in a modern way... (Any spelling/typing errors are mine.) The following is from an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times of Monday, August 17, 1992. It is reproduced without permission. - -------- Homophobic? Re-Read Your Bible By Peter J. Gomes, Cambridge, MA [The author, an American Baptist minister, is professor of Christian morals at Harvard] Opposition to gays' civil rights has become one of the most visible symbols of American civic conflict this year, and religion has become the weapon of choice. The army of the discontented, eager for clear villains and simple solutions and ready for a crusade in which political self-interest and social anxiety can be cloaked in morality, has found hatred of homosexuality to be the last respectable prejudice of the century. Ballot initiatives in Oregon and Maine would deny homosexuals the protection of civil rights laws. The Pentagon has steadfastly refused to allow gays into the armed forces. Vice President Dan Quayle is crusading for "traditional family values." And Pat Buchanan, who is scheduled to speak at the Republican National Convention this evening, regards homosexuality as a litmus test of moral purity. Nothing has illuminated this crusade more effectively than a work of fiction, "The Drowning of Stephan Jones," by Bette Greene. Preparing for her novel, Ms. Greene interviewed more than 400 young men incarcerated for gay-bashing, and scrutinized their case studies. In an interview published in The Boston Globe this spring, she said she found that the gay-bashers generally saw nothing wrong in what they did, and, more often than not, said their religious leaders and traditions sanctioned their behavior. One convicted teen-age gay-basher told her that the pastor of his church had said, "Homosexuals represent the devil, Satan," and that the Rev. Jerry Falwell had echoed that charge. Christians opposed to political and social equality for homosexuals nearly always appeal to the moral injunctions of the Bible, claiming that Scripture is very clear on the matter and citing verses that support their opinion. They accuse others of perverting and distorting texts contrary tot heir "clear" meaning. They do not, however, necessarily see quite as clear a meaning in biblical passages on economic conduct, the burdens of wealth and the sin of greed. Nine biblical citations are customarily invoked as relating to homosexuality. Four (Deuteronomy 23:17, I Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46 and II Kings 23:7) simply forbid prostitution by men and women. Two others (Leviticus 18:19-23 and Leviticus 20:10-16) are part of what biblical scholars call the Holiness Code. The code explicitly bans homosexual acts. But it also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field and wearing garments with two different kinds of yarn. Tattoos, adultery and sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual period are similarly outlawed. There is no mention of homosexuality in the four Gospels of the New Testament. The moral teachings of Jesus are not concerned with the subject. Three references from St. Paul are frequently cited (Romans 1:26-2:1, I Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Timothy 1:10). But St. Paul was concerned with homosexuality only because in Greco-Roman culture it represented a secular sensuality that was contrary to his Jewish-Christian spiritual idealism. He was against lust and sensuality in anyone, including heterosexuals. To say that homosexuality is bad because homosexuals are tempted to do morally doubtful things is to say that heterosexuality is bad because heterosexuals are likewise tempted. For St. Paul, anyone who puts his or her interest ahead of God's is condemned, a verdict that falls equally upon everyone. And lest we forget Sodom and Gomorrah, recall that the story is not about sexual perversion and homosexual practice. It is about inhospitality, according to Luke 10_10-13, and failure to care for the poor, according to Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance if idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." to suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexual sex is an analysis of about as much worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a treatise on fishing. Part of the problem is a question of interpretation. Fundamentalists and literalists, the storm troopers of the religious right, are terrified that Scripture, "wrongly interpreted," may separate them from their values. That fear stems from their own recognition that their "values" are not derived from Scripture, as they publicly claim. Indeed, it is through the lens of their own prejudices and personal values that they "read" Scripture and cloak their own views in its authority. We all interpret Scripture: Make no mistake. And no one truly is a literalist, despite the pious temptation. The questions are, by what principle od interpretation do we proceed, and by what means do we reconcile "what it meant then" to "what it means now?" These matters are far too important to be left to scholars and seminarians alone. Our ability to judge ourselves and others rests on our ability to interpret Scripture intelligently. The right use of the Bible, an exercise as old as the church itself, means that we confront our prejudices rather than merely confirm them. For Christians, the principle by which Scripture is read is nothing less than an appreciation of the work and will of God as revealed in that of Jesus. To recover a liberating and inclusive Christ is to be freed from the semantic bondage that makes us curators of a dead culture rather than creatures of a new creation. Religious fundamentalism is dangerous because it cannot accept ambiguity and diversity and is therefore inherently intolerant. Such intolerance, in the name of virtue, is ruthless and uses political power to destroy what it cannot convert. It is dangerous, especially in America, because it is anti-democratic and is suspicious of "the other," in whatever form that "other" might appear. To maintain itself, fundamentalism must always define "the other" as deviant. But the chief reason that fundamentalism is dangerous is that, at the hand of the Rev. Pat Robertson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell and hundreds of lesser-known but equally worrisome clerics, preachers and pundits, it uses Scripture and the Christian practice to encourage ordinarily good people to act upon their fears rather than their virtues. Fortunately, those who speak for the religious right do not speak for all American Christians, and that Bible is not theirs alone to interpret. The same Bible that the advocates of slavery used to protect their wicked self-interest is the Bible that inspired slaves to revolt and their liberators to action. The same Bible that the predecessors of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson used to keep white churches white is the source of the inspiration of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the social reformation of the 1960's. The same Bible that anti-feminists use to keep women silent in the churches is the Bible that preaches liberation to captives and says that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free. And the same Bible that on the basis of an archaic social code of ancient Isreal and a tortured reading of Paul is used to condemn all homosexuals and homosexual behavior includes metaphors of redemption, renewal, inclusion and love - principles that invite homosexuals to accept their freedom and responsibility in Christ and demands that their fellow Christians accept them as well. The political piety of the fundamentalist religious right must not be exercised at the expense of our precious freedoms. And in this summer of our discontent, one of the most precious freedoms for which we must all fight is freedom from this last prejudice. 12-Mar-93 5:07:51-GMT,29227;000000000011 Received: from anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu by andromeda.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA17678; Fri, 12 Mar 93 00:07:47 EST Received: by anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.61-kk/5.911008) id AA28420; Fri, 12 Mar 93 00:07:40 -0500 From: mathew alan hartfield Message-Id: <9303120507.AA28420@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Re: Get this and read it!!! To: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 0:07:38 EST In-Reply-To: ; from "Louie Crew" at Mar 11, 93 8:17 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Hi, Louie! Belatedly, thank you from the heart for the prayer that you sent. It helped move me through the tears, and feel God's hand on my shoulder, and God's arms around me, when I needed them. Here is a copy of George's paper. I'll have the others typed in soon (hopefully) and will let you know about them. note: all typing errors are mine. Passages surrounded by *'s are meant to be italicized - Matt Hartfield WHY IS THE CHURCH HOMOPHOBIC? George Williamson, Jr. "But why is the _church_ homophobic?" she asked, angry tears welling up and spilling over, a gentle lesbian recently come out, desperately wondering if she's going to lose her Christianity too. As a pastor, I get asked this question all the time now. The only answer I can think of is simple and disillusioning: same reason as the sate, school, civic clubs, business community, labor unions, sports establishment, and medical profession are homophobic. Even psychiatrists still largely promote homophobia, even though it's been seventeen years since homosexuality was removed from the list of mental illnesses. Most folks are homophobic -- whether or not they go to church -- heterosexist too. The church is composed of the same people. The church is homophobic and heterosexist to the extent that it is "conformed to this world", not "transformed by the renewal of mind." (Ro. 12:2, my trans) Heterosexism is a bias towards things heterosexual. It is not coextensive with homophobia, but the two feed each other and are nearly indistinguishable. Homophobia is an irrational, morbid fear of homosexual feelings, behaviors, and the unknown mysteries that homosexual people represent to straights. It takes its place among dozens of phobias: acrophobia, the morbid dread of heights; claustrophobia, the desperate horror of closed in spaces; xenophobia, the fearful hatred of foreigners. All are irrational fears and hatreds, beyond the control of mind. Homophobia motivates behaviors, attitudes and social structures destructive to homosexual people. It is a disease most of us have, homosexuals and heterosexuals both -- a culture-disease generated by the way we live and the basic values we share. It is a disease from which we should be cured. There is a theological relationship between homophobia and sin. One might reason that if homophobia is a disease it would not be sin. But we get sick with homophobia because of sin. Were it not for the tragically sinful divisions among us, the sin in pride, cowardice and silence, homophobia would not be the epidemic it is. Homophobia issues from and leads to sin. The dynamic ignorance that exists about homosexuality and the persistent violation of lesbian and gay civil rights is sin. Words like "Fag," "queer," "homo" and "dyke" are weapons of sin like "nigger," anti-semitic slurs and insults to women. To be a community where anybody has to hide their identity, whether a church, college, government or business is the essence of sin. Christian homophobia is among the most malignant of *phobias* and most needs combating. On the other hand, there is evidence that it is destined to be short-lived, is in fact in its final spasm. Finally, there is hope that the church will take a leading role in the liberation from homophobia. I. Malignant phobias and the church I grew up in the deep South during the days of segregation. Church and Bible were very important to my peers and me. One thing my church taught me was that segregation was the will of god. This doctrine did not exist in a social vacuum. It made common sense. The races I knew were in fact *quite* separate. My teachers in *school and Sunday school* who knew black people only as *menials* and social inferiors held the ominous myths white culture generated about them and often expressed their "fear" of "race mixing." Suffering "negrophobia," the irrational and pathological fear of black people, they assumed their feelings to be the same as God's and passed their disease on to me. Of course, there was the Bible. I read it every night, looked to it for God's will, and took it with utmost seriousness. A basic assumption of the Hebrew people is that the people of God ought to keep themselves seperate from the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizites, Hivites and Jebusites. Torah forbids intermarriage, economic interaction and even eating together. There are racial groups with whom the people of God ought not to associate. Though separation of blacks and whites isn't mentioned, the Bible seemed to inject seperatism into the life of faith. In a segregated society it was natural to assume that biblical seperatism and racial segregation were identical. There was the story of Noah, who's son saw his father naked and got God's curse on his offspring making them servants of their cousins forever. Though the Bible didn't say so, I was taught these descendants also turned black, the origin of black races -- created in sin, blackened, condemned to servitude. I believed this for circular reasons. Black people were in fact the servants in my culture so it seemed the story must mean them. In my first fifteen years these things were rarely mentioned. They seemed obvious. Then the court desegregated schools, the Montgomery boycott began, and with the rising power of the movement, theologically legitimated racism became a hysterical matter. Radio preachers accused "nigger lovers" -- negrophobia experienced "love" not as *Christian but sexual and perverted* -- of rejecting the Bible. Pastors opposed to segregation lost their pulpits on the grounds of Biblical heresy. Honest Christians like myself were trapped in our racism by the Bible. Even if segregation seemed unfair to African-Americans or to our self-interest, we read it in scripture so it must be right. Homophobia and the Church I tell this story because I learned homophobia the same way. I was taught in church that homosexuality is unnatural, immoral, an abomination to God. Though the Bible says very little what it says is negative, all a homophobic imagination needs to know. My teachers said little more, but their silence was homophobic silence. I learned from it, assuming that church and Bible were silent for reasons of taste. My teachers seemed homophobic, my friends were, I was, and apparently the published biblical interpreters were. So this morbid fear became part of my belief in God. I was adult before anybody said to me, "I'm gay." Now that the church is being challenged in its homophobia, it is reacting as in the days of the civil rights movement. Church councils, famous preachers and honest Christians say that whoever does not condemn homosexual practice must not believe in God, or in the Bible as the word of God. Morality is at the heart of Christianity. But this moral faith has branded as immoral the whole homophile community -- withholding from these people and their supporters its kindness, justice, and forgiveness as a matter of commitment. The old Hebrews used to choose a "scapegoat," ritually invest it with their sin, and destroy the goat, thereby purifying themselves. Scapegoating is a primal reflex. We do it too. imagining evil to be bourn by a demonic elite we get exceptional strength believing that they, not ourselves, live in open violation of God's published laws. Their violation is the definition of evil. We, by contrast, are good and God's. Sacrificing scapegoats is our purification. This is why the demonic passion in pogroms against homosexuals has been profoundly spiritual at its hot core, sparked and fueled by religious doctrine and zeal. II. A Short Lived Homophobia This overt biblical and ecclesiastical homophobia won't last. It will die hard and many will be hurt in its death throes, but it will die. Christians will have to take risks to bring Christian homophobia to n end, but they will take them. They need to know that these are risks worth taking as with those who combatted Christian negrophobia. Racism festers still, but the power and witness of the church has moved has moved to the other side. My old church now has black members and even its most fundamentalist teachers hold that the Bible opposes segregation. What happened? Segregation collapsed for several reasons, including biblical ones. America became ashamed of its racism, of *how it contradicted our stated ideals.* Scholars reconsidered the separatist passages in the Bible. Once segregation was no longer taken for granted, those passages no longer seemed to support American racial segregation. But beyond those passages, Christians now saw that the whole Bible was calling for justice and reconciliation. It was like scales falling from our eyes. Slavery, feudalism and the church The church had already been through this tortorous exercise a century earlier. Before the Civil War church and world were as committed to slavery as they now are to heterosexism. There had always been slaves. Both Hebrew and New Testament texts affirm the institution with laws respecting its maintenance. As the abolitionism gained momentum in England and the U.S. opposition to it became the litmus test for biblical integrity. It's important to note that the Bible has ten times more to say about slavery than about homosexual sex with at least sixty positive references to slavery. Paul, in the letter of Philemon, returns an escaped slave to his master, *sending him back though "I wanted to keep him," says Paul, "so that he might be of service to me." (Phil. 12ff, NRSV)* Even the classic line, "there is *no* longer slave or free ... Jew or Greek ... male or female ... for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28, NRSV), implies that "in the world" we remain male/female, Jew/Greek, and slave/free. When slavery was threatened biblical loyalty demanded its defense. But now slavery is banished from the earth. Even fundamentalists would not now hold as nineteenth century Christians did that these passages defend it. Again, what happened? The way we understand scripture is shaped by what we need, what we fear, and what we see around us. Slaveholders bound to the economy of slavery, who dread what freed slaves might do to their community, are not free to know what the Bible says about slavery. Emancipation freed white Christians to hear the word of God. People in dread of homosexuality are not free to know the Bible either. Slavery was the last vestige of feudalism in the West. Prior to the American Revolution, feudalism, monarchies, nobilities and noblesse oblige were considered the eternal order of things. Every major theologian in Christian history up to and including Martin Luther assumed these as the will of God. It was in the Bible. What the Bible says about politics describes feudalism. Jesus is "Lord," God is "King," church is "Kingdom." As John McNeill has established (_The_Church_and_the_Homosexual_, Beacon Press, 1976, 36ff) there is no word for "homosexual" in its modern meaning in ancient Bible manuscripts. But the word "king" in reference to a human monarch appears 2,100 times. *Yet nobody* preaches that the Bible teaches feudalism anymore, though nearly every Christian believed it for three- fourths of the church's history and Bible-believing Christians died by the millions in its defense. Ironically, many now preach that the Bible not only condemns homosexuals but teaches, of all things, capitalism. The Bible has been believed to command exclusion of "demon possessed" mentally ill, execution of "witches" and "heretics", violent expulsion of "Muslim infidels", extermination of "Christ killer" Jews, and imposition of Western culture on "pagan savages" -- all now expunged from Church polity and regarded with *shame.* If church history holds to form, what the Bible is being heard to teach about homosexuality is soon to change as well. The Bible What does the Bible say about lesbian and gay people? Jesus says nothing. The Torah condemns a man lying "with another man a with a woman" to death, (Lev. 18:22, 20:13). Paul, in Ro. 1:26 describes as self- evidently destructive the male prostitution practiced in sexual mystery cults, usually pederasty, exploitive sex between men and boys, (and with the same language female prostitution). I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 list debaucheries among which some translators find homosexuals (i.e., pedarists), others not. As for Sodom in Gen. 19, a homophobic church says Sodom sinned with homosexuality, hence the word, "Sodomy." Yet as McNeill cites (pp. 42ff) the Bible refers to Sodom eight times, giving six sins of Sodom, none of which is homosexuality. *Jesus seems to think the chief sin is lack of hospitality to a messenger of God. (Luke 10:10-13)* Altogether there are three to six references to sexual intercourse between men. Not mentioned is sex between women or same sex affectional orientation, this last being a post-Freudian concept. What is condemned is sex between presumed straights or with children, what tradition calls " perversion," a man acting like a "mere" woman in sex, violating a patriarchal taboo, and temple prostitution, whether homo- or heterosexual. When we are less homophobic we will see that what we know as gay and lesbian people, engaging in loving, voluntary erotic relations with each other, aren't even mentioned. This is hardly surprising since, with the exception of The Song of Songs, loving, voluntary erotic relations between straights gets no positive exposition either. But we are homophobic so lets assume that there are two condemnations and four negative references, a total of six. Here is a short list of things mentioned more than six times: 1. untouchability and uncleanness of menstruating women 2. the authority, often violent, of men over women 3. the spiritual inferiority and defilement of gentiles 4. the obtuseness and culpability of post-Christian Jews 5. what to eat, not eat, how to cook and with what utensils 6. war and genocide as the will of God 7. ancient agricultural techniques as the will of God 8. the flat earth and earth-centered universe 9. the edenic origin of the universe 10. obligatory voluntary poverty of Christian disciples The Bible mentions these much more than six times, yet the church has long since rejected them for biblical reasons. Continuing this pattern, the church will soon be ready to say that the six or three references to male homosexual sex are not meant to exclude homophile people from love and honor in the church or civil rights in the community. For instance Lev. 20:13 orders the death penalty for men engaging in homosexual sex, as for heterosexuals in adultery. Yet finding authority in biblical commandments *to love and justice more than in themes of retribution most are led to other meanings in these passages.* Other things the Bible says more about than male homosexual sex include housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, liberating the prisoners and of course most of all, loving: loving past fear, inclination, pride, perceived self-interest and tradition; loving instead of hurting, ignoring and humiliating. Loving the rejected whom it is a risk to love, by decision, through liberating action, loving your neighbor as yourself is the bottom line in biblical theology. Would it be too much to ask that before taking a biblical position against lesbians and gays we first learn to submit to these disciplines? Blind Spots in Biblical Theology Consider the admittedly risky proposition that changes in history allow truths of scripture to be understood in more authentic ways, risky because the door seems opened to unravel biblical integrity. There is a blind spot beside my car where vehicles approach without being detected in the rear-view mirror. I've corrected the problem with small blind spot mirrors which give a slightly distorted image but at least tell me if anything's there. As we have seen there are blind spots in biblical theology. They remain unnoticed for centuries until history comes up on our blind side and threatens collision with biblical integrity. Like slavery, feudalism, anti- semitism, segregation, subjugation of women, and western cultural imperialism, the Bible's treatment of homosexuality and homophobia are such blind spots. The Bible leaves us unprepared for this aspect of the history into which we have now moved, or more accurately, its preparation is subtle, profound, to be engaged only with profound discipline. But we have inherited a long history of blind spot mirror corrections in ongoing biblical theology. This is not the place for a thorough methodology, but the Bible itself contains scores of these self-corrections which show us how to make them. The books of the prophets correct the impression inherited from more ancient scriptures to that God is not the God only of Israel, but of all peoples and of history itself. In this they make the tradition more inclusive, something Jesus does even more radically. But they also made the opposite correction, making the tradition more inclusive in one way and more exclusive in another. They use "justice", "righteousness" and true faith to cover human terrain that Torah, with its 613 specific maxims, cannot see. They give angry condemnations of the supposed people of God who generally keep Torah and engage in correct worship but whose systems do violence to the many who are on the margins. We ask whether the prophets, had they lived our history, would have corrected the insights the Bible gives us into gay and lesbian reality. Would they extend the inclusiveness of God to these who have been excluded because they are perceived marginal? Would the prophets' angry indignation be visited upon the society which has structured this exclusion? The Gospel writers offer clues as to how blind spots in biblical theology might be corrected. They present Jesus as Messiah whose "name shall be called, 'Wonderful Counselor', 'Mighty God', 'Everlasting Father' ", the Second David whose "authority shall grow continually ... for the throne of David and his kingdom." (Isa. 9:6f NRSV) Jesus is presented rather as as "despised and rejected by others, a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity, and as one from whom others hide their faces he was despised, and we held him of no account" (Isa. 53:3 NRSV), one who "did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave." (Phil. 2:5f NRSV) The Gospels and Paul depict the incarnate one as taking flesh not at the summit of society, as in biblical expectation, but at the bottom, not in the mainstream but on the margin. Does this not correct the impression, the blind spot, the the promise of scripture is explicitly to include some who the Bible in other passages seem explicitly to condemn? Those who themselves live on the margins of society, the poor, the oppressed, the handicapped and many others have recognized their own situation in the stories of Jesus. This is true also of some gay biblical scholars. Using a non-homophobic reading of scripture gay people have recognized Jesus as one of them. Like them Jesus was single and lived in a company of men who were either single or separated from their families. Like some of them he was sharply critical of family priorities (Matt. 10:34ff, Luke 14:26). There is the mysterious, unnamed male "disciple whom Jesus loved" mentioned in the Fourth Gospel. For many who suffer the exclusion and oppression common for lesbians and gays, Jesus has seemed incarnate in their very situation. The best known blind spot correction is recorded in Acts 15 and defended by Paul in his letters. Paul, who has known gentiles for the first time in his life, goes back to his home Jewish congregation. He tells them that these Gentiles cannot and will not practice the precepts of Torah as Jewish Christians do. Paul says to his church, 'I've lived among these people, seen God in them as in you. I come, ' says Paul, 'to ask you to affirm them without requiring Torah of them.' According to Acts 15, the Jerusalem church took a vote. By an apparently narrow margin the Gentiles and their life styles were let in. That is to say, I was let in, all of us not born of Jewish mothers were, without having to live by the first five books of the Bible. The Bible corrected itself in constant dialogue with history, God bein God of history, the Word of God living in ongoing history as the Holy Spirit of God. "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" (Jn 1), "taking the form of a servant" (Phil. 2). Wherever in ongoing history the given interpretation of sacred texts came to allow for injustice, unrighteousness, and phony, self- serving religion it was changed. The ongoing principle of biblical integrity seems not to be personal ethics or spiritual practice, but justice, righteousness and an authentic relationship to the God of history who loves "even the least of these." (Micah 6:8, Hat. 25:31ff, Mk. 12:2-34 & par.) III. The Coming Reconciliation The essence of biblical faith is hope. We are commanded to base our lives on hope. True biblical hope is theology with historical precedent. The liberation of lesbian and gay people to full dignity, power and honor has both historical and theological precedent, and therefore is the authentic hope of the church. THE REMNANT OF THE CHURCH IS CALLED TO LEAD THE WAY, HEALING HOMOPHOBIA, GIVING HONOR AND POWER TO THE LESBIAN AND GAY PEOPLE. I COMMIT MYSELF TO THAT CALLING AND INVITE YOU TO. Despite the famous biblical thou-shalt-nots, what shapes the people of God from beginning to end is justice. The Bible commands justice for outcasts -- with a radical economic and civil rights meaning -- 125 times, more than it commands prayer, hymnsinging, worship attendance, evangelism and religion The Gospels stress Jesus' friendship and commitment to those whom others condemn, and stress it almost exclusively. Scripture gives repeated normative examples of churches embracing folks whom Hebrew Law excludes, especially gentiles who soon became the church majority. Prostitutes, tax collectors and lepers are included. Slaves are welcomed. Women are made leaders in a patriarchal context. Among others baptized are eunuchs. Jesus said some eunuchs "have been so from birth." (Matt.19:12NRSV) These are possibly homosexual slaves of noble women. God is first revealed in scripture liberating slaves from oppression in Egypt, the most powerful nation of its time. God spoke in history through the prophets whose cry for justice and reform of hypocritical, chauvinistic, self-serving religion is the model of every prophetic transformation in Western history since. God was supremely revealed, according to my faith, in Jesus and his community of followers, mostly the outcasts of those days, whom Jesus inspired to turn the Roman Empire upside down. The church of the first four centuries lived not by the legalisms, prejudices and divisions of the times but in radical commitment to the "least of these," and terrified the powers with a model of humility. "Christ," they said, "has broken down the dividing wall, the hostility between us." (Eph 2:14 NRSV) The (Southern White) church baptized me in segregation, but it was also the (African American) church who liberated me from the prison of that prejudice and hypocrisy, the preaching and prophetic action of Dr. King and his cadre of preachers who shocked the conscience of the world with old prophetic texts about radical justice and teachings of Jesus about radical love. If the church defended a dying slavery, it also helped end slavery through the politics of William Wilberforce, the miracles of "Moses" (Harriet Tubman), the biblical sermons of slave preachers, the African church spirituals, the passionate public morality of the Society of Friends, the subversive evangelical Abolitionists ant their Underground Railroad, among the most inspiring and heroic biblical people ever to live. The church, Bible in hand, enforced the feudal order in the name of God. But even Marx acknowledges that its death knell came from Anabaptists living the Sermon on the Mount and the Catholic Paris Commune holding all things in common like the early church. The first modern revolution overturning feudalism was the Reformation. Calvinists invented saving, investing, bookkeeping and free labor, the end of feudal economics. The first popular elections were churches electing pastors. The first popular education making democracy possible was in Lutheran communities learning to read the Bible. Fateful insurrections against feudal oppression were among these very Bible readers, inspired by the Exodus and the history of God's liberation. It has never been the mainstream of the biblical community who carried the word and will of God into each new generation, but rather what the Bible calls "the remnant." These are the few who are "not conformed to this world, but ... transformed by the renewal of mind" (Romans 12:2). This remnant has gone against the mainstream of culture and even of church, willing to suffer exclusion, humiliation, persecution and death to bear in their own bodies the redemptive presence of God. But all this they have borne with joy, because God gave them confidence. And history, usually long after their deaths, has proven them right. It is a biblical hope, founded in historical and theological precedent, that a new wave of liberation will come from lesbian and gay Christians and churches which stand with them. When, no one can predict, but if it were not to happen another nail would surely be driven in the church's coffin. We can live in the same hope as the earliest Christians, that the world's realisms about what must be and what can't happen are not the last word. The hope isn't that history will see the end of sin, including sin which spawns heterosexism and homophobia. Wherever homophile people are a minority they are likely to suffer effects of sin. But it is a biblical revelation and historical witness that God is with them against their oppression, and because God is so is God's history. Wherever God comes there arises the "remnant" community, a mystery. If you have the calling you can be in the remnant. The remnant is not the benificiary of God's liberating power but the suffering agent of it, a very theological notion. In practical terms, if you want to work for the liberation of lesbian and gay people, you can assume two things, that it will be painful, and that finally it will be victorious. A friend died of AIDS seven years ago, one of the early deaths. He was a colleague, a priest I had known for a dozen years. He was not a forceful or an exciting priest. There wasn't much to distinguish him. But he got AIDS. He announced to his little church that he had AIDS, and came out in the process. Of course the church, the homophobic church, fired him, and the people to whom he had given years of loving care deserted him in his need. All this was perfectly predictable, despite the teachings of Jesus and the calling of the church. But this quiet, gentle, seemingly unimaginative and unheroic man, now a gay priest with AIDS, suddenly became an activist. He talked his Bishop into letting him establish a ministry to AIDS patients for the diocese. He became a fiery, forceful and effective advocate for gay and lesbian Christians, and for PWA's. When he died in just a few months his funeral was in the cathedral. They said that this little man had become a giant, and had taken his church on its first step toward confronting its sin. In the next chapter of church history, there are going to be a lot of people like him. -- -- Matt Hartfield hartfiel@cis.ohio-state.edu 'Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.' (John 13:34ff)