This is pride month for the LGBTQ community. Now, my emotive responses to such an emphasis are complicated. I mean, June is the month of my birth, after all. It’s hard to share the pride. Honestly, the idea of Pride month built around around sexual orientation and identity is both troubling and hopeful. It mirrors my first negative response to “Black lives Matter”. ‘0fcourse Black Lives Matter. All lives matter!’ Then I reflected on the reality that too often in modern America, Black lives do not, in fact, matter. Their stories are hidden, in plain sight.
I now have a lifetime of privileged pastoral conversations with believers who are homosexual or lesbian or bi-sexual in attraction. These are parishioners and friends who clearly love Jesus, evidence tenderness toward the Spirit and who, for the most part are clear that their sexual proclivities are rooted in nature, others whose orientation has been shaped by trauma related to heterosexual relations and still others whose formation is in part the result of chosen sexual experimentation. In common is the need for a sacred space to be themselves and not living in shadows, sometimes hiding within evangelical testimonies whose language is carefully strained.
I have come to one conclusion. In the Church we have too many brothers and sisters with same sex attraction and who remain hidden to us, yet are in plain sight.
On human sexuality: Orientation is the central question from which two different pastoral responses emerge.
My fellow pastors who see acceptance of same sex orientation as the dividing line between a “faithful church” and an “apostate church” assume several things;
The Bible is clear and prohibitive of any departure from sexual relations outside of heterosexual committed union, and;
Sexual orientation (as identity) is a social/cultural construct and not a creational reality—that is, we are all hard wired as heterosexual and any felt same-sex attraction is the result of either lust nurtured addictive patterns, sexual confusion or as a response to trauma induced aversion to heterosexual intimacy, and;
The only viable pastoral response is to love the sinner and hate the sin.
In this scenario heterosexual and homosexual distinctions are meaningless because there is in nature nothing other than heterosexual proclivity, all else a perversion of nature.
If one holds those paradigms then a listening dialogue is very difficult between ourselves as Naz pastors (and with our homosexual and lesbian parishioners) because any pastoral response that affirms the reality of same sex orientation given in the natural order (even in a fallen world) is perceived as support of a sinful proclivity and if acted upon a sinful behavior. For those whose experience of same sex orientation is actually identical with my own heterosexual attraction (except focused on same sex partners) will necessarily perceive such pastors as hostile to their actual personhood. They would be correct.
Such was the default position of the CoTN till recent changes placed us well within reach of another pastoral tradition; namely one that takes seriously differing sexual orientations, affirms their is no inherent sin with respect to sexual attraction and places pastors in an decidedly better position to explore with our parishioners who are homosexual their own identity as Jesus followers who happen to be gay, most especially the Biblical prohibitions and ethics of same sex behaviors.
Among those church communions and pastors who accept the reality of such Proclivities, the dialogue with our parishioners is finally allowed together with the questions and affirmations in our tradition that:
1) In Christ humanity is affirmed, the heart of which is to walk in our own skin. I cannot over estimate the value that honest Incarnational acceptance brings. It is a justifying grace, becoming human, congruent with one’s own self-knowledge, and;
2) Marriage as Biblically intended embraces more than love, though never less. Marriage is about honoring God in familial relationships, including child-creation, character and identity formation and the sacramental incarnation of love merging two very different kinds of humans into the Oneness of a communal nature, a pattern of the Trinity, and;
3) Pastoral care is very much about helping our parishioners to live meaningfully, sacrificially, honoring Christ, in a far less than ideal human context; we as caregivers needing both a clarity of God’s design and the reality of meeting humans where they are in real life situations, offering bridges to the ideal and hope and acceptance when such bridges are not to be found.
Marriage, divorce and re-marriage are prime examples. As a pastor I’ve turned parishioners away from sanctifying an affair by marriage, pro-actively interrupted affairs in process and embraced and nurtured other relationships whose origins were essentially the same, but now needed a sacred foundation for the sake of all concerned. Often, it’s a matter of time and where, in the process of broken promises that I am sought out for pastoral care. (I genuinely believe I’ve done all of these without anything in my own heart that was judgmental and always faithful to God’s ideal).
Young and old couples living together without benefit of covenantal marriage is another example of where, without judgment I’ve readily offered holy communion, the surrounding public embrace of their children growing up within the Communion of the Church via baptism, parties, participation in the life of the church all the while moving each/all toward the embrace of all that marriage means, Biblically.
I am not a pastor in a Christian nation, though one blessed by such heritage. If my goal is to return the land to beginnings, I’m suddenly no longer a pastor but a warrior in a cultural war. The truth is I’m a missionary in a city with between 3% - 11% participation in the Church and so must, like Moses of old, decide when and where to apply God’s ideal, always preaching “peace to those far and near” (Isaiah 57:19 & Ephesians 2:17).
I would give a great deal to have been with Jesus as he unpacked with his disciples each days lessons in Kingdom awareness. One of the most telling as reported by Matthew is when Jesus dialogues with the Sadducees and Pharisees over divorce, reminding his hearers that “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because your hearts are unyielding. But it wasn’t that way from the beginning” (Matthew 19:8 CEB). Jesus then affirms the Divine ideal essentIally leaving little or no room for divorce.
Later in that day Matthew gives us rare insight as the disciples push back on Jesus affirmation of the ideal. “His disciples said to him, “If that’s the way things are between a man and his wife, then it’s better not to marry.” He replied, “Not everybody can accept this teaching, but only those who have received the ability to accept it” (Matthew 19:10-11 CEB).
After two Sundays preaching from the Revelation of John about the cost of a cruciform life I briefly sat with a Parishoner who wrestles inside a marriage that is honestly abusive and reminded her that while suffering love is built into the Jesus way that doesn't mean we shouldn’t confront and challenge abusive behavior. As her eyes moistened with understanding I realized anew that pastoral presence is always nuanced.
Jesus response with his disciples is, pastorally, very similar here. Unlike his response to the Pharisees earlier, to his disciples he qualifies the hard teaching. It’s as if he said, “Listen guys, not everyone can live into this ideal. Preach the ideal but counsel the reality.“
To underline his qualifying response Jesus almost absurdly illustrates by referencing the one class of persons, a tiny minority, who cannot by definition enter into the fullness of marriage’s purposes. Matthew remembers it this way. “He (Jesus) replied, “Not everybody can accept this teaching, but only those who have received the ability to accept it. For there are eunuchs who have been eunuchs from birth. And there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by other people. And there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs because of the kingdom of heaven. Those who can accept it should accept it”” (Matthew 19:11-12 CEB).
Jesus response is a scandal, remarkable. Eunuchs were historically seen as less than a human male, a strange class of person made so by the powerful to assure their female property (daughters and wives) were protected, controlled. Had not Moses declared “No man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off can belong to the LORD’s assembly” (Deuteronomy 23:1 CEB).
Even so, Jesus is picking up on an Isaiahic re-imagination of God’s grace when he claims that in the coming Shaloam all classes of persons are received. “Don’t let the immigrant who has joined with the LORD say, “The LORD will exclude me from the people.” And don’t let the eunuch say, “I’m just a dry tree.” In my temple and courts, I will give them a monument and a name better than sons and daughters. I will give to them an enduring name that won’t be removed” (Isaiah 56:3, 5 CEB)
Then, as any good pastor does, Jesus nuances context. He identifies the vulnerabilty and causation of Eunuchs; some from birth (nature), some made so by force or environ and still others who either by accident or choice became eunuchs and live celebrate lives in honor of their higher calling—the Kingdom of heaven. It is as if he is saying, ”We know God’s will for women and men to live faithfully committed lives in honor of God’s very nature, a union of different persons, genders, families. It is the path of Shalom. It is what we seek for all, recognizing that not all can live into this blessed relation. Yet in my kingdom no one is left out of the mystery of love. Consider Isaiah’s invitation to immigrants and even to those the law forbids a place in Israel, Eunuchs—by definition outside of this covenant, but not beyond my Fathers love or purposes. God alone knows if they are unable to consummate this covenant because they were so created, were formed by their enviornment or have chosen to marry God in service. As it relates to marriage and divorce, remember God’s purposes and recognize that those who are able should seek to fulfill them, as they can.”
It is into the nuances of these questions that the Naz Church‘s long over due re-imagination of sexual identity and behavior has come. We do so from within our Biblical heritage as “restorative in nature,” as a people called to reclaim “the image of God” in love and sacredness.
In the last several decades our manual revisions on marriage, divorce, and human sexuality have largely been faithful to a grace-centric call to live as image bearers; the clarity in recognizing that “homosexual or bi-sexual attraction may have complex and differing origins, and the implication of this call to sexual purity is costly,“ and that …”we recognize the shared responsibility of the body of Christ to be a welcoming, forgiving, and loving community where hospitality, encouragement, transformation, and accountability are available to all” 1 is helpful, clearly distinguishing orientation from behavior.
We, as a church need to enter with the tenderness of The Spirit toward one another and our homosexual, lesbian and bi-sexual Christians among us. As holiness pastors we, of all the traditions, should explore the “complex and differing origins” 1 of same sex attraction and with careful attention to the very few and culture-centric prohibitive texts and the larger re-imagination of Ezekial and Jesus in terms of the self-righteous need to contrast and isolate persons based on popular judgment. We need to be able, only as needed, to walk inside the questions of the origin of sexual proclivity—nature, heterosexual trauma or addictive lust In the same way we do in heterosexual confessions.
Such requires that we extend the grace-centric call to live into the “image of God” and to include the questions that over time will emerge, such as:
1) If homosexuality is, for many, a result of nature—fallen though it may —-then why impose any additional moral obligation on homosexuals than we would with heterosexuals? and;
2) Are we, in effect, asking homosexuals to become heterosexuals (behaviorally) in order to be ChristIan?, and;
3) If nature is part of what forms our sexual orientation, indeed the most significant for most, then we who are heterosexual need to recognize that our deeply felt and negative reaction for those with same sex proclivities is rooted in our heterosexual nature before any informed social, cultural or moral persuasion.
The implications of such a rooted, instinctual bias cuts several directions:
a) First, it is an unrealistic expectation to place upon any heterosexual a sense of celebratory embrace. It is not homo-phobia—of itself—to feel a bio-chemical revulsion (for myself, for example) of the idea of sexual relations with another man. Only human respect and love can allow me to experience empathy with and for the social, cultural and spiritual isolation of my brothers and sisters who are homo or bi sexual in orientation or experience.
Homo-phobia certainly exists and prejudice is real, each of which I have sadly felt within myself as I respond within my own sexual, spiritually informed and cultural experience. It is the very heart of such judgments to impose upon another—“the other“—lesser, fear-based, objectifying and de-humanizing perceptions. But that is very different from the sense of “not sharing in” to “revulsion“ I feel when I imagine myself in such relations. To ask me, as a heterosexual to feel anything else denies me what we have clearly denied persons with same sex orientation, the ability to walk in our own skin.
b) Second, we who interpret Scripture do so from within our own 21st century perception of sexual orientation and so hear in scripture’s prohibitive texts a message to “them”. Yet Biblically heterosexual orientation is assumed as the only proclivity and hence the writers are speaking not to persons we today correctly understand as homosexual or lesbian but to those of us who identify as heterosexual. Hence, for example, the Romans text references heterosexual expressions that are so driven by lust or cultural context (religion/male power structures) that Paul is speaking of lust driven sex or culturally acceptable prostitution sex that on occasion is so extreme that, for example, men and women normally attracted to the opposite sex give themselves over to playful sex with someone of the same sex. Thus, quite prejudicially, we write ourselves out of the text thinking, ‘this has nothing to do with me. That’s about those other people—homosexuals, whom we don’t actually believe is “real” because we’ve concluded (from the mis-handling of these texts) that the only way one can feel such attraction is via lust driven playful sex’.
When I first realized that was, in essence what I was doing—imposing on scripture a 21st century definition (as those others) and assuming the text was telling me “they were the worst example of ungodliness“ (thus writing myself out of the text)—was when I heard for the first time the real imperative.
Paul was describing a sexually addictive culture more like modern America and Porn… I knew something about that and the power of lust… including creating appetites for multiple partners, etc. Suddenly I was in the text. The “other” vanished and I was left before the text as one, guilty.
The real prejudice, often reinforced by spiritual and culrural paradigms, is denying what my own inter-personal experience and observations and ministry experience with many who are gay teaches me. My LGBTQ friends are humans who very often never felt any other attraction from their earliest memories. Human sexuality is a continuum and some men and some women are bio-chemically attracted to the same sex. To refuse their experience as real is the heart of prejudice. Homo-phobia has more to do with the spiritual, cultural and socially formed prejudice that devalues the person, their experience and insists on “them” becoming just like me.
Pastoral care has the unique responsibility of holding ever “the ideal” while recognizing just how deeply we all wrestle to live into its realty—and as importantly—we do not all struggle in the same way.
Terry :)
1 references the current manual of the Church of the Nazarene (CoTN).
Note: For a now dated, yet relevant, exploration of the pastoral issues surrounding same sex orientation within the CoTN context see my book at Amazon.com:
”Same Sex Marriage: The last Prejudice? The Last Righteous Stand? ..or Both?”
https://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Marriage-Prejudice-Righteous/dp/1520834829/ref=sr_1_5?crid=Q1BKM8XH8
Comments