5 Big Questions about GLBT that we obsess over (“Love Is an Orientation,” Andrew Marin, part 4)

I meant to finish blogging my way through Andrew Marin’s “Love Is An Orientation,” but found myself sidetracked. But I’m determined to finish; it’s too good a work to let go of.

—-

Part 1: Love is an orientation

Part 2: all the gay stereotypes

Part 3: the GLBT christian apologetics

—-

Now central to Marin’s argument is that there shouldn’t be an argument.  There are lots of smart people who can prove to you why, Biblically of course, homosexuality is wrong.  There are also lots of smart people who can prove to you why, Biblically of course, homosexuality is not wrong.  The tendency on both sides is to think it’s obvious.  By now, we should know that using the word obvious about a controversial topic should signify our lack of conversing with someone different than ourselves.  Controversial topics are only ever obvious from our myopic perspectives.  And love requires us to drop our arrogance.

So with that premise undergirding his work, Marin posts The Big Five, as he calls them; the top five questions he is asked regarding his work:

1.  Do you think that gays and lesbians are born that way?

2.  Do you think homosexuality is a sin?

3.  Can a GLBT person change their sexual orientation?

4.  Do you think that someone can be gay and Christian?

5.  Are GLBT people going to hell?

The catch is that each of the following, though prolific as abstract inquiries proposed among Christians, is a closed-ended questions.  And as Marin makes abundantly clear in the preceding chapter, choosing to answer closed-ended questions is in it’s own way highly unChrist-like.  In the collective Gospels, it is said Jesus is asked around 300 questions and answers four of that 300 with a closed-ended, “yes or no” response.  This is because leading and/or oversimplified questions betray an intellectual conversation and trade it for soap-box bait.  Nevertheless, such questions are highly popular in the Church, often for the purpose of sorting out those who believe like me (i.e. correctly) and those who do not.  At times this may even be necessary.  But far more often, it does little more than estrange others and doctrinally encapsulate ourselves, ensuring our protective bubble will not be pierced by the Lib’ruls or Fundies (depending on which way you swing).  What is important to remember is the way of Christ in dealing with a closed-ended (or closed-minded?) question: tell a story about some unrelated Samaritan or some goats, tell the questioner to break some religious rule from the Old Testament, tell a story relating God as a shrewd, unjust manager or judge.  Frustrate the simplicity.  Break the paradigm wide open, but whatever you do, don’t give into simple questions with simple answers.

So in the spirit of the utterly frustrating way that Jesus liked to dodge questions in order to pursue something better, let me reframe a few of those Big 5 questions(You will have to read the book to see Marin’s more informed responses, although I include his reframed question at the end of each response):

Q.  Do you think that gays and lesbians are born that way?

A.  Don’t care.  Probably some are and some aren’t if you want the truth.  People who think anything is entire genetic or entirely environmental (as we are prone to do with this subject) have an unrealistic understanding of biology and psyche.  If you are asking this so as to ascertain whether or not it is sinful, since when does something coming naturally make it sinful or not anyway?  If you want to pick a side, there are plenty of studies backing up both sides (although you might have heard quite the opposite at church camp).

Marin’s better question: “How do you think your genetic makeup relates to God’s desire to be called your Father?”

Q. Do you think homosexuality is a sin?

A.  Don’t know.  I’ve got a guess that I’m about 51% sure of.  God probably would have said one way or another in plain language if God thought we needed to be so sure.  Good thing it’s not for me or anyone else to decide; good thing I’m not responsible for anyone else’s decisions except the ones my wife and I make.  In other news, I can name several sins that we are very comfortable with even from the pulpit (like being obese or expending exorbitant moneys on fancy clothes).

Marin: “How do you relate to a God whose standards are so unachievable?  How do you deal with the moral vulnerability we all have to live with?  What does it mean to you that such a perfect God still wants to be in relationship with imperfect beings such as us?”

Q.  Can a GLBT person change their sexual orientation?

A.  It seems like a small minority who have tried have, in fact, changed.  It also seems like many have been completely destroyed by trying to change and end up much worse.  Romans 1 says heterosexuals were reorienting to be homosexual, so perhaps the reverse can happen (though perhaps it would be just as sinful).  I’m not gay, don’t plan on being gay, and have never considered trying to be gay, so I’m not all too qualified to answer this question.

Marin: “What do you think is changing in your life as a result of where you’re at in relation to God?  Where do you think God wants to move you on your own personal continuum of change.?”

Q.  Do you think that someone can be gay and Christian?

A.  Well, it’s a plain fact that there is a growing community of very deeply committed gay Christians out there.  My friend Adele is one.  Ask her.  You would think this question would hinge on whether or not homosexuality was wrong, but then again it’s not even that simple because I think you can be fat or wear really fancy clothes and be a Christian too.  So maybe the two aren’t so related as we like to think.  Are there gay Christians?  Yes, undeniably so.  Is their being gay a sin in their Christianity?  I think I would be in sin if I tried to pontificate for someone else.  If you are really sure, maybe you should chat with someone who feels very differently.

Marin: “What religious and cultural barriers have you experienced as a GLBT person regarding belief in Christ?  What does the term ‘gay Christian’ mean to you and how has that impacted your life?”

Q.  Are GLBT people going to hell?

A.  Does the Bible say that? Does Jesus say that?  Does Paul say that?  No?  Well, who first put that question to you? ? *Tad resists an esoteric digression on the Biblical pictures of Hell, what it is,  where the doctrines of Hell came from, and who might be there*

Marin: “How would you make the case for God to let you into heaven?”

i think maybe people like this are headed to hell

Andrew Marin’s work assumes (as I do) that the Bible is an authoritative starting point for the conversation of ethics, so I’ll leave you with this.  Now, the Bible is written by so many different people over such a wide array of time and cultural influences that it’s teachings can vary quite widely, much as we like to force all the nuances of perspective into a uniform doctrinal construct.  It’s not popular to say so, but that’s it’s a fact.  Hence, it is quite easy to find 6 verses to support just about anything you want to support and assume that anyone who doesn’t see it your way has no respect for Scripture.

Having said that, here’s my question: If someone told you the Bible says it is wrong to be heterosexual, that he has 6 clobber verses that prove it, that your marriage is a fraud and an attack on the traditionally homosexual family unit, that his pastor confirms this perspective as true, and that you have rejected Truth and eternal life if you have a different perspective- would you be able to have any reasonable dialogue with this person?

-Could you have any meaningful friendship?

-Could you have any intellectual respect for him?

-Would you be interested in assimilating into his religion?

-Is the Christian obsession with homosexuality really about winning people over when we approach it this way, or is it part of a more visceral drive to feel victimized and fight loudly with those we see as different?

-If a person starts a conversation with the assumption that I have nothing to contribute unless I agree with them, then I am rarely won over by them.  What about you?

The gay Christian apologetic (“Gays, Christians, and gay Christians,” Andrew Marin, part 3)

Andrew Marin, Part 1

Andrew Marin, Part 2

This is the post all about the way that gay christians interpret the Bible.  I’m always into learning something I havent’ been exposed to before, so I was really looking forward to this chapter on the gay apologetic.

I think that one of the best things about Andrew Marin’s work, Love Is an Orientation, and something seldom found in discussions on homosexuality and faith, is that you won’t find him taking shots or sounding bitter toward either side.   You find Marin provocative to all sides, but hostile to none.  While his book is replete with sad stories of the failure of the church to love, and also replete with studies, findings, and apologetics which my make light work in rupturing your view, you will have to understand that Marin has a lot of hope for the Evangelical church.  In fact, if I had to guess (and this is only my guess), I suspect that Marin himself still falls in that traditional conservative view on homosexuality, but I get the feeling he’s transcended the well-worn fighting points, and comes across rather likeable.

His chapter on the gay apologetic was one of the most well written affirmations of homosexuality I have ever read (which is made especially poignant when he can lay out the case for the other side with equal clarity- I love that in a writer).  Marin bases much of his understanding of the gay apologetic off the work of Dr. Mel Wright, a former speechwriter for Billy Graham until Wright came out of the closet.  Wright is a gay Christian, whose work has aided in the conversion of thousands, if not millions to Christ.

Scripture is entirely central to both the gay-affirming and gay-condemning sides of the debate.  Those with the traditional Christian view tend to assume that gay-affirming theology ignores Scripture, but we need to get over this immature assumption (i.e. different beliefs= no respect for Scripture) if we are going to have an intelligent conversation.  Undeniably, scripture does address homosexuality in six different verses throughout the Bible.  However, according to Marin, the gay-affirming hermeneutic assumes:

“…the passages in the Bible that condemn same-sex relationships are not referencing long-term, committed monogamous relationships.  Rather, the Bible is talking about inhospitality, heterosexual rape, pagan ritual sex and orgies, and pederasty (men having sex with boys.)  They also believe that translations and interpretations of the Bible are unclear relative to the hermeneutical historical-cultural/transcultural analysis of homosexuality.”

The problems with thinking Scripture is clear on the matter of homosexuality are many, but even the most basic, surface level observations are hard to get around.  Yes, the Law forbade homosexuality, but so did it condemn eating lobster and shaving your beard.  In the New Testament (since we are privy to dismiss the OT when it gets complicated), the word “homosexual” does not exist.  Are we tracking? Because that sentence merits re-reading; no word used in the Greek actually translates directly as “homosexual,” which means you are automatically working with a translator’s slant (or agenda) if you use one of those gay-clobber passages with the word “homosexual,” staking your fight on unsure footing.  One term often translated varyingly as “homosexual” or “homosexual offender” is arsenokoites.  It is a term that Paul seems to have invented, as we have the term on record in no other ancient literature.  This term, as with another oft mistranslated/simplified-as-“homosexual” term likely (not certainly) refers to homosexuality, but a particular type of homosexual act(often suggested is the profession of “call boys” for one term, or the practice of gay pedophilia for the alternate term mistranslated).

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a favorite among the traditionalist camp to point to the sin of homosexuality.  However, two big problems with this are that (1) nobody in either camp argues Sodom’s sexual sin was negligible (as depicted in Genesis 19, isn’t gang rape, regardless of orientation, always bad?) and that says nothing of homosexual relationships at large, and (2) the Bible is very clear about why destruction came to Sodom (spoiler alert: it wasn’t because of the gay sex!).  Ezekiel 16: 49-50 reads:

“Now 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.”

Now, think about all those pundits and pastors you hear imploring us to turn from sin, especially lettin’ the gays take over, lest America become like Sodom and take the fiery first of a pissed off god.  Well, I would argue that America is remarkably like Sodom already.  No, we haven’t sanctioned gay gang rape, but are we not arrogant, overfed, unconcerned with the poor and needy?  I mean, we are the best county, with our fat kids and *yay!* capitalism and all! The harping on the Sodom story is easily seen by the gay community as yet another example of the traditional Christian community settling for a seemingly willful ignorance of Scripture.  Why not unapologetically dive into the text an deal with context intentionally?

Beyond this, there are many interactions that the gay apologetic points to in Scripture.  Some argue that the passages on Naomi and Ruth, and David and Jonathan, are hinting at something beyond mere friendship.  Particularly interesting to me is Jesus healing of the Roman centurion’s servant.  The Greek word for servant used here, pais, has a significantly different connotation that the generic term for servant, doulos. A pais was a “very special servant,” and in generally refers to homosexual partner/servant common for Roman solders to own.  Jesus never addresses homosexuality in Scripture, but this would have been a perfect place to do so.  Nevertheless, he heals the pais with little explanation which (regardless of his intent) Jesus undoubtedly knew would be interpreted as a blessing of the homosexual union by inquisitors watching the seen play out.  Perhaps Jesus should have given us a bit more evidence speaking to his stance on homosexuality, but you gotta love the way he just transcended the debate, don’t you?  What an example!

My outlining of the gay/lesbian apologetic here is very brief.  It barely scratches the surface of the scholarship done, and there is a wealth of work in circulation for anyone interested in further study.  Beyond books, Marin suggests simply speaking with a gay pastor of gay Christian if you want to learn more.  Just ask what it’s like to be them.  Ask what they believe and how they arrived at some position, and then shut up and listen.  Marin tells of the shock he felt the first time he invited a gay Christian friend to his church.  The gay Christian friend sang the same songs Marin did, raised his hands the same, closed his eyes the same, felt the same depth in the worship experience.  Things like this are hard to swallow when you’ve always assumed “gay” and “Christian” are mutually exclusive terms, but conversation with “the other” always has a beautiful way of breeding new understanding. Whereas pontificating has it’s way of shutting out rational open-mindedness (alternately known as humitily), real conversation converts both of you in some way or another in ways that merely waiting for your chance to argue does not.

That is why pontificating and arguing against the other (and the other, for me and much of the church, has been the GLBT community) has failed, and will continue to fail so miserably.

all the gay stereotypes (Andrew Marin, Part 2)

Andrew Marin’s work, Love Is an Orientation, is all about opening dialogue between the gay community and the broad, conservative Christian community.  Both sides so easily see themselves as being oppressed in a culture war.  Think about it: how many times have you heard [insert: O’Rielly, Falwell, or your favorite pastor or Christian speaker] speak about the corruption of culture and how they must, at the very least, stop the onslaught from the progressive, gay agenda.  And then consider the other side, which sees a mass Christian culture (75% of American’s self-identify as Christians) who ultimately determine the laws as an enormous voting bloc, and hold enormous sway in the culture at large.  What each side really needs, Marin argues, is to get off its high horse, with all their cleverly crafted arguments for or against the morality of homosexuality, and develop the art of listening (i.e., with no agenda but to learn).

Christians, by and large, have given up the debate over whether or not having homosexual feelings is a sin.  Exposure and time have taught us to acknowledge that nobody controls their sexual attraction.  However, we can control conduct, and this is where the conservative Christian community tends to camp (generally with the “love the sinner, hate the sin” lingo).  We like to say that being homosexual is not wrong, but acting on that lust is immoral.  Marin points out that this doesn’t work so well in conversation with gays, because (right or wrong) sex is integral to how they perceive themselves.  As an analogue, I suppose I can understand how offensive it would be if the tables were turned and I lived in a world that was 95% gay.  If a gay Christian sat me down and told me that he didn’t think it was wrong per se for me to be attracted to my wife, but that it is wrong to act on that attraction, I would have a problem with that.  And it’s not just because I desire sex; it’s because heterosexuality is a central part of who I am.

Next comes the debate that is dwindling down, but that I still hear Christians fervently try to take: the nature vs. nurture debate.  Is homosexuality genetic or environmental?  Many Christians like to say it is purely environmental and not genetic.  Regardless of the wealth of data and studies supporting both perspectives on this debate, Christians tend to only listen to one side, and imply that there are no scientifically valid studies showing genetic links to homosexuality.  To me, this comes across as a very willful ignorance, a grasping for reasons to believe your position is the correct one.  Nevertheless, Marin contends that sexuality is so complex that this debate cannot truly settle.  Nor does it really matter whether GLBT orientation is genetic or not.  We concern ourselves with whether or not it is sin, and while genetic or environmental causes may offer evidence for consideration, they do not settle the argument of morality.  An act’s ontological moral status is not determined by genetics.  Anyways, my reading of Romans 1:26 (concerning giving up your natural sexuality for an unnatural-to-you sexuality) would dictate that it would be just as wrong for a genetically homosexual person to force themselves into a heterosexual marriage (and studies back me up with failure rates on this).  Personally, I think it’s fairly clear that genetics play a big role, but I will also be the first to tell you that that is some shaky reasoning to jump and affirm homosexuality on that basis alone.  The way we have evolved should give some framing for understanding the God’s intent, but it does not settle the argument.

The next stereotype Marin tackles is that of abuse.  The Church has often parried claims of homosexual feelings by marginalizing the root of such an orientation to being the result of childhood sexual abuse.  It’s a tempting conclusion to jump to because 1) it’s true for many GLBT’s and 2) it easily fits your already-concluded mental construct on the topic when you are looking for evidence that GLBT orientations are dysfunctional.  Hence, it is very common to hear preachers, pundits, and other self-proclaimed experts on the subject harp on the origins of deviant orientation in sexual abuse.  However, Marin notes that, while this is admittedly the case for many GLBT’s, research shows that only 7-15% of GLBT’s were abused as youth.  This is one of those cases where correlated facts (abuse and orientation) do not necessarily equate to causation.  It is also true that nearly 100% of cocaine addicts consumed milk as a child, therefore a correlationist could, by looking at such narrow evidence, conclude that consuming milk leads to drug addiction.  Or, more to the topic, we know that roughly 10% of males, and 30-35% of females will experience some form of sexual assault in their lifetime.  If the sexual abuse cause for GLBT were legitimate, we should then expect to see around a quarter of the entire population arrive at a GLBT orientation.  Beyond the absurdity of this, Marin will again point out that to relegate a person’s orientation to a simple cause is to fundamentally misunderstand how deep and complex people are.  While we must always be in the business of helping people move from dysfunction towards health, making such simple explanations isn’t rational or helpful.

One last large misperception Marin hints at is one I hear more than any other, the cause of dysfunctional fathers.  Many a preacher has concluded his sermon with a plea to fathers to step up, they say, because a gay child can be the result of a failure to parent well.  It seems almost a requisite for a sermon on homosexuality these days.  Name a paper, book, or sermon written from the conservative Christian view that does not make big of the father issue.  You can’t do it.  A few years ago, I heard a well-known minister make much of the fact that “I’ve never met a homosexual who had a good relationship with his father.”  This is again a problem with using a simple correlation to justify your side.  The problem for one, of course, is that there simply are plenty of homosexuals who have great relationships with their fathers.  But beyond that, there is, it seems sadly, just not that many boys that have great relationships with their fathers.  We hear about this issue in our culture all the time.  If we rounded up a hundred straight men and asked them about their fathers, we simply would not be that surprised to hear of only five having a great father.  And we don’t infer that they are heterosexual because of their absentee father.  But on the other side, if we round up a hundred homosexuals and only five have great fathers, we automatically jump to believing we have found the cause.  Why the inconsistency?  Because we want to find a simple reason to marginalize the way people feel if we disagree.  It is natural to us, sin nature even, to kill what we cannot remake as a clone of us.  Again, as Marin says, there is an infinite continuum to human sexuality, and to relegate a few choice items as causes for an entire orientation is overly simplistic and unhelpful, ignoring the complexity of people.

Next on the topic list: the Gay apologetic.

“Love Is an Orientation” from Andrew Marin (part I)

I recently finished Andrew Marin’s work Love Is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community.  I’ll say it’s a manifesto, a must read for the Evangelical Church.  Rarely does a book come across my desk that I would recommend with such urgency.

In highschool, Marin self-described himself as “the biggest Bible-banging homophobic person” he knew.  He reminded myself of… myself, actually (back in highschool, that is).  To Marin, the Bible was clear as day on the topic of homosexuality, and everything bad was a “fag.”  Friends he didn’t like were fags.  Teachers and coaches were fags.  If he had known any homosexuals, they would have been fags too (but then again, super-Evangelical highschool Marin didn’t know anyone who was gay).  Homosexuals were the perverts that wanted to corrupt society and have sex with your kid.  That was, at least, until after his first year of college.  In three successive months that summer, his three best friends came out of the closet to him.  He flipped out, and proceeded to cut his ties with the straight world.  He moved into Boystown, a very gay suburb community in Chicago, and had only gay friends, went only to gay bars, went only to gay churches.  Just as we have our token gay friend or relative whom we feel gives us our legitimacy to speak on the topic, Marin became the token straight guy.  He started the Marin Foundation at the age of 24, a group that seeks only to elevate conversation between the gay community and the broad conservative Christian community.  After immersing himself in that culture for close to 10 years, he is speaking out about what he has learned.

I approached Marin’s work with eagerness but also with much trepidation.  I had heard much of it, but had heard nothing of his stance.  I was little interested in him arriving at either of the well-worn options of “love the sinner; hate the sin” or “gay is ok.”  I’ve heard the arguments, based in Scripture and reality, from both the anti-gay and gay-affirming sides, and find the whole conversation sickening (as I alluded to in an earlier post).  But, surprise, I reach the end of LIaO, and still have no certain grasp of Marin’s position on the morality of homosexuality.  I learned a lot, but it was mostly on how to think rather than what to think.

I think a work like this warrants a series of posts, which shall follow this one.  But to begin with, I leave you with a few quotes erupting from his decade of immersion within the gay community in Chicago:

“They’re just kids.  Research now reports that the average age of someone who first realizes a same-sex attraction is thirteen years old.  It also shows that the average age of someone who declares their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender is fifteen years old!”

“… all the GLBT community wants from God is (a) to have the same intimate relationship with God that evangelicals claim to have; and (b) to safely enter into a journey toward an inner reconciliation of who they are sexually, spiritually and socially.  Really, these simply desires are not that different from ours.”

“Too quickly we turn difficult situations on ourselves, interpreting our experience as that of a martyr and concentrating on how to get ourselves out of whatever we’ve found ourselves in.”

“Always err on the side of meekness in spirit and conduct.”

“The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality.  It’s wholeness.”

“It is the Holy Spirit’s job to convict, God’s job to judge and my job to love.” -Billy Graham
“Realists don’t change the world; dreamers do.  Therefore become pregnant with a vision and birth it.” -Dr. David Yonggi CHo, pastor of the world’s largest church, located in Korea

“Communication in the Spirit breeds eternal understanding and righteous living.  But the overwhelming pressure to see a conclusion on way or the other inhibits this work of the Spirit.”

On misperceptions:

“…only 7 to 15 percent of the GLBT community was sexually abused in their youth.”

“…never use the word homosexual… homosexual has only been used as a derogatory biblical term… homosexuals sets off a domino effect of associations: homosexual= Bible= Christian= fundamentalism= anti-gay= anti-me… the simplest way to diffuse tension with a person from the GLBT community is to recognize their feelings and triggers, and work within those boundaries.”

“The best way to take gay Christians seriously is to presume that the Word of God is being taken in truthful reverence.”

“A great open-ended question is, ‘What’s it like to be you?’  Such a question owns the realtiy that heterosexual people can never fully identify with the life experience of gay people.”

On “Ex-Gay” ministries:

“…evangelical churches honestly believe  they are doing significant bridge building work within the GLBT community because there are a couple gays and lesbians who actively seek them out for help.  Christendom has been caught patting themselves on the back for working with the 20 percent of the GLBT community who sought them out.  What about the other remaining 80 percent- including those who consider themselves gay Christians?”

On Love:

“Love is an orientation that doesn’t scrutinize; rather, it observes… concretely seeks the best for another.”

… more on Marin’s work soon to come