As Questioning Christian notes, Brokeback Mountain reveals
that, by and large, the American public will become tolerant of
homosexuality. They will note merely that homosexuality happens,
and that it has no intrinsic moral content, and that homosexual activity will have little effect upon heterosexuals. The popular belief will be that people are made that way, and there is
little evidence for social or physical harm between consenting adults.
This does not bode well for those for whom homosexual acts
are an accurate litmus test for right praise. Those who are theologically orthodox, but desire a broader cultural
reach will not to preach about homosexuality, except obliquely as a way of shoring up marriage generally. Institutions that insist that homosexual activity become curtailed will
become the sorts of places that attract individuals who have a peculiar animosity towards
homosexual persons. The latter will be ill-equipped to evangelize well, for no matter how well they explain that they are simply passing down the traditions handed down by the saints, the public
will understand them as a group that has cruel expectations of GLBT
people.
Some argue that accommodations to American
libertines exemplifies the weakness of a culture-bound Christianity. A Christianity, it is argued, that succumbs to the worldly mores ceases to become Christianity. Christianity that accepts homosexual
behavior as possibly good is rejecting its own inheritance. There is some truth to this statement, in that there are some values in the world that are held in tension with the requirements of Jesus. But to present culture and Christianity as completely opposite supposes a flawed understanding of what constitutes “culture” and a very idealistic understanding of Christian practices.
The first objection is fairly simple, if controversial. A “Culture” is an inaccurate way of
describing the rituals, symbols and social acts we practice. Instead, we have to talk about “cultures,”
for each one of us lives in different societies: work, school, church, ethnicity, class, and gender, may
constitute separate, although intermingling, cultures. We also have to talk about “Christianities:” Pentecostal Christianity is much different
than 1950’s Christianity, which is much different than 15th century
Irish Christianity. Some practice multiple kinds of Christianity that also intermingle. People may go to a conservative interdenominational church for the music, but have friends who are gay and in life-long relationships. But Christian and non-Christian cultures mix and inform each other, clarifying each other’s contours. ECUSA is one kind of Christian culture that represents certain slices of the broader culture. We are different then Pentecostals.
Second, although the reading of scripture may be
transformative, but the culture also transforms the readers of
scripture. The world asks scripture
questions: we read with attention to
our own questions. Paul did not ask
questions of the Torah that we are: for
him the answer was settled. And we do
not merely ask Torah; we are asking Paul; and we are asking each other. Why does scripture say “no” and under what
conditions may it say, “yes”?
Reasserters have a point. We are only Christian – or a biblical tradition, if we make an
effort to discern from our common religious resources – especially scripture,
but also the church fathers, canon law, and the fellowship of the saints – the
place of any coherent ethic. But it is the
effort which is crucial.
They ignore, however, that scripture itself
redefines scripture. There is movement
within texts – from Amos to Ecclesiastes to Ezra; from Ezekiel to Daniel to
Revelation; from Leviticus to the Sermon on the Mount; from Exodus to the
Magnificat. We are constantly in the
process of affirming, reconsidering, ignoring and discarding. It does not mean that everything goes; but
it does mean that some things, practically, do go, and that plenty stays.
The consequence is that liberals do have the burden, for
homosexual acts are clearly forbidden in scripture, in part as a consequence of gender essentialism. Reasserters may set, however, the bar far too high [and I doubt if they know exactly what the bar is] and, because there
are also political issues at stake, would ignore the insights
upon which progressives Christians hang their hat. For reasserters, any discussion means the end of marriage, although progressives are not interested in blessing any relationship, but those that require an intention and promise.
Progressive Christians may have the following
assumptions.
We are skeptical that the political interests of the
scribes can be neatly divorced from the written words that ground the
Word. This requires that our
hermeneutic be much more sophisticated.
Biblical culture can be distinguished from the Word of God,
although the Word of God is only known through culture. 1st century Israelite culture is
impossible to replicate, nor would it necessarily be desirable. Such a culture would be unfathomable to most
Western Christians. This does not argue
that our world is better or worse. But
it is different, and deeply so. Although human desires are the same, the consequence of desire may be
different.
Third, scientific discoveries change the way use
language. In our discussion, science is
the quiet conversation partner. Its
knowledge has influenced our understanding of creation.
Evolution, if it is true, utterly changes how we understand
God’s creative urge. More
particularly, evolution reveals that although, gender essentialism, for
example, is necessary for procreation, it is not the totality of sexual
behavior. Evolution expands what we
might consider normative. Scientific
language, in my view, renders biblical language figurative, and has become the
more reliable etiology of our world because it presents a consistent
categorization of physical reality.
The primary justification for discerning whether a text is
figurative or literal is comprehensibility. When I say “Fred is in heaven” and look up at the sky, I am not saying,
“Fred is in heaven, which is in the sky.” But in 1st century
Palestine, I may have been. The
inclination towards figurative or literal is human bias. God’s work depends on how any interpretation
inclines us toward the Kingdom of God.
So what we are encountering is the plain truth that – as
science [and technology and capitalism] has changed our culture, our reading of
scripture changes as well. More
accurately, even though scripture changes who we are, it may bear no intrinsically hostile
witness to the sorts of homosexual relationships that a local congregation may
consider blessing, for the local readers of scripture are those who have
inerpretive authority. To be sure, scripture still bears witness to
relationships that are cruel, humiliating, or greedy.
So what is troubling? It might be the feeling that nothing can be settled. It is a legitimate fear, but one that forces
us to consider how we do argue, what does get argued, and the process for
arguing. The most important aspect of
what we do, or what we say, is how we say it. Are we listening to each other? Are we willing to step back? Are
we willing to reconsider our views? Can
we pray together? Can we say that “we
don’t know, but it is in God’s hands”?
So then the task of the church is not particularly
theological in that it circumscribes totalizing statements that makes propositions into human idols. It is to define the
territory and the time; present the outline for discussion; instruct as to how
the conversation will be conducted. We’ve said that tradition, scripture and reason are the territory; and
the time is when we gather prayerfully; the method is in the rubrics.
It is not imposed from above, but made through invitation
and love. Finally, the work of humanity
– to respond to sort through God’s word here – making our work of describing
tour rubrics accurately, so his Life and World might be comprehensible and
shared with the world.