RhodesNetwork

The more I think about it, the more I think sex divides us more than it brings us together.  How’s that for counter-intuitive?!

And yet it seems to be all we can talk about.  Or more accurately, it’s all we can think about as long as we don’t talk about it except that we can accuse other people of thinking about it or doing it wrong.  Just don’t broadcast it.  During the Super Bowl.  Ever.  Unless it’s a commercial and they paid for it.

Why don’t we talk about sex?  Because we’re very busy hiding it between the thin pages of our bibles.  That way it’s safely hidden from view.  It’s safely hidden in the most scandalous, raucous, kinky, sex-laden book I’ve ever read.

But don’t read those parts.  Those parts make us uncomfortable.

And it’s getting into the uncomfortable parts of faith that Brian McLaren does in his new book, A New Kind of Christianity.  McLaren dives directly and fearlessly into the sex question, spending a great deal of time discussing what is clearly a public hatred of non-heterosexual attraction and behavior.  And he cleverly steers us away from closed-minded rhetoric into thoughtful, scripturally-supported territory.

The reality is, homosexuality has become more of a buzz-word these days, used most often to generate fear and hate.  Residents of California have heard all too often that gay marriage will ruin marriage for everyone, although I’ve yet to hear how exactly that would work.  Conservative Christians will quote from any of 6 passages to condemn homosexuality – although Justin Cannon has written a compelling argument to all of these.  Go Justin.

McLaren correctly recognizes that non-heterosexuality is not the only part of the sex question in relation to faith.  Sadly, we don’t seem to be doing any better even when we avoid that sticky homosexuality thing.  McLaren reminds us of these chilling realities:

• Social anonymity makes secret-sex easy.
• Easy drive-by birth control (as long as you can afford it, and many can) makes us forget that sex can lead to pregnancy.
• The technology of the condom and of medicine make us forget that sex can lead to STIs.
• The average marriage age is going up while the average age to hit puberty is going down.  That’s a growing gap of time for extra-marrital sex.
• Porn is easy to find online.
• Commercial media is all about sex and sex appeal.  Yes, even during the Super Bowl.
• Poverty and unemployment leave people with very little to do.  And if you don’t have much to do, doesn’t sex sound good?  Even though you can’t afford birth control.  Nor do you have the $$ to support children who will then grow up in poverty & repeat the cycle.

But don’t talk about sex.  That’s for private conversations.  That should be talked about at home.  That way it’s safe.  And in the words of Dr. Phil, how’s that going for ya?

I don’t think it’s the gay Christian who’s damned (or the gay pagan, for that matter).

If there’s any place at all to talk about sex, shouldn’t it be in our churches? Doesn’t it sound better to talk about sex in the context of God and spirituality?  Doesn’t it sound better to teach appropriate love and compassion rather than hatred and divisiveness?

Because when I read my Bible, that’s what I find.  Yes, there’s scandal.  But that’s not all.

I recently finished a paper on the biblical story of Sodom & Gomorrah.  I wanted to post it here because it’s been used recently and often as a way to marginalize the gay population, and I think it’s a bastardization of the text (at best!) and a completely inappropriate use of God’s word.  I offer it here as part of an ongoing dialogue.  May we all – regardless of our differences – receive God’s blessings.

This file is in an Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format.  If you need the free reader, click here.  To download the paper, click here.

I’m struggling.  It’s been over a month, and I still don’t understand how we as humans – we as Christians (and yes, there are many different “versions” of Christians) – could take a class of people and send a message of “less than equal.”  You aren’t living your lives correctly, so you can’t have the freedoms that others have.  That’s what Prop 8 says.  How does that “protect” marriage?  If “marriage” isn’t ok, but “civil unions” are ok – if “they” shouldn’t complain because it’s “just a word” – what if nobody get’s the word “marriage?”  What if we’re all engaged in “civil unions?”

But to be honest, I don’t want to talk about that right now.  I want to talk about the backlash.

I’m beginning to hear more and more about the anger at the faith-based organizations that actively and even financially supported Prop 8.  The cry I’m hearing more and more is to “take away their tax-exempt status!”  Or, “what happened to the separation between church and state?”

I’ve only done a little research on the separation clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  How I read that is that there won’t be a nationally established or declared or financially supported religion.  I don’t read it as a law that faith-organizations don’t get to have a voice.  I don’t read it as saying that persons of faith can not or should not be guided by that faith even if they’re in elected or appointed positions in government.

So what might the founders have thought?  Keep in mind that all the founders were Christian and even Protestant, and – although they were rebelling against a nation that had proclaimed a national religion – I’m not sure they ever envisioned divisions beyond the various denominations within Christianity.  And even in that context, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their “legislature” should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

If we look even deeper into history, I argue that even Jesus himself spoke out politically.  I think that in speaking out against the scribes and pharisees he was making political statements.  I think that in setting aside the purity laws when he ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, he was making political statements.  I think that in preventing the murder of a woman for committing adultery – completely appropriate according to Jewish law of the day – he was making a political statement.

Now, some would argue that this had nothing to do with government but with religion.  But remember, at this point in Jewish history, the secular and political structure were combined!  Yes, the Romans occupied the area, but much of the social and political decision-making was left to the Jews themselves (which was common throughout the Roman empire; it’s how they maintained control).

So with this in mind, do we argue that faith-organizations should not have voice in politics simply because we disagree with their theology, because we disagree with their conclusions, because they’re flat-out wrong?  Keep in mind that shutting down all political voice shuts down both sides of the conversation.  I myself attend a church that organized phone banks and had a sign out front all that spoke against Prop 8.  Should this church lose tax-exempt status too?

I don’t have an easy answer to this.  I invite dialogue.  Please share your thoughts…