In the midst of a report from the Christian Century (h-tip SF) is this gem of a quote from Bishop Bruno of Los Angeles:
Bishop Jon Bruno, who heads the Los Angeles Episcopal Diocese, said the court decision resonates with the church’s baptismal vows to strive for justice and respect for all. "To paraphrase St. Paul," Bruno said in a May 15 statement, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, gay nor straight in Jesus Christ our Lord."
Wow.
Did you see what Bishop Bruno did there? He changed Scripture. Hope he’s packed some asbestos underwear along with his pine pyjamas.
On a more serious note though, Bishop Bruno’s statement raises a huge hornet’s nest around the area of biblical anthropology. What does it mean to be human and what kind of categorisations can we use to describe humans?
Such questions, and their Scriptural answers, were key to me for moving away from viewing myself as homosexual. I’ve written before that issues of ontology are at the heart of the journey from "gay", but let me just lay out here briefly the key problem I have with Bruno’s statement.
"Gay" isn’t a biblical term to describe human beings
It’s such a simple observation, but it challenges the whole liberal agenda. Simply put, when the Bible categorises human beings, it never views the people of God as regards their sexual orientation. Although homosexual practice is mentioned, sexual orientation itself never gets a look in. Other categorisations do – male and female, jew and greek, slave and free – but gay and straight simply isn’t found in the Bible.
And this is important, because a true biblical justice and equality theology should seek to liberate those whom Scripture says are equal to others. So the passage that Bruno quotes makes it absolutely unequivocal that soteriologically there is no difference between men and women. Misogyny is therefore a sinful and unBiblical practice. It is good to be a man and it’s good to be a woman. I can build a "male theology" and a "female theology", because the Bible tells me different things about men and women that I can build upon.
Later on, Paul writing to Philemon about the slave Onesimus makes it totally clear that he wants Philemon to view Onesimus as a social and political equal. Slavery is therefore a corrupt and evil practice and true Christians down the centuries have always been opposed to it. However, slavery continues and Paul has instructions for how slaves should behave to their masters (Eph 5), so we can build a "slave theology" – how slaves should behave and live – from the Bible.
Paul writes that we are all equal in Christ, Jew or Gentile, and John has a vision of all the peoples and tribes and nations gathered round the throne worshipping God together. From this we learn that there are no inferior races and that all are equal, whether brown, white, black or yellow or any shade inbetween. However, since the adoption of the elect Gentiles into the people of God still leaves the Jewish people and their covenant relationship to be explored, it is correct to speak of a "Jewish Christian theology" and a "Gentile Theology", for the two groups will, biblically, approach God in different ways, for while there is no compulsion on any Gentile to follow the Mosaic Law, some Jewish converts may still wish to do so (Acts 15).
But when it comes to sexuality, the Scriptures are amazingly silent. We cannot in any sense build a "gay theology" because the Bible doesn’t have any guidelines for us. It might be proper to speak of "the experience of Christians who are attracted to people of the same sex", but that isn’t the same as a biblical theology. Furthermore, while we can speak of a "Jewish Christian" or a "slave christian" or a "female Christian" as biblical terms, to talk of a "gay Christian" is to posit an identity that the Bible doesn’t seem to recognise. In fact, the Bible bottom line doesn’t recognise "gay" at all, so to attempt an anthropological statement such as "gay Christian" is to use an entirely un-Biblical term. It’s simpy not an identity that the Bible understands humans to validly exist within – it’s not a Scriptural way of describing one’s self.
For myself, when I understood this it was like the chains falling of me. I suddenly realised that I wasn’t a "gay Christian", I was a "male Christian", a "Gentile Christian". I understood that it was wrong of me as someone who was united with Christ to identify myself in a manner that he didn’t view me as. And in doing so, I was liberated. The binds of "gay" fell away and I realised that the whole gay/straight continuum was simply an unChristian way of viewing humans. It hindered the healing work of the Spirit because it constrained people in a way that we were not meant to be restricted.
Ultimately, what Bishop Bruno is doing in making this statement is creating a false picture of humanity. Christ calls us to see ourselves as male or female, called to singleness or marriage, and to discover sexually the imago dei within us within that framework and within no other framework. Any other sexual anthropology takes us away from Jesus and who he intended us to truly be.
Tags: Baptismal Vows, Biblical Justice, Christian Anthropology, Christian Century, Difference Between Men And Women, Episcopal Diocese, Greek Slave, Homosexual Practice, Hornet, Hornet S Nest, Human Beings, Jesus Christ Our Lord, Jew, Liberal Agenda, Paraphrase, Pyjamas, Scriptural Answers, Sexual Orientation, Woma
Wonderful post. The Word of God is sharper than a razor, and it cuts deep, which is what we hard-hearted humans need. Thank the Lord for His truth, which brings conviction, and restoration.
Lord bless you, and keep up the good posting.
I found your sight from Libbie.
[Reply]
Hello,
Peter, hope this doesn’t sound too hostile or condescending, but I can’t agree with donsands – it seems to me your argument in this post is not very strong.
I fully accept that “‘Gay’ isn’t a Biblical term to describe human beings”, but you don’t set out why we should be restricted to the categories the biblical writers use. After all, we can’t simply or straightforwardly ‘get into’ or ‘back to’ the world they were writing from, and use their categories as they did. And this is a bit cheeky, but until you revised it recently this blog had the words, ‘Charismatic, Calvinistic, Anglican, PostGay’ over the top. I’m not doubting that those words describe you, but none of them is a biblical term for human beings either. Given that ‘gay’ is not a biblical term, and in light of your argument above, why do you use the word ‘post-gay’, since to understand it you need an understanding of ‘gay’? Also, how far would you apply this argument – it strikes me (this may be unfair) that, following it, we couldn’t identify anyone else (or if relevant, ourselves) as members of a particular denomination, or for that matter as Muslims or English people, for example, since these too are not biblical descriptors.
Moreover, you say that one could build a male or a female theology “because the Bible tells me different things about men and women that I can build upon”. But are you suggesting that’s a general principle – since if so, one couldn’t do theology about anything the Bible doesn’t tell us things about – or if not, why is it specially applicable here?
You say, rightly as i said before, that ‘gay’ is “not a Scriptural way of describing one’s self” – but if one shouldn’t then use it, how do you suggest that those of us who are baptised and have consistent same-sex desires, refer to these? I realise that, for instance, ’same-sex attraction’ has different connotations to those of ‘gay’, but this again isn’t a Scriptural way of describing a person.
Enough hectoring for now…
in friendship, Blair
[Reply]
Blair,
The point I’m making is this. We can use words like “gay” to describe our experiences, but we can’t talk of a “gay theology” because the Bible doesn’t. So to take the example of my tagline, is it right to talk of a “charismatic” theology? Well yes, because the Bible is full of descriptions of charismata. A “calvinistic theology”? Well yes, because the doctrine of predestination drips from the pages of Scripture. An “Anglican theology”? Hmmmm, only as far as we can trace things to the Bible that are “Anglican”. A “post-gay theology”? Not sure about that. It would have to be part of a wider “theology of healing and wholeness”.
It comes down to this. Theology is done primarily from the Scriptures *not* from experience. While “gay” is for some a good way to explain how they feel, it’s not a biblical descriptor so we can’t speak of “gay theology” and we can’t base an christian anthropology around something which the Bible doesn’t specifically mention, and to which all the reasonable connections in Scripture are negative.
And just to be slightly more controversial, I think that since “gay” is a false anthropology (it might be a good descriptor but it’s not in any sense a biblical prescriptor), it is a delusion to think that one’s identity should be established in such a descriptor. The chains of “gay” are exactly the kind of bondage that Jesus came to set us free from.
[Reply]
Yes, Peter, I agree that it doesn’t really make sense to talk of a “gay theology”, nor would one expect to find such a concept even implied or allowed for in Scripture. Why? Because Christ came to save all; because the gospel is the same for all; and because in Christ, just as there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, and neither male nor female, so also there is neither straight nor gay. All, having been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ and are the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ (vide Gal. 3:26-28).
One can, of course, meaningfully speak of a gay Christian or of a gay theologian, just as one can meaningfully speak of an English, Irish, Welsh, male, female, blue-eyed, left-handed etc. Christian or theologian – although it is difficult to think of any circumstances in which these adjectives, even though accurate and maybe even interesting, would be or should be of any material consequence.
[Reply]
Interesting thoughts, Peter. For me, the term “gay Christian” isn’t how I think God sees me as a person. Personally, I think God just views us as His children, with few if any categories to fall into under that. Thus, for me, “gay Christian” (or “post-gay Christian”) is mainly about connecting to a certain group of believers (or halfway-believers, if they have not yet accepted Biblical views of proper sexuality). It’s important to me, because it’s an issue that has defined a lot of my life. Does that mean it defines me? Perhaps by the world’s standards it does.
Being a “gay Christian” who writes about issues of celibacy, friendship, and brotherhood certainly defines much of what I do, just as a job or a charitable cause would. But does it define me before God? Well, when examining my work and witness, I pray He will notice (because I do see this as my main group to witness to, seeing as it’s one of the only groups I can relate to). But then again, I’d like it just as much if this issue was alcoholism, or even just proper handling of heterosexuality (which is very much lacking nowadays).
I guess I’m just saying that issues of “identity” are tricky. I mean, this is part of where I’ve been and the memories and lessons learned from these experiences will always be with me. Does that make being “gay” part of my identity? I guess it does. What about “celibate Christian”? My writings on loneliness and contentment surely fall under that category, but then again I wouldn’t be celibate if I wasn’t “gay.”
Like I said, it’s confusing, isn’t it? Hope you’re doing well… Oh, and I gave you a shout-out on “Musings of an English Muffin.” I adore Libbie and reading both of you makes me wish I was English so much!
[Reply]
I left a really long and thoughtful comment here, but I think your blog dislikes me for some reason.
Anyway, the short of it is I was wondering what your views would be on the label “celibate Christian.” I suppose that’s the best way to describe me, but then again I wouldn’t be celibate if I wasn’t “gay” (or at least I don’t think God would be calling me to such a life). Issues of identity are often tricky like that. For example, my writings (which are my main witnessing outlet right now) are mostly concerned with homosexuality and celibacy, because I deal with both of those issues. They are a part of who I am and, more importantly, part of what I think God’s using me to accomplish for His Glory on this earth. So where do they fit into my identity? I’m tempted to ask what an “identity” is anyway, but I don’t want to get too philosophical here. Just providing some food for thought.
I can’t deny the changes that God has worked in my life by allowing me to be “gay.” I wouldn’t be half as humble as I am (and that’s not even very humble, trust me) if I had never had to face bigotry for something more or less beyond my control. I wouldn’t depend half as much on God for my safety if I knew that I could easily get married and have a comfortable middle-class life. As it stands, there’s a good chance I’ll be on my own, and on my good days I rejoice in that, because it means I get to rest solely on God that much more. If homosexuality was the main struggle through which I have and am still growing as a Christian, then where should it fit into my identity as a Christian?
Oh, and I gave you a shout-out on “Musings of an English Muffin.” I adore Libbie, and reading the two of you makes me want to be English that much more! Cheers!
[Reply]
Um… So it looks like both comments worked, after all. They’re both pretty much the same, I guess. I think the second one is clearer anyway, so you’re welcome to delete the first (and this one, as well). :-)
[Reply]
I’ll leave them both up as I think in each you make good points. Will answer later today.
[Reply]
Peter,
I have only just read your piece of writing on this subject.
Would it be the case that you believe that everything you have said about the word ‘gay’ in relation to the Bible and personal identity, you would also say with regard to labels such as ‘heterosexual’, ’straight’ etc. To the best of my knowledge, these words also do not occur in Scripture. If so, does this mean that you would not use any label not found in the Bible to describe your sexual nature?
One of the things that I also find interesting, when I read your article, is how different your concept of Scripture, and your doctrine of the Spirit is from mine. To some extent, I wonder how Anglican your understanding is in that it does not seem to have any real place in it for tradition, reason or experience. It certainly does not correlate with a Catholic understanding of the nature of the Spirit’s revelation to the Church down through the ages. I am also intrigued about your section on prefixes to the word theology so ‘gay theology’ is out, and ‘charismatic theology’ in. On this basis, does this mean ‘mystical theology, sacramental theology, liberation theology’ are all out as well? They are not explicitly biblical words.
Yours, Winston.
[Reply]
Hi Winston,
You’re absolutely right. You can’t have a “straight theology” because it’s not a Biblical concept. You can use “straight” or “gay” to describe feelings, but you can’t in any meaningful Christian way use it to create an identity or anthropology.
The issue isn’t whether a particular word is found in Scripture, the issue is whether a concept is found there. For example, I have no problem with a theology of mysticism as the Bible is full of such things. For example, one can clearly read the Song of Songs as an analogy to the relationship of Christ and his Church. That then opens us up to the experience of many (i.e. Theresa of Avila) of Christ which is quite powerfully sexual.
I guess what I’m trying to say is this – if you can’t begin a theology explicitly in Scripture then it ain’t a theology.
[Reply]
Like your mysticism in relation to the Bible, as I have said before, I can find such a correlation between the biblical material and Queer Theology.
[Reply]
Hello all,
Jay, wanted to say thanks for your posts because I like the way you reflect and wrangle with things (wish I had written some of the things you have, and in the tone you’ve written in), and I think the question, “If homosexuality was the main struggle through which I have and am still growing as a Christian, then where should it fit into my identity as a Christian?” is on the mark. And at the risk of banging the same drum too long, I wonder how you would answer it given your argument in this thread, Peter.
I accept that you’re arguing that “The issue isn’t whether a particular word is found in Scripture, the issue is whether a concept is found there” – but this still doesn’t answer why we should be restricted to categories the biblical writers use. We can’t disinvent or unthink concepts that we now have. Also, arguing it this way gives problems with logic, it seems to me – if there’s no concept of ‘gay orientation’ in Scripture, how can we now distinguish between ‘orientation’ and ‘practice’?
You said you “think that since ‘gay’ is a false anthropology (it might be a good descriptor but it’s not in any sense a biblical prescriptor), it is a delusion to think that one’s identity should be established in such a descriptor”. (I was about to say that I’m not sure that ‘gay’ has to be seen as an anthropology but that’s quibbling). Well, it is possible that it’s a “delusion” – if same-sex sex is always and everywhere sinful, full stop, then arguably same-sex desire is too and should be seen as temptation to sin. If this is so, then identifying with it could be called a delusion. As you’re aware I disagree with that…
Having just typed that lot I am wondering if I should be more careful in the threads I comment on on here – I suspect I’m often motivated by not a lot more than desire to prove myself right. There’s not a lot to be said for that… and you and I know roughly where we disagree by now Peter, after all! Equally, I do find it hard to resist an argument… :)
OK, enough self-regard. Lastly a question stolen from Rowan Williams: “In what sense does the Church actually proclaim good news to the homosexually inclined person who does not see their condition as a mark of rebellion or confusion? …their own account of themselves is not to be recognised” (’Knowing myself in Christ’, p17 of The Way Forward? ) Does the view you’ve set out here, say more to such a person than ‘you’re deluded’ ? How do you show someone that what they think is self-knowledge, is not?
in friendship, Blair
[Reply]
You pray for them Blair, that the scales will fall off their eyes.
That is the crux of the matter – the “homosexually inclined person who does not see their condition as a mark of rebellion or confusion” is wrong and the church needs to help them see that and provide a safe space to deal with their issues once they do. Unfortunately, many, many of our churches do not provide that safe space, only condemnation.
[Reply]
Thanks for the compliments, Blair. I think this is the first time someone has ever complimented my “tone” (through writing, no less!) :)
[Reply]
You’re welcome, Jay :)
Peter – we agree on at least one thing (!): “Unfortunately, many, many of our churches do not provide that safe space, only condemnation”… if from different angles. And given you mention prayer above, perhaps we should pray for each other…?
in friendship, Blair
[Reply]
I don’t want to press you, Peter, since I’m sure you have your hands quite full, but I was hoping that you would respond to my post(s) eventually. I think they might have slipped your mind. :-)
Take care!
[Reply]
Yup – was away the backend of last week so a few things slipped.
Remind me what I need to respond to….
[Reply]
Well, I think my initial question was about your opinion of the term “celibate Christian,” and if such a thing as a “celibate theology” was possible… but then I remembered that I wouldn’t be celibate if I wasn’t gay, so the whole question got somewhat muddled. :-)
Being gay certainly caused the majority of the struggles that I’ve faced as a young and growing Christian, so I guess you can say I’m generally curious about where exactly it should fit into my identity. I can’t completely ignore it, lest I forget all the lessons I’ve learned (and they are important lessons) by having gone through it.
Oh, and I also said I wish I was English after having read both you and Libbie… of course, I think I’ve been wishing I was English for a very long time. :-)
[Reply]
I think a celibate theology is possible in that such a condition for a Christian is clearly implied in Scripture, not just in the context of “either married or single” but also in Paul’s very clear teaching that celibacy is a good thing. I think though it would be better to express it as a theology of singleness, given that celibacy is a direct consequence of such a condition.
[Reply]