As we continue our guest posts related to General Conference 2016, here’s a reflection seeking what God is calling the two factions within United Methodism to be.
“Ancient Sibling Rivalries & Whether Sex Will Drive Them Apart”
By Rev. Anthony Tang
Another General Conference, another legislative fight for getting 50%+1. Most will say it’s about homosexuality. Or is it about sex in general? Perhaps it’s on how we interpret the Bible? In my opinion, it’s all of these, but even more foundational; it’s a question about the desire of God and how to be faithful; it is a question between purity and liberality in the relationship between siblings.
- In Matthew 9:11, the Pharisees asked the disciples of Jesus, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
- In Mark 2-3 and Luke 6, the Pharisees confront Jesus as to why the Disciples are working on the Sabbath and why he would do the work of healing on the Sabbath.
- In John 8, the Pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery and challenge Jesus as to whether he will impose judgement.
All of these scripture passages and so many more like them are raising a question of, “How do we be faithful? By keeping ourselves pure and obeying God’s commandments or by being in relationship?”
Now, surely my bias is coming through that I am more liberal and believe Jesus called and is calling us to be in relationship, rather than just following the commandments, but before I become too self-righteous, I am reminded of the older brother of Luke 15.
Tension Between the Prodigal Son & His Brother
Most of us remember the younger, prodigal son. He flees with his father’s inheritance to squander it. His older brother accuses him of wasting it all on prostitutes (it’s always about sex, isn’t it?). But once the money runs out, the younger son comes home to his father who runs to embrace him.
The older brother (who has never disobeyed his father) refuses to join the party. I may want to accuse the older brother of lying about always being faithful as he just disobeyed the father by refusing to join the party, but here’s what the father says to the older brother: “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.” This is to the older brother. This is to the self-righteous, angry, judgmental older brother: you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.
Who is right between the two brothers? Neither, yet the Father loves them both, both the prodigal one and also the faithful, condemning older one.
Tension That Goes Back to the Beginning
Now, is this not also the dilemma between Esau and Jacob? Genesis 25 says, “Afterwards his brother came out, with his hand gripping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob.” Isaac loved Esau and Rebekah loved Jacob.
Jacob stole Esau’s birthright and his blessing. Esau threatened to kill Jacob and Jacob ran away. Esau remained faithful to his family values. Jacob ran off and struggled over sex (first for Leah, then for Rachel, and finally with their maids). Then Jacob struggled with the angel. Finally, Jacob and Esau returned to each other and the brothers embraced.
The Same Tension in Early Christianity
Now, is this not also the dilemma of Acts 10? What will the faithful and pure Peter (who has “never eaten anything that is profane or unclean”) do when God leads him to the uncircumcised Gentile, Cornelius? Ritually clean and pure Jews were to never associate with or even touch the uncircumcised. Peter reminds everyone, “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.” And so Peter baptizes them and they embrace! Or I assume so, at least, right? I mean, who doesn’t get a hug after a baptism?!?!
My fundamentalist inner voice (I did grow up Southern Baptist, after all) says to me, “But in all of these examples, the wayward one repents, and only then do they return to Jesus Christ!”
Except, they don’t. The Pharisees point out that Jesus is eating with sinners. Jesus himself was breaking the Sabbath. Jesus gives grace, forgiveness, and pardon to the woman before asking her to go and sin no more, not the other way around. Read carefully and you’ll see that the prodigal son never actually finishes his speech and even if he had, it lacks an apology, a change of heart, a promise to act differently, or any commitment to change. Jacob sends presents, not because he’s repentant but because he’s trying to bribe Esau into not killing him, and yet without any word, Esau runs to embrace him. And, of course, Cornelius never gets circumcised and so is still considered unclean as he gets baptized.
In none of these examples does repentance lead to God’s embrace. Instead, the love of God leads to our being embraced, with all of our sins and judgements.
This Is the Question of the Ages
Will the siblings run away from each other? Will the “pure” and the “not-so-pure” remain separated? Will the United Methodist Church be divided over sex? Is the United Methodist Church at the point of separation?
Or, will the older “faithful” brother join the party with the younger “sinner”? Will the faithful and righteous older Esau embrace his younger, conniving Jacob? Will the ritually pure Peter embrace the uncircumcised Cornelius? Will those committed to doctrinal purity and those committed to the full inclusion of LGBTQI be able to remain in the same church?
We’re not perfect and we’re not who God has created us to be. It’s hubris to think we can fix a dilemma of the ages in two years. It’s impossible. Perhaps we are on the separation phase of our ongoing story.
But what is impossible for us is possible for God, right? Maybe if we offer our prayers together then Christ will do the impossible and find a way for all of us as sisters and brothers in the faith to embrace like two siblings brought together. After all, we have in our scriptures story after story of God bringing us together. I hope you will join me in prayer that Christ will lead us to this embrace. May it be so. May it be so…
~ Anthony
The Rev. Anthony Tang is the Director of Connectional Ministries for the Desert Southwest Conference. He currently serves on the Executive Committee and Board of Directors for the General Commission on Archives and History. He graduated in ’97 with an MDiv from Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary and in ’03 with an MBA from the WP Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. His wife, Rev. Katherine Tang, is a Hospital Chaplain Supervisor and ACPE Supervisory Candidate.
===
Thoughts?
Wow. This really casts the LGBTQ community as “not-so-pure,” “sinful,” and “conniving.” Preachers love setting up dualities, yes? Esau v Jacob, Older Brother v Prodigal, Peter v. Cornelius. And then we are left with traditional doctrinal church v inclusive church.
Casting the LGBTQ in this duality really feels icky.
I know that is not the spirit of the piece so my critique is not on the spirit but perhaps a more thoughtful approach to the wording and messaging. I think it is more like the Israelites and the Samaritans, figuring out which mountain to worship on.
Terri, thanks for your comment. In my view, it’s written to critique those who may see LGBTQ inclusion as a purity/impurity dichotomy. The point is that even IF you are someone who holds that purity dichotomy, you are called to love and accept, not exclude and cast out. I see it less as endorsement of purity levels and more of “even if you believe this, then you are called to do this.”
UMjeremy, I was thinking the exact same thing.
Terri Stewart, I was thinking the exact same thing.
Hi Terry,
I’m thankful for your feedback. I’m sorry the article feels icky.
I believe that what tears so many people apart (between relationships and internally) are the perceptions that being LGBTQI is sinful. I don’t believe that. But how can folks come together unless we address that elephant in the room? I believe some need to hear and have permission to accept, “I know you grew up thinking it was a sin, but that’s what Peter thought about the uncircumcised Cornelius until God showed him that he ‘should not call anyone profane or unclean’ and the same is true today that we should not call anyone profane or unclean.”
I am sorry that my article caused you to think I was implying that LGBTQI folks are profane, unclean, or sinful. That was not my intent, nor my belief. Perhaps I could be more thoughtful in wording and messaging.
Still, I think we need to talk about it directly if we have any hopes of moving forward as one church.
Anthony
Anthony,
As a Queer Christian I believe that it is my responsibility to call my siblings into a place of more love.
While I acknowledge your intent to do good, your article has the capacity to harm. Your statement is not an apology but a placing the onus on Terri. You’re telling her you are sorry for the way she viewed your words rather than accepting that you might have said something that caused harm.
To be an ally means to be in a state of learning. To be an ally to Queer Christian siblings means seeing them as Christian siblings and behaving as such – modeling that for other siblings in the faith. It also means stepping back and letting us tell our stories and not overshadowing that importance.
I am grateful for allies along this path we must tread. I hope you’ll stay and grow with us.
Thanks for your response, Jane. It’s always helpful to read how others take things.
I don’t think what Terri and I have written is being comprehended. This is not about how I or Terri are reading the post or comments. Please, take the time to read and reflect on what we’ve both posted here. As an ally it is important to listen.
Anthony,
I appreciate the apology.
I hear that you are saying you do not believe that being LGBTQIAP, etc., is sinful. I would want you to state that in your article. And really, people have been writing about this for years from Walter Wink to Bishop Tuell. They have biblically and theologically addressed this. In my humble opinion, that information is clearly in the public domain. What is not there is the “so what.” You believe this and I believe this, now what? And living with difference, building relationship with people who are “other,” dialoguing across lines.
I would encourage you in your quest to inform, transform and educate. I would like to add that in good allyship, the best ally lets the oppressed speak their voice and backs them up. The best allies also address the *ism born from their own social location. Such as white people working on racism because we are the cause of racism. But in public spaces, we step back and let people of color state their experience and believe them. It is also true in the LGBTQIAP, etc., community.
If you are addressing the heteronormative, cisgender community, you may want to say, “this is for…” or “Dear struggling church…”. You take my meaning? We stand differently in different places. I take Jeremy’s blog to be a public space. I would like to see an LGBTQIAP, etc., voice leading public conversation or a qualification of audience. That would make me feel safer. But, even given that, I was approached by an ally saying, “Isn’t this blog article weird?” (paraphrasing)
If you would ever like deeper dialogue on this, I welcome your inquiry. You can, of course, find me on Facebook. 🙂
Marcus Borg, who had a gay son, always said it was his belief that fear of homosexuality and other sexual ‘sins’ boiled down to issues of purity and the ‘unclean’. To those who place the highest value on ‘purity’, gay/lesbian sex and transgender sex is seen to involve body parts joining in an ‘unnatural’ way, genitals going into the wrong orifices in ways that were not meant to be. And what could be more ‘unnatural’ than denying the genital gender you were born with! Of course, we now know that heterosexuals can do anything together that gay/lesbian folks do, and we know that ‘brain gender’ is different from genital or chromosomal gender. But for folks who value ‘purity’ above all, like the pharisees, being right and following the letter of the law is more important than being loving and hospitable. Following the letter of the law was not important to Jesus, but loving others was paramount to him. Nor did Jesus place a high value on purity, as witnessed by his open and inclusive table fellowship, his refusal to condemn the woman accused of adultery and his treatment of the woman at the well. As Christian singer-songwriter Rich Mullens said, we are called as Christians to love others, not to change them. In truth, we can really only change ourselves. United Methodists on both sides of the LGBTQ issue need to focus more on the log in our own eye rather than the speck in our neighbor’s.
I see the sibling rivalry a bit differently than this. The growing, most painful divide in the church is not the one over homosexuality, but the one between the church in the U.S. and everybody else. Although the African church is growing rapidly while the U.S. church is declining, General Conference remains very U.S. centric. Concerns of other regions are largely ignored or, if noted, are often treated paternalistically. Naturally, this leads to resentment on the part of non-U.S. GC delegates. Unfortunately, this resentment fuels the battles over issues of human sexuality.
I’m not suggesting that the regional divide causes the arguments over LGBTQ issues. There are huge cultural differences in attitudes towards human sexuality, and these guide people’s votes at General Conference. Rather, I’m saying that the anger over being marginalized emerges in the human sexuality debates, so that those debates serve as a battle ground for the underlying issues as well. I remember my own children fighting over possession of a toy. The toy may be important to them, but it’s their fight for power that prevents compromise.
It’s hard to listen when you feel unheard. At General Conference, delegates often showed suspcion of each other, attributing to each other the worst of motives and refusing to talk – much less listen – with each other. Delegates defeated a procedural motion to allow for greater dialogue – partly because of suspicion that this was somehow a trick to attack or devalue the conservatives, and partly because non-U.S. delegates were suspicious of and hostile to changes initiated by the dominant U.S. church. It is ironic that a plan designed to facilitate respectful, inclusive conversation was developed without inclusive input. I hear in my heart the anguished cries of the opponents saying “You never listen to us!” I hear the hurt cries of the drafters, “But that’s just what we were trying to fix!” And neither truly hears the other.
Thank you for this article. The comments have also been interesting, as I read it though and agreed, I though no where in scripture or those stories, is sin, repented or unrepented of, then called holy or pure. People are called holy and welcome, but the sin is not changed. THAT IS THE POINT. We believe all of are sacred worth and we need to welcome all AS THEY ARE. BUT BUT BUT we don’t teach them then that because God loves them they can do whatever they feel called to do. What happen to Sanctification, perfecting Grace? Doesn’t Paul say in Romans 6:13, “So what? Should we sin because we aren’t under Law but under grace? Absolutely not!” He continues that we shouldn’t become a slave to anything but God. So YES we need to love and welcome, even people having gay sex. BUT we should never teach them that God has called that. pure and not sinful. Divorce is unfortunate and sometimes called for even by the Bible, but it’s not BLESSED, it’s an unfortunate part of the fall. That is the difference. Let us love and welcome, but let us teach the truth about sex. Please.
I find that the dichotomous argument is lacking a Christology of the new creation that is promised through Jesus.
Jesus speaks of new wine in new wineskins. Paul writes that all who are in Christ are new creations. The argument for purity has no legs to stand on.
If I tell you that I am in Christ that is verified by the works that I do. When the fruit of my works is seen I show myself to be a follower of Christ. As a follower of Christ I am a new creation; I am a new wineskins that the new wine of the spirit resides in. To say that I am filled with old wine is to deny the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
That is the issue. Do we believe that Christ in fact makes all things new?
Jane, would not the fruit of one’s works include bringing our sexual conduct within the boundaries established by Jesus and the Scriptures? Christ making all things new could just as easily be understood as enabling us to live with chastity in singleness and fidelity in heterosexual marriage. In our culture, that really is counter-cultural!
There is no basis in Scripture for seeing the “new wineskins” of the Christian life as including behavior that is inconsistent with biblical teaching. If we let go of Scripture as our guide to defining the Christian life, then we are cast adrift on a sea of subjective personalism and are pretty certain to entertain many characteristics that are contrary to God’s will.
Why do you assume a physical act when someone says they identify LGBTQ? Do you assume sexual activity when someone says they are straight?
Thank you for the post, Anthony. From an evangelical perspective, I do not see the conflict as one of purity vs. relationship. We do not seek purity in the sense of clean/unclean (as in some of the Jesus stories you reference). Rather, we seek holiness and obedience to Scripture as the way of discipleship. Relationship is key–relationship with God and with one another. But our relationship with God is disrupted and even severed by willful sin in our lives. So to teach that the sin of same-sex behavior is not a sin would be for the church to damage people’s relationship with God. The prodigal son “came to himself,” which is a form of repentance, even if he didn’t get to fully enunciate that repentance to the father in the story. It was repentance that made him want to come home.
Repentance is not a condition of God’s love, which is always flowing into our lives regardless of our behavior (prevenient grace). But repentance is necessary to restore and deepen our relationship with God as we become all that God created us to be (justifying and sanctifying grace).
Our concern is not with ritual purity, but with holiness of heart and life. I believe it is the same concern that many progressive Christians have, but we define differently what that holiness looks like.
Tom Lambrecht, I recently read Paul Brandeis Raushenbush’s, “I’m Done Accommodating Religious Hatred Toward Queer Lives.” [1] I encourage you to read this.
As a queer clergy serving in the UMC, I’m tired, beaten up. Why does the church insist on making my God-given orientation debatable? Hate and fear is driving the political tone of the US political machine and the UMC has been infiltrated with this same fear and hate as well. As much as I love the UMC, I cannot tolerate her hate. I cannot be associated with a church that promotes an ideology that literally kills God’s children. It’s time to split.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-raushenbush/im-done-accommodating-religious-hatred-queer_b_10483412.html
The problem I have with this debate is the number of sins that are in the Bible which have become ho hum with most Christians because most of us do them. With the LGBT community being small it much easier to focus on that particular sin, even though there is debate among Biblical scholars if a majority are misinterpreting the scriptures on that point) by the majority.
Maybe I am a pessimist but I cannot believe that any person does not have some sin (which is in the Bible) they have being doing a lifetime and can not stop doing it.I believe the only times in the Bible that tries to prioritize what one should do is in Matthew 22:37-39. By choosing to make this the one horrible sin that casts people away from the church is doing far more harm then help.
All religion has relation to life and the lifeof religion is to do good. The glorification of God… means
to bring forth the fruits of love ,that is, faithully ,sincerely,and diligently todo the work of ones employment. This is of love to God and lone to the neighbor. And this is the bond of society and it good. By this God is glorified.
All life should center on religion and the essence of religion is to do good and be useful. thus the
quality of a person’s life defines his or her religion.’