âMy purpose in sharing their work with you is so that each of us can do our own homework, putting in the energy to read, study, and grapple before we ask someone in the Christian LGBTQ community to answer questions they have already answered multiple times and in multiple ways. These discussions are not academic for them. They are personally invested and many are tired of continually arguing about their existence. They already exist and have callings to pursue. Itâs up to you how you respond. With that said, I want to offer some help to those who are sincerely searching, doing their homework, and wanting direction.â
âBy their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.â (Matthew 7:16-20)
As I shared last week, Iâve refrained from debating the passages weâll be considering this week. Iâve also not wanted to be another straight, cisgender male getting air-time to speak on passages that LGBTQ people have been speaking and writing on for decades now. I didnât want to take up space when I believe othersâ voices need to be heard right now.
And yet, as I said, Iâm torn when I watch the toll it takes on my LGBTQ friends to repeatedly explain these passages. Speaking about this does not have the same emotional cost for me as it does for them. Perhaps I have been a little too silent: not silent in my affirmation, but silent on some of the ways I arrive at affirmation.
So Iâve promised to amplify two voices on this topic: the excellent work of Matthew Vines, a writer and speaker in the LGBTQ community that Jesus followers should be listening to, and James Brownson, a Bible scholar and parent of a child in the LGBTQ community.
My purpose in sharing their work with you is so that each of us can do our own homework, putting in the energy to read, study, and grapple before we ask someone in the Christian LGBTQ community to answer questions they have already answered multiple times and in multiple ways. These discussions are not academic for them. They are personally invested and many are tired of continually arguing about their existence. They already exist and have callings to pursue. Itâs up to you how you respond.
With that said, I want to offer some help to those who are sincerely searching, doing their homework, and wanting direction.
Matthew Vinesâ God and the Gay Christian is very readable. Itâs not written for scholars but for average people. Brownsonâs book, The Bible, Gender, and Sexuality,is a definitive work on affirming Christian theology. It played a significant role in my own journey of learning about affirming theology.
What follows is a brief explanation of how I interpret each passage typically used to address LGBTQ people. These are not exhaustive defenses of each passage, but brief summariesâan introduction to get you started. For a more detailed discussion of each passage, I recommend the two resources above.
Letâs begin.
Genesis 19
This passage is an ancient story of a cityâs xenophobic refusal to show hospitality to strangers. This refusal came out of the townspeopleâs desire to protect their affluence from the threat of having to share with others. The city, Sodom, was located in a coveted, agriculturally fertile region. Much like the U.S., which has recently separated migrant children from their parents on its southwest borders, Sodom developed an effective strategy of terrorizing potential migrants to keep foreigners away.
In the story, Lot was different. He saw two foreigners in his town and invited them to his home for the evening to keep them safe, hoping to send them secretly on their way at the first light of dawn. What happened that night was terrifying and an intentional message to all foreigners to stay away!
âThe two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. âMy lords,â he said, âplease turn aside to your servantâs house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.â âNo,â they answered, âwe will spend the night in the square.â But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodomâboth young and oldâsurrounded the house. They called to Lot, âWhere are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.ââ (Genesis 19:1-5)
Typically, Christians use this story to marginalize those with same sex attraction/orientation or in same sex loving relationships. I believe these interpretations miss the mark in a most destructive way for those who identify as LGBTQ.
In this story and culture, rape was a way to inflict the worst possible humiliation on another, and was rooted in ingrained, patriarchal gender roles. (See Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East) The laser beam of convicting truth in these ancient tales should not be focused on members of the LGBTQ community but rather on people who use sexual violence (or any form of terror) against others and on the kinds of xenophobic actions the United States is committing at its borders and against immigrants across the country.
Hospitality toward strangers was and still is a deeply held Jewish value (see Deuteronomy 26:12; Deuteronomy 24:19-21; Deuteronomy 14:28-29; Deuteronomy 10:19).
The Jewish followers of Jesus carry on this tradition of hospitality toward strangers in the New Testament scriptures as well. This passage from the book of Hebrews almost echoes the story of Sodom:
âDo not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.â (Hebrews 13:2)
The story of Sodom is not about the LGBTQ community or LGBTQ peopleâs loving relationships. Instead it has everything to do with people who were extravagantly affluent and did not wish to share.
âNow this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.â (Ezekiel 16.49-50)
The story of Sodom has nothing to do with sexual orientation.or loving same-sex relationships. Itâs rather about the evil of responding to strangers with violence, in this case sexual violence, especially when their lives depend on your welcome and hospitality. And it is a warning against xenophobia and the terror tactics xenophobes employ. (For additional background, read Judges 19:11-30; see also Rape as a âweapon of warâ against men, Male rape survivors fight stigma in Uganda, and Male Rape and Human Rights).
Leviticus 18
Leviticus 18:22 reads, âDo not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.â
Christian affirming theologies interpret this passage in many different ways. The way that speaks most deeply to me and my sense of justice is related to our previous story in Sodom, which does not address same-sex sex between women but only what men to do other men.
Again, this passage is not informed by what we understand today as sexual orientation. Itâs informed by the sexual violence that men inflict on other men to diminish them (see again Judges 19:11-30, Genesis 19:1-5, and the above sources referenced). As I just explained, a man raping another man intended to inflict the worst possible humiliation on him. In that culture, women were wrongly considered less than men and so one way to dehumanize a man was to lower him to the same status as a woman.
So in this culture the law prohibited diminishing men by treating them as if they were women. Both men and women were raped in times of war and conquest, and still are today. But it is shocking to see how lightly many portions of our sacred text considered the rape of women. We seem to see much more concern with protecting men from being raped by other men than with protecting women from rape or raping women being âdetestable.â
Again, this was an androcentric culture of deeply rooted patriarchy. Today, we still see misogyny and toxic masculinity at the heart of many menâs reaction to same sex relationships between men. Many men today seem to more easily tolerate same sex relationships between women than those between men. Some even treat same-sex sex between women as a sexual fetish.
I remember sitting in a restaurant speaking with a friend of mine whose son had just come out to him as gay. My friend was beside himself. He stated how deeply repulsed he was by same-sex intimacy between men. He said he didnât even want to be in the same room with âthem,â and now his own son was âone of themâ too!
I looked at him and risked an accusation. I was banking on our relationship allowing me to get away with it. I looked him in the eye and said, âYou just donât like the idea of men looking at you the way you typically look at women.â
The light came on in his eyes and the coin dropped in the slot. His misogyny and objectification of women was deeply tied to his inability to accept same sex relationships among men, including his own sonâs.
Iâm happy to say that conversation was a turning point for my friend. Today, he fully embraces and celebrates his son, and his relationships with women have become a million times more healthy. He is an outspoken ally of LGBTQ folks. Heâs come a long way.
What a contemporary reading of Leviticus should warn men about today is the intrinsic harm of believing women are somehow less than men. Iâm convinced that if someone truly believed women were equal with men, then seeing men who donât align with our cultureâs toxic definitions of what it means to be a âmanâ would not threaten those of us who identify as male. And yet, even in saying all of this, it says a lot when âmasculinityâ is still defined as ânot femininity.â When thatâs the case, the rape of men is a problem because it treats men like women. The deeper violation is that sexual violence is a problem on its own terms and one that harms people of all genders. To fail to see this is still as androcentric as the culture out of which Leviticus was written.
Weâll look at four New Testament passages next week. Then weâll close with a look at Genesis 1.
For now, remember:
âBy their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.â (Matthew 7:16-20)
HeartGroup Application
I grew up in a faith tradition that looked at the Bible as having only one right interpretation and many wrong interpretations. I was wrongly taught that one could objectively find this one right interpretations if one practiced the proper hermeneutics.
I no longer subscribe to this way of looking at sacred texts. Our biases are inescapable. We all have blind spots. Even in our attempts to be objective, we rarely recognize our own biases and blind spots. Fish donât know they are wet. When we look at the text as having only one right interpretation, the result is that we seek to find that right interpretation, regardless of whether that fruit is harmful for life giving. We want to be right rather than being righteous. The goal, I believe, should rather be to allow the text to speak to us in our contexts today with the most life giving, life affirming, life celebrating interpretations our present level of knowledge will enable.
Sacred texts of all religions, including the Bible, can have a myriad of interpretations and applications. The goal is to embrace life giving interpretations and move away from interpretations that do harm to oneself and others. Asking whether an interpretation is right or not, I believe is the wrong question. We must ask if our interpretations are righteous. What fruit do they produce? Is the fruit harmful or life embracing, life giving? Does it liberate or oppress? Do our interpretations fuel injustice or do they empower us to move away from injustice toward the work of shaping of a just, compassionate, and safe society for everyone?
The choice, including in our interpretations, is an ancient oneâlife or death. (Deuteronomy 30:15-2) How can you know if youâre on the right track? Consider if your interpretations are bringing life or doing harm. âBy their fruit you will recognize them.â (Matthew 7:16) If your interpretation of a passage is doing harm, donât hold on to out of a prioritized value of being right or because it is an interpretations that most resonates with your own biases, perceived or otherwise. Prioritize people first. People matter. Loosen your grip on harmful interpretations regardless of how long youâve held on to them, and be open to embracing other interpretations that are righteous, that prioritize peopleâs well being, that are just, and that give life.
This week:
1. Come up with a list of three (if you can) interpretations of Bible passages that you believe are harmful.
2. Discuss with your HeartGroup the harm you have witnessed from these interpretations.
3. Discuss with your group alternative interpretations and/or begin seeking out new interpretations with the goal of interpreting your sacred texts in more life giving ways.
Thanks for journeying with us so far. Iâm deeply grateful that youâre here. Weâll keep exploring next week. This week, wherever you are right now, keep living in love, compassion, action and justice.
âAnd yet Iâm torn when I watch the toll it takes on my LGBTQ friends to repeatedly explain these passages. Speaking about them does not have the same emotional cost for me as it does for them. Perhaps I have been a little too silent. I havenât been silent in my affirmation. But I may have been too silent on some of the ways I arrive at affirmation. So this week and next, I want to amplify two voices on this topic.â
âMake a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.â (Matthew 12:33)
In the last month, Iâve spent the last two weekends in the company of LGBTQ Christian communities. Every time I spend time with communities like these, I am deeply moved by their compassion, insight, and wisdom. The people Iâve met have always failed to match the mischaracterizations that homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic Christian communities assign to them. I walk away from each experience with a deeper understanding of my own faith and what it means for me to follow Jesus today our work of love, compassion, action, and justice.
During these visits I bumped into a high school friend who I havenât seen since graduation. He told me of his sister, a deeply Christian lesbian woman, who recently married the love of her life, a pastor. On the morning of her wedding, her mother sent her a very ugly email. This mother, who had refused to attend the wedding, wrote this message to her daughter: âWhat youâre doing today makes me want to go jump off a bridge.â
When I heard this story I sat aghast. What is it about anti-LGBTQ Christianity that causes parents to so deeply reject and shame their own children? I have yet to understand this.
For many Christian parents, discovering their child is attracted to those of the same sex or identifies with a different gender than the one on their birth certificate begins their journey of discovering that everything their faith tradition has taught them of the LGBTQ community has been deeply misinformed at best and intentionally maligning at worst. They discover they were wrong.
But far more parents in these same faith traditions donât make this journey. Far more often, parents reject their own children in order to be faithful to their anti-LGBTQ faith. Religion can be a powerful force of good in the world. It can also be a powerful force of the worst kinds of evil.
This week I want us to consider a story from the gospels of Mark and Matthew where Jesus was also mischaracterized and maligned. Jesus has strong words here for those who malign that which is holy, just, and good and call it evil.
âBut when the Pharisees heard this, they said, âIt is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.â Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, âEvery kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or again, how can anyone enter a strong manâs house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house. Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.ââ (Matthew 12:24-37; see also Mark 3:23-29)
In this story, Jesus teaches the principle of knowing a tree by its fruit. His community had ways to interpret their sacred texts that could gave them ample basis to reject him. But there were also other ways to interpret those same sacred texts that would have freed them to embrace him and his life-giving teachings.
How do we know if our interpretations of our sacred text, in any religion, are moving in the right direction? Jesus tells us in this story: What is the fruit of your interpretation? If the tree is good, its fruit will be good. If the tree is bad, its fruit will be as well.
While I was in Arizona last month, a sincere questioner asked me how I interpret the Bibleâs passages that contemporary homophobic and biphobic Christians use to scare people away from affirming LGBTQ people. For a long time, Iâve refrained from debating these passages. A dear friend of mine calls such debates âtext hockey.â Iâve also not wanted to be another straight, cisgender male getting air-time to speak on passages that LGBTQ people have been speaking and writing on for decades now. I didnât what to take up space when I believe othersâ voices need to be heard right now.
And yet Iâm torn when I watch the toll it takes on my LGBTQ friends to repeatedly explain these passages. Speaking about them does not have the same emotional cost for me as it does for them. Perhaps I have been a little too silent. I havenât been silent in my affirmation. But I may have been too silent on some of the ways I arrive at affirmation.
So this week and next, I want to amplify two voices on this topic. First is the excellent work of Matthew Vines, a voice in the LGBTQ community that Jesus followers should be listening to. The second is James Brownson, a parent of a child in the LGBTQ community.
I want to share their work with you so that each of us can do our own homework, putting in the energy to read, study, and grapple before we ask someone in the Christian LGBTQ community to answer questions they have already answered multiple times and in multiple ways. These discussions are not academic for them. They are personally invested and many are tired of continually arguing about their existence. They already exist and have callings to pursue. Itâs up to you to how you respond. With that said, I want to offer some help to those who are sincerely searching, doing their homework, and wanting direction.
Matthew Vinesâ God and the Gay Christian is very readable. Itâs not written for scholars but for average people. Brownsonâs book, The Bible, Gender, and Sexuality is a definitive work on affirming Christian theology. It played a significant role in my own journey learning about affirming theology.
As Vines reminds us, âChristians did not change their minds about the solar system because they lost respect for their Christian forebears or for the authority of Scripture. They changed their minds because they were confronted with evidence their predecessors had never consideredâ (p. 24). He also writes, âThe telescope didnât lead Christians to reject Scripture. It simply led them to clarify their understanding of Scriptureâ (ibid. p. 38).
Certainly there are multiple ways texts can be interpreted. We must reach for the most life-giving choices when possible. What are the fruit of the interpretations we choose? We must be honest about the fruit that is born from homophobic and biphobic theologies. We must also be honest about the life-giving fruit of our Christian LGBTQ siblingsâ affirming theology. The life-giving fruit of their affirming theology is something we cannot afford to ignore.
Jesus said that itâs one thing to mistake an evil thing good, and quite another to label something thatâs holy, just, and good evil. Jesus called the latter unpardonable.
So next week, weâll begin in the book of Genesis and progress through the texts Christians typically use to harm our LGBTQ friends, relatives, and neighbors. Each text will be well worth our time to explore. Iâm so glad youâre here with us on this journey.
âMake a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.â (Matthew 12:33)
HeartGroup Application
In your HeartGroups this week, discuss the meaning of these two wordsâintrinsic and imposed.
Have you ever experienced imposed rules within a community (religious or secular) prohibiting actions that you knew had no negative intrinsic result?
Have you ever experienced a lack of concern, acceptance or even encouragement of attitudes and actions that you knew to intrinsically bring harm or bear destructive fruit?
Discuss both of these experiences within your group this week. What are the differences between actions to which are added imposed results such as imposed penalties or affirmation, and actions that have their own intrinsically harmful or beneficial results? Is there a place for imposed rules and consequences when properly associated with actual intrinsically destructive choices? Can imposed rules be abused? Can they be misapplied in ways that label things as bad or harmful that can are actually good or at least neutral? What can your group learn from this discussion? How can your group become a healthier community that bears life-giving fruit, itself? How can your HeartGroup community impact your larger community in life-giving ways as well?
Thank you for checking in with us this week. Iâm so glad you are here.
Wherever you are today, keep living in love, compassion, action and justice.
âWhat is the kingdom of God like, and with what am I to compare it?It is like a seed of mustard, which a person took and threw into his garden. And it grew and developed into a tree, and the birds of the sky nested in its branches.â (Q 13:18-19)
Companion Texts:
Matthew 13:31-32: âHe told them another parable: âThe kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.ââ
Luke 13:18-19: âThen Jesus asked, âWhat is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds perched in its branches.ââ
Gospel of Thomas 20: âThe disciples said to Jesus: âTell us whom the kingdom of heaven is like!â He said to them: âIt is like a mustard seed. It is the smallest of all seeds. But when it falls on cultivated soil, it produces a large branch and becomes shelter for the birds of the sky.ââ
Daniel 4:20-22: âThe tree you saw, which grew large and strong, with its top touching the sky, visible to the whole earth, with beautiful leaves and abundant fruit, providing food for all, giving shelter to the wild animals, and having nesting places in its branches for the birds, Your Majesty, you are that tree!â
Mistaken Classification
In the 1st Century, mustard seeds were considered an invasive, noxious weed. If a gardener did not uproot it from their garden, theyâd soon not have a garden left to tend. Then, as now, weeds should be rooted out lest they take over, crowding out crops that are intentionally planted there.
Yet mustard seeds donât actually grow into trees. The image of a weed growing into a tree that benefits those around it means that weâve classified as a weed something that is actually a fruit bearing tree.
Let me say it again for clarity. Mustard plants donât grow into trees. If what we have labeled as âmustardâ grows into a tree, itâs not mustard weed. Weâve made a mistake. Itâs something entirely different from mustard.
This weekâs saying likens Jesus new community of nonviolence, mutual aid, and resource redistribution to a tree that is originally seen as a weed. In other words, the way 1st Century farmers viewed the mustard plant was the way people viewed Jesusâs teachings and the community of Jesus-followers centered in those teachings. Their existence was to be rooted out. They were as welcome as the weed.
But then Jesusâs saying takes a hard right turn. What the people think is a noxious mustard weed doesnât produce the same results as mustard. It doesnât take over the garden like a weed and leave nothing for anyone. No, it becomes a tree, a source of shelter and food for all in its vicinity! Itâs originally viewed as a weed, but it does not bear the same fruit as a weed.
The image Jesus uses for his community, the tree mistaken for a weed, is from a story in the Hebrew apocalyptic book of Daniel. In Daniel, Nebuchadnezzarâs kingdom was likened to a fruit tree that provided food, a resting place, and shelter to all. Our saying takes this imagery as a message: âYouâre working so hard to keep me out of your garden as if Iâm a mustard weed, and are trying to uproot me completely, but you have misjudged me. My fruit is not harmful, but life and peace and good for all.â
This weekâs saying isnât saying all weeds should be welcomed in the garden, that we shouldnât weed, or that all weeds are good now. Itâs asking us to check our assumptions about what we have classified as weeds. What if weâve made a mistake? What if youâve judged something to be a harmful weed, but that judgment is quite incorrect?
Jesusâs society was beginning to view his teachings on nonviolent resistance and wealth redistribution as a weed that must be removed. And so his saying called them to see their judgment as a mistake. What Jesus was teaching could lead to peace and liberation rooted in an expression of distributive justice for all. What the people viewed as a weed to be rooted out was actually a tree of life.
Today
I get letters from time to time asking me to explain how on earth I can be a Jesus follower and affirm the LGBTQ community. These writers typically use misinformed language such as âlifestyleâ when they are actually referring to same-sex intimacy. They are often also profoundly certain about how clear the Bibleâs teachings are, and they compare my LGBTQ friends with âadulterers,â âfornicators,â âalcoholics,â âdrug abusers,â and âchild-molesters.â And they want me to explain to them how I could affirm LGBTQ people in their allegedly âsinful behaviors.â
One of my lesbian friends is a more devoted Christian than I am. She has been with her wife for over twenty years, and I admire their commitment to each other. She is a teetotaler: no tea or coffee, much less drugs and alcohol. To even place my friends in the same category with abusers is offensive.
As I consider the misclassification of the mustard seed in this weekâs saying and the misclassification of Jesusâs kingless kingdom in the 1st Century, I canât help but think of the misclassification of my LGBTQ friends today.
Let me be clear. This weekâs saying is not calling its audience to embrace weeds but to question their classification of a tree as a weed. Similarly, the call to affirm, embrace, and include LGBTQ Christians in the church is not a call to affirm things that are intrinsically harmful. Rather it should help us recognize that the LGBTQ community does not deserve to be on that âharmfulâ list in the first place.
There are two lists in the New Testament that my letter writers often mention:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV): Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitai], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (emphasis added.)
1 Timothy 1:9-11(ESV): Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitai], enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (emphasis added.)
The question I want us to consider is whether the modern phrase âmen who practice homosexualityâ is the most accurate translation of the ancient Greek word arsenokoitai. It isnât. In English, the category âhomosexualityâ wasnât even used till 1886. And the word wasnât inserted into any English translations of the Bible for another 60 years after that (1946). There were several English language Bibles before 1946. Yet none of them used the word âhomosexualityâ or euphemisms for it. The Greek used when the New Testament was written included multiple terms for same-sex sexual activities, and those terms never appear in the New Testament. Instead we find the extremely rare and quite specific term arsenokoitai.
Justin Lee of the Gay Christian Network writes:
âThe most likely explanation is that Paul is referring to a practice that was fairly common in the Greek culture of his day â married men who had sex with male youths on the side. The extramarital relationships of men with boys in ancient Greece are infamous even today. Archaeological and literary evidence prove that these relationships were common for centuries in Greece, though they were frowned upon by many even while they were publicly practiced. This would make a perfect target for Paul’s vice lists, and it would explain why, in both lists, he mentions the sin of the arsenokoitai separately after he mentions adultery â because technically, by Greek thought, having a boy on the side wasn’t adultery.â (https://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php)
What many scholars today agree on is that these two passages are referring to the then-common practice of pederasty, not to what we now know as homosexuality. Using the term homosexuality is not accurate.
Consider how the passages would read if we were more careful with our translations:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV): âOr do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice pederasty [arsenokoitai], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.â (emphasis added)
1 Timothy 1:9-11(ESV): âUnderstanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice pederasty [arsenokoitai], enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.â
For more on the other passages in the Christian scriptures typically used in this debate, read Justinâs View from GCN.
Our saying this week isnât a call to let oneâs garden be overrun by weeds, and, yes, the vices in Paulâs lists are weeds. This weekâs saying challenges the misclassification of Jesusâs movement as a weed that must rooted out. We could learn a lot about what itâs like to be misclassified by listening to LGBTQ people and others whom the Christian community has misclassified and tried to root out.
We have misclassified as a weed something that produces good fruit and doesnât look like a weed at all. In fact, itâs our misclassifying the LGBTQ community on this list thatâs producing noxious weed-like results. Itâs at the root of the disproportionate homelessness and suicide rates among Christian LGBTQ youth rejected by their religious families and churches. The fruit of our recent translations and misclassification of LGBTQ people is not life, but quite literally death.
Here are just a few of the lessons I have learned as Iâve listened to the LGBTQ community:
An apology that simply calls straight Christians to a more loving and respectful form of heterosexism, homophobia, biphobia, or transphobia is not an apology.
The language of reconciliation devoid of liberation is empty rhetoric.
Saying âIâm sorryâ is not enough.
Kindness and respect are not synonyms of reparation for harm done in the past.
Allowing even ârespectfulâ disagreement over whether another person should exist is not âcreating safe space.â
This last one is vital. The debate over LGBTQ people is really a disagreement over whether LGBTQ people should exist, live openly, and form families in our communities. The lists in Paulâs writings are lists of behaviors that can be changed. Sexual orientation is much more like a personâs skin color than their actions. Itâs not something to be changed; itâs who people are. Reparative therapy, however, is an attempt to weed out a certain type of personâan LGBTQ personâfrom existence. Ultimately, itâs a form of genocide.
Learning to listen to those who are not like you as they share the harm that has been done to them through misclassification offers you the opportunity to make a choice between compassion or fear. I remember a statement that Justin Lee once made during a presentation. He likened straight, cisgender peopleâs emotional response to LGBTQ folks to the emotional response one might make to the statement, âAliens have landed.â It all depends on whether you grew up watching the movie E.T. or War of the Worlds. Differences can be scary, but they donât have to be. Remember, although we have differences, there is much we have in common, too. Those who are different from you are also someoneâs child. They are someoneâs sibling. They are someoneâs best friend. Remember to breathe. And choose compassion.
Have you ever been misjudged or misclassified? The mustard seed that was considered a noxious weed actually grew into a tree, providing âshelterâ and ânesting places in its branches for the birds.â
Dr. Katie Cannon of Union Presbyterian Seminary says it best:
âWhat is the kingdom of God like, and with what am I to compare it?It is like a seed of mustard [considered to be a noxious weed], which a person took and threw into his garden. And it grew and developed into a tree, and the birds of the sky nested in its branches.â (Q 13:18-19)
HeartGroup Application
This week I need your help. We are updating our HeartGroups page on the Renewed Heart Ministries website and we want to be able to share testimonials from those of you whoâve experienced what HeartGroups have to offer.
Please share how HeartGroups have been a benefit to you, either as a group or individually, by going to the Contact Us page and typing in your testimony.
I want to again thank all of you who support the work of Renewed Heart Ministries. People like you enable us to exist and to be a positive resource in our world in the work of survival, resistance, liberation, restoration, and transformation.
If you are new to Renewed Heart Ministries, we are a not-for-profit group informed by the sayings and teachings of the historical Jewish Jesus of Nazareth and passionate about centering our values and ethics in the experiences of those on the undersides and margins of our societies. You can find out more about us here.
Everything we do at Renewed Heart Ministries is done with the purpose of making these resources as free as possible. To do so we need the help of people like you.
If youâd like to support the work of Renewed Heart Ministries, you can make a one-time gift or become a monthly contributor by going to renewedheartministries.com and clicking on the Donate tab at the top right of our home page.
Or you can mail your contribution to:
Renewed Heart Ministries
PO Box 1211
Lewisburg, WV 24901
All of your support helps. Anything we receive beyond our annual budget we pass on to other not-for-profits making systemic and personal differences in the lives of those less privileged in the status quo.
For those of you already supporting our work, again, thank you.
Iâm so glad youâre on this journey with us.
Where you are, keep living in love, survival, resistance, liberation, restoration, and transformation on our way to thriving!
âWhoever takes you in takes me in, and whoever takes me in takes in the one who sent me.â (Q 10:16)
Companion Texts:
Matthew 10:40-42: âAnyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophetâs reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous personâs reward. And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.â
Luke 10:16: âWhoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me*; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.â
Since the 11th Century (1094 C.E. to be exact), thanks to Anselm of Canterbury, some Christians have thought that Jesusâs death was a vicarious substitution that satisfied something in God that needs us to die. The seeds of Anselmâs views existed before him, and his views were further developed by Calvin and Luther, but Anselm was the first to systematize this way of âbelieving inâ Jesus and not just âbelievingâ him.
This week, Jesusâ saying from Q describes a different kind of vicarious substitution. Jesus isnât standing in for you: you are standing in for Jesus! Jesus was so committed to this idea that he taught his disciples that the way a village responded to the community Jesus sent out was a response not just to them but to Jesus as well.
OppressiveHistory of Christendom
When we look back at what we have been seeing this year in Sayings Gospel Q, it seems clear to me that the version of Christianity I was raised in and Jesus could not be more different. Religion, including Christianity, is so often employed to offer security rather than what is true.
And because of the way we Christians have acted, great swaths of the human populous immediately shut down any time we even mention the name âJesus.â
Whomever received the people Jesus sent into the world received Jesus, and also, whomever, in the two thousand year since, witnesses racism, exploitative wealth, sexism, homophobia, colonialism, violence, or any form of oppression by Jesusâ followers witnesses it being done by âJesus.â
For many, only when they discover for themselves the Jesus we are seeing in Sayings Gospel Q do they realize there is a Jesus thatâs radically different than the Jesus they encountered in the religion that formed around him.
This discovery is an ongoing process for South Americans, Africans, African Americans, Women, Transgender people, and those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning. In those encounters, Jesus of Nazareth is often reclaimed. That looks very different than how we originally presented Jesus to them.
There is a difference between how those with power and resources present Jesus and how those on the fringes and the underside of our societies experience him. That differencemust not be dismissed.
Continuing Need for Rediscovering the Jesus of the Disinherited
Today, I often meet folks who resonate with what I believe Jesus taught. They subscribe to inclusivity, nondiscrimination, nonviolence, interdependence, and radical resource-sharing as their way of life. They see the ugliness of many of Christianityâs various forms. And as soon as I mention Jesus or they find out that I teach the Bible, the walls between us immediately go up.
I long to be able to help people see a Jesus who is not just for the religious, but for the non-religious too. Because Jesus has been so abused, part of reclaiming Jesus is simply agreeing on the set of values and ethics attributed to him in the gospels.
This love for a set of values, the same values taught by Jesus, in combination with a low tolerance for any mention of Jesus is the fruit of the dynamic that the author of Matthewâs gospel saw in his own day. For a millennia or two, those whoâve called Jesus âLordâ have not âdoneâ or âpracticedâ Jesusâ actual teachings (see Matthew 7:21-24).
This is the inverse of the reality in this weekâs saying: the community formed around Jesus and Jesus himself are so connected with each other that what happens to one also happens to the other, and what happens to Jesusâ followers happens to him.
Positive Connection
Thereâs also a positive side to the connection between Jesus and the Jesus community that we read in this weekâs saying. When we are promoting the teachings of Jesus, and people respond, it is not only us that theyâre responding to. Theyâre also responding to Jesus!
The early Jesus community talked about âthe kingdomâ or the âempire of God.â More contemporary folks who have uncovered its egalitarian quality have referred to it as the beloved community. Whatever we call it, we are a part of something that includes us and is also much bigger than our individual efforts. As with all power, whether isolated in one individual or shared by all alike, power can be used for great evil or great good.
This week, letâs use our community power for good, using our choices to put on display the beauty of a world transformed by Jesusâ teachings, teachings that include non-discrimination, inclusivity, egalitarianism, nonviolence, social justice, love, healing, and more in our present world today.
Remember that when we choose these teachings, when we embrace and practice them, not just as individuals but also as communities centered around these values and the value of listening to the most vulnerable, we too are listening to and embracing Jesus. Those who resonate with these values and choose to join us, they too embrace Jesus as they embrace us. This is about becoming a part of what has the potential to heal our world. What Jesus taught can heal the world we are living, moving, and breathing in today.
As we press together this week, as our relationships with each other continue to reflect the values and teachings we have been looking at this year, others will take notice. They may never say a special prayer. They may never become more âreligiousâ than they presently are, and may never join an organization. But if in their hearts and lives, they embrace the beauty of the universal values that the Jewish Jesus also taught, and they strive within community to apply those values in their own context, much more has taken place than what institutional, religious, and too often surface judgments can see. This is a beautiful change, much more substantive than what it means for many today to simply take on the name âChristian.â
Because of the classism, sexism, racism, and heterosexism that has become associated with the name of Jesus, some people may never be comfortable referring to themselves as a âJesus-follower,â either. I understand. I, too, wrestle with this. I continually want to disassociate from rather than own my own complicity in injustice. Yet if a person embraces the values we have discussed, for example, methods of nonviolent conflict resolution, voluntary wealth redistribution, mutual aid, and anti-kyriarchical sharing of community power and resources, thatâs what Jesus was trying to encourage within his own society as well.
I canât help but believe that the historical Jesus understood that it was never so much about him as it was about what he taught: the beloved, humanity-affirming community. As his followers went out, sharing the values they had discovered through this Jewish teacher, what people responded to and embraced was a path, a set of values and ethics, informed by the stories of the most vulnerable. It was, in the end, a choice to embrace the risk of what it takes to heal our world. So this week, letâs contemplate both the negative and the positive implications of what it means in our day and multiple contexts to hear the following words:
 Whoever takes you in takes me in, and whoever takes me in takes in the one who sent me. (Q 10:16)
HeartGroup Application
This week, go back through this yearâs eSights and pick a value or principle that we have found in Gospel Sayings Q.
Discuss how this principle was applied in a 1st Century Jewish context under Roman oppression.
Discuss possible applications of this same principle today, and choose one of those applications to lean into together. Begin to put it practice.
Thank you so much for joining us for another week.
Keep living in love, wherever this may find you, together, making the world a safer, more compassionate, more just home for us all.
Till the only world that remains is a world where only love reigns. I love each of you, dearly. Iâll see you next week.
*There is a qualification that must be made with this passage in Luke. Just because someone is rejecting you does not always mean they are rejecting Jesus. At times, that may be true, but at other times it might be your presentation of Jesus that people are actually rejecting, even if you may be claiming Jesusâ name all the while.
For RHM to provide Ad-Free resources takes hundreds of hours each month.
If you find blessing, encouragement and renewal here,
please consider becoming a Monthly Partner with a reoccurring monthly donation of your choosing.