Churches' acceptance of gay Christians--a long way to go

One of the drawbacks of blogging from a Canadian perspective is that we often lack relevant data on Canadian people, places, and things. Resorting to the American equivalent is sometimes helpful but often is not, because of our different culture or demographics. For instances, while nearly half of Canadians claim Roman Catholic affiliation, only about a quarter of Americans do. Just under 30% of Canadians label themselves as Protestants of all types, but evangelical Protestants alone account for almost the same percentage in the U.S. African-American church members represent 7% of American religious affiliation. This is not a statistic that would have any Canadian equivalent.

Consequently, the information that became available lately from the U.S. National Congregations Study, supervised by Prof. Mark Chaves of Duke University (yes, they do more there than just play basketball) has to be used with care in coming to any conclusions about the Canadian experience.

Nevertheless, it makes for interesting reading, and gives us a look at what is happening among places of faith in America (see http://www.soc.duke.edu/natcong/Docs/NCSII_report_final.pdf). Keep in mind that this study is of congregations, not individuals. A congregation could have 10 members, or 10,000, so one has to understand the findings for what they are.

I was particularly interested in the number of congregations that accept gay Christians, either as members or even in leadership positions. Here are their findings for membership:

Notice that the only congregations in a distinct minority position (24%) are the white conservative, evangelical, or fundamentalist Protestants. In the National Congregations Study, such churches represented just under half of all those that responded to the survey.

Of congregations overall, irrespective of religious affiliation/traditions, full membership was extended to the following:

• Someone who drinks alcohol in moderation - 71% of individuals, 53% of congregations
• An unmarried couple who live together -        31                            28
• An openly gay or lesbian couple in a committed relationship -                                                                                                                                23                            19
• Someone who publicly supports a woman’s right to choose -                                                                                                                                  41                            41

• Someone who publicly supports the right to life -                                                                                                                                                    86                            82

23% of congregations permitted gays to provide lay leadership.
 

End with the beginning in mind--a fancy way to introduce my Table of Contents

I'm a fan of the late Steven Covey, author of the best-selling (to say the least) 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. The aim of his "habits" is to move individuals first from dependence to independence or self-mastery, and then on to interdependence--learning to work effectively with others. Finally, he urged his readers to always seek self-improvement--to never be satisfied with the status quo.

Well, I'm using (some might say abusing) one of Covey's habits a bit out of context here. Habit 2: Begin with the End in Mind urges us to "self-discover and clarify your deeply important character values and life goals. Envision the ideal characteristics for each of your various roles and relationships in life." I'm relating it more to the process I use to figure out what I believe. I do so primarily through writing.

I was getting into my forties when I first realized how reliant I am on writing to clarify my thoughts and to spot holes in my knowledge base or arguments. I am a municipal politician, and I would find that as I listened to debate on any particular motion, I was writing frantically at the same time. What I was doing is getting down a framework for my own thoughts, noting what principles or values were in play, and where I lacked information, or thought that information was lacking in the debate thus far. This would help me to get past simple preference or prejudice, and to guide me more rigorously (I hope) toward to good conclusion.

I have found with this blogging I have been doing on theological/moral matters that I have been employing the identical method. While I may have some kind of half-formed (did I hear someone say half-baked?) notion on a topic at the beginning, I need to reason my way toward something in which I have more confidence. If I'm going to hang my hat on a conviction, I had better work it out as best I can first. Otherwise, I become nothing more than a retailer of secondhand ideas. It often means that by the time I get to the end of an exploration on a matter, I have to go back and revise the earlier stuff (what Covey calls Habit 7: Sharpening the Saw). Writing is how I get there.

[I wish I could say it was a more romantic process--sitting in front of a roaring fire, glass of red in hand, faithful dog at my feet as I pondered the great mysteries of life--but it is what it is, and wine would only compromise my typing.]

What I want to do now is to list a sort of Table of Contents, something most writers probably do at the beginning but which I am writing at the end, now that I've figured out what I wanted to say in the first place. Got that?

So here it is, my own little Table of Meanderings, Strivings, Puzzlings, Clarifyings, and Concludings. A hint: if you want to save a bunch of time in seeing where and how I come down on the subject, start with posts #13, 15, 16, and 18.

1. "There are no gay people in Sochi." 2/9/14. This introduces the topic of what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. It was written during the Russian 2014 Winter Olympics and quotes the mayor of the host city, Sochi. It looks at the very negative view of gays taken in Russia, Nigeria, Uganda, and elsewhere, and gives a quick overview of Canadian legislation on gays and gay marriage. 
2. The Bible according to football and and other fundamentalists. 2/11/14. The post begins with the very negative reaction of some professional athletes to one of their own coming out of the closet. It goes on to overview the various views (from very harshly opposed to gays to somewhat less so) of evangelicals and Roman Catholics. 
3. Sans Peur. 2/20/14. It is here that I first address what are sometimes called the "clobber verses" from the book of Leviticus, often seen as the foundational Biblical teaching against homosexuality. I also reveal my secret wish for a tattoo.
4. Now we know why it's called Air-izona, not Ahr-izona. 2/22/14. This is the first of several digressions from a strictly academic study of biblical material to a look at some highly discriminatory legislation against gays passed by the government of Arizona, but overturned by the governor. It illustrates just how many professing Christians have a deep hatred toward the idea of homosexuality.
5. Tale of Two Cities. 2/25/14. Further on the Arizona legislation and the contrasting reception given to a gay athlete in Brooklyn.
6. Leviticus lives (in a few places and for a few reasons only). 3/2/14. In this post, I look at the evolution in biblical legislation regarding moral imperatives and right living first introduced in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy and greatly modified in form and application over the succeeding generations in both the Old Testament and the New.
7. On the other hand.....3/5/14. It was at this point in my study that I began to get an inkling of how one could hold a high view of Scripture while concluding that the clobber verses may not be intended for the Christian era as they literally read in the Old Testament legal material.
8. Doing a Hank Snow. 3/17/14. I really enjoyed this stretch of study. I looked at the principles underlying the Old Testament legal material and how these principles were honoured in quite a different fashion in the New. The blinding (for me) insight was this: The great turnaround of the New Testament was that while the principles lying deep beneath the Old Testament laws continued to be honoured, the focus turned from an emphasis on external practices to an internalized value system with the application of the principles left to the person of faith to decide for herself or himself. From the point of view of the legalistic 1st century A.D. Jews, this was revolutionary. 
9. "Of course it's unnatural. How can you argue with Paul?"3/21/14. Here I began to address the alleged New Testament equivalent of the Levitical teaching on homosexuality, Romans 1:18-32.
10. Time to take a breather? Guess not, and Aw crap! 3/26/14. These two posts are my second digression from the biblical study to an expression of my great chagrin at World Vision first announcing that they would now employ same-sex married couples and then their reversal mere days later because of donor pressure. I still get angry when I think about it.
11. Okay, time to tackle Paul. 4/2/14. This is a long post, dealing with a host of New Testament material that indicates how Old Testament legislation was being turned on its head as the legalism of the Old Testament gave way to a principled approach to appropriate lifestyle in the New. Paul's teaching is addressed as well as that of Peter and Jesus.
12. Does he or doesn't he? 4/6/14. More on Paul, but also a look at the famous city of Sodom, historically the icon of homosexual depravity. I conclude that Sodom deserves a bad rap, that's for sure, but not for the usual reasons. I arrive at a critical conclusion at this stage:
    I am proposing then, particularly when we remember the Apostle's revelatory take on Levitical teaching (see my earlier posts), that it is not acts in themselves but the motivation for the acts that is in question in Romans 1. Paul is looking at men and women who, if they took their knowledge of God's nature, power, and priorities seriously, would be loving, merciful, faithful, self-disciplined, and concerned for what's best for others. But he sees just the opposite--including individuals who are seeking sexual satisfaction wherever and however they can find it. Note that the individuals in Romans 1 appear to be exercising a choice to abandon their usual practice in favour of another solely for sexual gratification. Paul turns himself inside out to denounce this choice and the degraded motivations that prompt it.
    
13. Let's take stock before plunging on. 4/8/14. I had to stop my blogging at this point to summarize what I had learned thus far before going further. This post is actually a good place to start if you are wondering what I am yammering on about in this series. It includes a quick overview of the seven passages of Scripture that explicitly address homosexuality.
14. Russell Crowe, Noah, reincarnation, and the Christian view of gays. 4/19/14. You could call this a semi-digression, motivated by watching the Russell Crowe movie Noah. I look at the ways in which a wrong view of Old Testament teaching can have international repercussions to the present day. Apartheid, slavery, and the U.S. civil rights movement are discussed.
15. Unclean Jesus? 4/23/14. This was one of the "funnest" parts of my study, where I first look at ways in which Jesus was unclean and committed abominations, yet was still sinless. 
16. Jesus committed abominations. 4/25/14. Further on what an abomination was in the Old Testament, and whether it was the same as a sinful act. I conclude that, by and large, abominations had nothing to do with sin. Remember that gay sex is called an abomination. But then, so is menstruation. And childbirth.
17. Why I think that Trinity Western University should have a certified law school, 4/30/14 and How a lawyer argues freedom of religion v. gay rights, 5/6/14. My final digression. I worked for Trinity Western University full-time for 18 years. I deal with the on-going (at this writing) issue of whether they should be allowed to have a certified law school despite their anti-gay code of conduct. 
18. King James, abominations, and gay sex. 5/11/14. Finally I reach my conclusion, feeling that I have retained my high view of Scripture and faithfulness to biblical principles regarding right living. If post # 13 is a good place to start, this would be the second one to read if you are in a really big hurry and don't have the time to wade through theological speculation. My conclusion is: The argumentation against the "sexual sin" of homosexuality rests primarily on what I consider to be ritual laws, intended only for a certain purpose, not necessarily linked to actually sinfulness, and divorced from genuine righteousness. A growing understanding of the relative importance of the two kinds of expectations (ritual purity and identity markers versus personal righteousness) is seen in the Old Testament and comes to full flower in the New.  As hard as my upbringing and my evangelical circle try to convince me to the contrary, I see nothing in a loving, committed, faithful, monogamous same sex relationship that violates the biblical admonition of loving God through loving one's neighbour. Such a relationship, at most, violated the code associated with ritual purity to worship at the Temple--as did intercourse between a husband and wife, menstruation, and childbirth.

King James, abominations, and gay sex

I was preaching back in the 1970s in a Plymouth Brethren church (not that the PB's would ever refer to their buildings as churches) in Ontario. As was my practice at the time, I used the New American Standard Bible for any passages I wanted to quote. I thought that the sermon (not that the PB's would ever refer to a message as a sermon) went pretty well. As I stepped away from the pulpit (not that the PB's..oh, never mind), a late middle-aged woman intercepted me with a tolerant smile. "I like the King James," she offered along with a gloved handshake.

There is no question that the 17th century King James (or Authorized) Version of the Bible was a literary triumph and is indeed beautiful to read. The loyalty that it won in the hearts of its admirers over 400 years was remarkable. But as a desire by younger Bible readers for more accessible English developed in the latter part of the past century and a number of new biblical translations and paraphrases hit the bookstores, a small but fervent minority of conservative Protestants fought a rearguard action. From this attempt to keep the KJV alive arose the (probably) urban myth of one loyalist who proclaimed, "If the King James Version was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me."

While I was eventually a convert to the New International Version--half a dozen of its translators were my seminary professors--I find that I still quote passages from the KJV, the only Bible in use when I was memorizing scriptures as a boy. And even now, I'll use it when looking up a word in a concordance because I'm not sure how it is translated in the newer versions of the Bible.

One such word is 'abomination'.

Now there is a mighty word! There aren't many terms that sound exactly like the sense that they want to convey. Its dictionary definition is 'a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, or habit'. Synonyms include hatred, corruption, and depravity. Nobody doubts your opinion, or your mood, when you label any act or object as an abomination. Just type the word into Google images, for instance, and look at the pictures that pop up.

Should you utilize an on-line biblical concordance to locate all of the verses that contain the word abomination in the KJV, the list runs on for pages. The Old Testament was full of condemnation for these hateful things--gay sex among them. A closer examination of the texts, however, reveals the following amazing discoveries:

• Eating shrimp was also an abomination. So were shepherds. And eagles.
• Many abominations seemed unconnected to any notion of sinfulness.
• A good number were connected to the behaviours of surrounding nations from which the Israelites were to differentiate themselves in establishing their own national identity. So to be uncircumcised, for instance, was an abomination.
• Jesus and his followers treated various Old Testament abominations as mere piffles (another word that sounds just like the sense it intends to convey).  

I've discussed much of this in previous posts since this past February. But I want to look specifically at the actions of Jesus with respect to the biblical legal codes and his apparent disregard for their on-going literal application. We'll follow with a reference to the writings of the Apostle Paul, who reinforced Jesus' view on legal matters.

1. Matthew 9:9-13 -  As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”  

The Pharisees are calling Jesus out for violating the Holiness Code by eating with people who were ritually unclean. Jesus responds on two fronts: a) He notes that his mandate, as it were, is to deal with people who need help, not with those who can claim to be ritually pure and otherwise spotless; therefore, being with sinners is not only appropriate but vital; and b) He quotes the Old Testament prophet Hosea (chap. 6 vs. 6) who makes a similar distinction between that which is only ritually important (sacrifice) and that which truly makes a person righteous (mercy). Hosea had taken the Jews of his day to task for their grave injustice by oppressing and exploiting the vulnerable. 

2. Matthew 12:1-7 - At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?  He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

Once again the Pharisees attack Jesus' bad influence on his disciples by not rebuking them for doing work on the Sabbath, not only a ritual impurity but a capital offense in the Holiness Code. Jesus  again reminds the Pharisees that it is vital that they distinguish between things that are simply identity markers of their Jewishness and that left them ritually pure or impure only, and those acts that have to do with genuine righteousness. He first reminds them of the incident in the Old Testament book of 1 Samuel 21 where Israelite King David ate bread that was reserved only for priests, a ritually impure act that did nothing to destroy his innocence in the matter. He goes on to note that the moment any priest entered the Temple he was breaking the Holiness Code in that it was impossible for a human being to be ritually pure at all times--yet the priests weren't considered to be sinful for doing so. Finally, he tosses Hosea 6:6 at them again: For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. Ritual purity versus genuine righteousness.

3. Matthew 22:34-40 - Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

I'll add here a portion of the parallel passage in Mark 12:28-34 where the legal expert's response is recorded, specifically vss. 32-33: “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

 Jesus having countered the Pharisaical concern for ritual purity pretty handily by reminding them about genuine righteousness, they bring in the heavy artillery, an expert in the law, who asks Jesus to suggest which was the greatest commandment. Apparently there was considerable debate among Jewish teachers as to which of the 613 Old Testament laws ranked highest. 

Jesus response is a masterpiece. He first quotes from Deuteronomy 6:4-9, known as the Great Shema and recited to this day by pious Jews: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the door frames of your houses and on your gates.

Then lest anyone think that he is suggesting that "these commandments" referred to the ritual purity laws, he follows up with this: And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ It's important to not misunderstand the English words 'and the second is like it', as if Jesus were saying that it's 'something the same'. The Hebrew idiom means 'the second is identical', to say one is to say the other. How one loves God in the proper way is to love your neighbour--pure Hosea 6:6 again. 

Clearly the teacher of the law got it--"Well said Rabbi," he replied.

[The Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, is replete with references to justice and mercy for the needy and that these are foundational to genuine godly living. One of my favourite passages comes from Jeremiah 22, where that great if gloomy prophet is lambasting the King in Jerusalem for his self-indulgent and exploitative ways, in contrast with his godly father, the late King Josiah. At verse 16 Jeremiah even goes so far as to say that doing justice on behalf of the poor and marginalized is identical to knowing God:

He (i.e. King Josiah) defended the cause of the poor and needy,
    and so all went well.
Is that not what it means to know me?”
    declares the Lord.

Note further that the reference to 'knowing' God utilizes the same Hebrew word that is used, somewhat euphemistically, for sexual intercourse, as in "Adam knew his wife and she bore him a son." The word refers to the most intimate knowledge of all kinds and is used of God's relationship with his people. 

Isaiah, the Prince of the Prophets, draws a similar distinction between ritually worthiness and genuine piety in the opening chapter of his prophecy, waving aside all of the worship going on (doubtless ritually pure) because the worshipers' "hands were full of blood" from their merciless lifestyles (1:10-17):

Hear the word of the Lord,
    you rulers of Sodom;
listen to the instruction of our God,
    you people of Gomorrah!

“The multitude of your sacrifices—
    what are they to me?” says the Lord....
Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
    Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
    I cannot bear your worthless assemblies....
When you spread out your hands in prayer,
    I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
    I am not listening.

Your hands are full of blood!

Wash and make yourselves clean.
    Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
    stop doing wrong.

Learn to do right; seek justice.
    Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
    plead the case of the widow.

 
Note in passing the reference to the sin of Sodom being injustice, not homosexual rape.

A very beautiful example of the preeminence of justice and mercy, eventually set to music, is from the Old Testament prophecy of Micah 6:8 (pictured above) that provides Micah's famous summary of God's bottom line requirements for his followers. See a nice, folk-y rendition of the passage at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi7q5BAyAAM.

Not surprisingly, when Jesus' brother James (a man who had to be weaned off the exaggerated importance of ritual purity himself) is asked to define pure religion, his response (1:27) is very similar to the Old Testament prophets quoted above; i.e., justice for the oppressed: Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress..]

4. Galatians 5:13-14 - You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

We'll finish off with that greatly misunderstood New Testament apostle and theological giant Paul, who had been as Pharisaical as they make them prior to his conversion. He even bypasses the great Shema itself in discussing Old Testament law, and goes right to the second half of Jesus' choice of the greatest commandment; i.e., justice through loving one's neighbour. 

Keep in mind that Jesus made the definition of one's neighbour pretty clear in his famous parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:36-37:

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
 
I hope that the point of the above is not lost on you. The argumentation against the "sexual sin" of homosexuality rests primarily on what I consider to be ritual laws, intended only for a certain purpose, not necessarily linked to actually sinfulness, and divorced from genuine righteousness. A growing understanding of the relative importance of the two kinds of expectations (ritual purity and identity markers versus personal righteousness) is seen in the Old Testament and comes to full flower in the New.  As hard as my upbringing and my evangelical circle try to convince me to the contrary, I see nothing in a loving, committed, faithful, monogamous same sex relationship that violates the biblical admonition of loving God through loving one's neighbour. Such a relationship, at most, violated the code associated with ritual purity to worship at the Temple--as did intercourse between a husband and wife, menstruation, and childbirth.

I think that I've exhausted my limited abilities to do theology from the ground up regarding the issue of homosexuality. I'll provide one more summary post, and then leave you to better, more knowledgeable writers for your future study.

How a lawyer argues freedom of religion v. gay rights

It's always interesting to see a church take its act outside the four walls of their building, digitally if not in bodily form. The public at large is always more varied, not to mention rowdier, than your typical congregation.

Abbotsford's largest church (and one of the biggest in the province) is presently posting on the TWU law school issue (see for yourself at http://northview.org/trinity-western-university-sexual-ethics/). Being traditionally evangelical in its doctrine, it supports TWU's contention that the only scripturally acceptable marriage is between a woman and a man. Needless to say, the church's blog has come under heavy (if sometimes emotional and poorly reasoned) fire from a handful of responders.

However, among the responses was one that I feel deserves a broader audience. It was written by a local lawyer who argued the merits of the TWU application for a law school on the same basis as I did in my previous post; i.e., not on personal beliefs about gay issues (pro in my case) but rather what the law would permit given Charter protection for freedom of religion. I know the gentleman and greatly admire his rather huge heart for the vulnerable. But I have no idea what his personal views are on the question of gay marriage.

At any rate, here is his post:

If you watched the deliberations of the Law Society of BC on this matter as I did, you will know that they most certainly DID NOT give “public endorsement to TWU’s practice of discriminating against members of the LGTBQ community and, further, granting legitimacy, in the public sphere, to TWU’s Christian view that homosexuality is wrong.” Member after member decried, condemned and dissociated from TWU’s covenant. 

However, because this was a decision about how to apply the LAW, the large majority of them (a) correctly considered themselves bound by the decision of Canada’s highest court directly on this point in TWU vs Teachers Federation, (b) noted that TWU is a private religious organization which is not publicly funded and is specifically exempt from human rights legislation on religious grounds, (c) noted that, as in the case of the Teachers Federation, there is zero evidence (you know, that stuff that legal decisions are supposed to be based upon) that a TWU law graduate would unlawfully discriminate. 

Some speakers noted that there are already numerous TWU graduates practicing law without a single complaint to the Law Society that any of them has violated the Law Society code of professional conduct in relation to discrimination. Then there is the fact that many lawyers in Canada were educated in foreign law schools (including those at Christian and Muslim universities) and no inquiries were made into the “gay-friendliness” of those schools. How about some equal treatment under the law for potential TWU grads?

I daresay that had the Law Societies of Ontario and Nova Scotia acted according to law instead of according to emotion, they might have come to the same conclusion as several other Law Societies.

Why I think that Trinity Western University should have a certified law school

Given my recent series of posts regarding the biblical teaching on matters LGBT, and my support for gay marriage, you might be surprised that I believe that my old employer, Trinity Western University, should be granted a law school. If you are surprised, then you are confusing what I happen to believe to be true about a certain theological matter with what I believe should be the flexibility that the state permits in matters concerning freedom of religion.

But first a little history. I was a business professor at TWU, and for most of that time the Dean of Business & Economics, from 1978-84 and from 1987-1999. For most of my time in its employ, I argued that TWU spread itself a bit thin, given its resources, by trying to offer as many majors as possible to attract students. If TWU wanted its graduates to make a difference, I suggested, it should throw its resources into the disciplines that have the greatest impact on Canadian society.

My conviction was that three societal institutions, more than any other, shape the Canadian social contract: the courts, the media, and public education.  Consequently, I was a major supporter of the development of the Education program. I urged the university to beef up the Communications major to make it more career oriented by switching it from the Humanities faculty to the Social Sciences. I thought that we should actually teach students how to be journalists and broadcasters just as we taught others to be nurses, teachers, chemists, and accountants. And I argued that we needed a law school, which would fit very nicely with the university's strong core of liberal arts and sciences.

As time went by, others picked up the law school torch and ran with it. And now it is almost within the university's grasp. I couldn't be happier. But the good ship TWU has sailed into very heavy seas as it attempts to navigate the law school proposal through to completion.

The issue against which the university's application has floundered is not new. Its attempt to be certified as a teacher training centre ran into similar opposition, based on what used to be called its Community Standards statement, now its Community Covenant agreement. The university takes the position in that Covenant that the only place for sexual intimacy is within the context of marriage. If it had stopped there, it might not have had the trouble it is now encountering. Perhaps such an expectation would have been viewed as quaint or Victorian or some other dismissive adjective but not otherwise objectionable. But the Covenant goes on to define marriage as between a man and a woman only. This is the point where all hell broke loose.

That statement is seen as discriminatory against gays. There is no doubt that it is. My goodness, the old Community Standards statement that I was asked to sign every year also discriminated against dancers and drinkers, two prohibitions it has finally dropped to save most of its faculty and students from certain rule-breaking. You can read the present covenant at http://www.twu.ca/governance/presidents-office/twu-community-covenant-agreement.pdf.

The gay issue is the cause célèbre these days, the litmus test of societal acceptance. This is understandable, given how profound the bias against gay Canadians has been historically, and how hard they have had to fight for equal rights in areas the rest of us take for granted. But even as recently as two decades ago, the stance that TWU takes today attracted little of the widespread and intense criticism it is now experiencing. Had this present level of concern for gay rights been the same in the 1990s, I wonder if TWU would have achieved the approval of its highly successful Education and Nursing programs. However, that was then, and this is now.

But lets look at the matter of discrimination practically (I don't claim to be able to argue legally). Firstly, any student can attend TWU who meets its admissions requirements--a policy that is no different than that of any other Canadian institution of higher learning. It discriminates against those with low grades, but everyone accepts that this is appropriate given the reasons that universities exist. Being less academically proficient is not accorded any Charter protection :-).

Secondly, every university and college has rules, and expects them to be obeyed. Try getting away with plagiarism, for instance, and see where it gets you. There are cultures where copying the thoughts and words of others (and even works of art) without citation is considered normal and completely acceptable. This "copying" shows respect and is seen to honour the original speaker/writer/artist. Students from such cultures (and I taught many myself) are rather mystified with our view on that matter. But strong sanctions against plagiarism, as North Americans define it, prevail.

[You could accuse me of an apples and oranges argument here, comparing plagiarism with homosexuality. All I am trying to illustrate is that rules that reflect an institution's opinion regarding appropriate behaviour are the norm in universities, even when these rule make no sense, or appear to be discriminatory, in another country or culture. Students enrolled in Canadian universities aren't asked to believe in all the rules, but they are required to obey them. Therefore, a student from a culture that does not share our view of plagiarism, should s/he be found guilty of such here, could experience discipline up to, and including, expulsion from the university for behaviour that would be rewarded in their own country.]

Thirdly, Trinity Western's hiring practices discriminate in that the university employs only Christian professors (along with administrators and support staff) who can sign the university's evangelical statement of faith, although they do allow for flexibility on how certain theological issues are viewed. The faculty over the years has been drawn from every shade of Protestantism, plus Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church. There is an affiliated Roman Catholic college on the campus.

But this discriminatory hiring policy is legally protected; i.e., TWU is not viewed as illegally violating human rights legislation by hiring only Christians. Here is how this plays out.

Freedom of religion is an important part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in fact, the first right mentioned:

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

• (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
• (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
• (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
• (d) freedom of association.

If freedom of religion means anything, it must mean that one can practice one's religion without fear of state sanction. The tricky part, of course, is that some forms of religious faith can be highly eccentric, and even harmful (e.g., the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Bountiful BC). But traditional, orthodox beliefs, such as TWU's definition of marriage, have not historically been seen as an obstacle in allowing faith-based institutions to participate in mainstream society, this despite the following further Charter provision:

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(While sexual orientation is not mentioned in so many words, it has received ample protection in subsequent legislation at both the federal and provincial levels.)

The way in which this balancing act (freedom of religion on the one hand, equality before the law on the other) is accomplished in the hiring process goes something like this:

Bona Fide Occupational Requirement -- As an employer, you may lawfully discriminate, based on an otherwise prohibited ground, if you can prove legitimate business reasons. However, you must be able to demonstrate that the workplace rule, policy, standard or criteria relied upon is a "bona fide occupational requirement."

The Supreme Court of Canada has established a three-step test for determining that what seems like a discriminatory standard is instead a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). In order to prove that the standard is indeed a BFOR, the employer must demonstrate:

1. that the employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
2. that the employer adopted the particular standard in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and
3. that the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that legitimate work-related purpose.

(Source: https://www.go2hr.ca/articles/bona-fide-occupational-requirement)

So, we have a university:

• that defines itself as faith-based, founded by a mainstream evangelical Protestant denomination (the Evangelical Free Church), that hires only Christians to do its teaching, a legally protected practice.
• that is a full member of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
• that admits students of all races and faiths. For obvious reasons, the majority are drawn from the Christian tradition, as these would be most attracted to studying there. But a large minority attend for reasons that have nothing to do with the university's faith position. Curiously, openly gay students also attend TWU (See my post at http://www.whollystretch.blogspot.ca/2014/03/leviticus-lives-in-few-places-and-for.html). I wonder if their views on the law school have been solicited by the university's critics.
• that has developed a behaviour code that the university believes best reflects what its faith teaches. Students are not told that they have to believe it, but only that they must follow it.
• whose students routinely rate it at the top of various rankings with respect to its quality of teaching, etc. 
• whose faculty earns many academic awards, including Canada Research Chairs.
• that has lasted over 50 years without any government funding.

It's "flaw" appears to be a definition of marriage (with which I profoundly disagree), at which few countries would bat an eye (including our immediate neighbour to the south), but which runs afoul of some lawyers in Canada on the basis of their understanding of the proper application of the Charter of Rights and other relevant legislation (and quite possibly their personal moral views as well).

It would be impossible to demonstrate that the position that TWU takes on marriage or gays in any way warps or biases its graduates, whether in law, teaching, nursing, coaching, running a business, or any other endeavour in which they may subsequently be involved. In fact, there are countless examples to the contrary. Just this past weekend I attended a conference of BC school trustees where I met a school district superintendent who is a TWU graduate. He and I discussed the current imbroglio in which his alma mater finds itself. I suggested that it was unlikely that his employer, colleagues, or students would feel that he should not have been placed in his important position because of some taint that could come from his undergrad institution. The very idea made him laugh.

Here's my bottom line. It can certainly be argued that there are gays who could not attend TWU either because they are in a same gender marriage or because they find the university's position too repugnant. I suppose, in theory, a same-sex married student could attend TWU provided that s/he agree to remain celibate while enrolled. But practically speaking, that is a non-starter.

I agree with these arguments. But on the other hand gays are not compelled to apply. There are many, many other universities and law schools in Canada that gays can attend, all with lower tuition. And there are openly gay students, as I mentioned above, who choose to attend TWU despite any reservations they may hold.

I recognize that what I have just said about gays is probably what institutions such as Bob Jones University in the U.S. south said about admitting non-whites in the 1960s and 1970s. Therefore, I am personally uneasy with even suggesting that it is valid to argue that gays can just go elsewhere. Why I make it anyway is that theological convictions about homosexuality being suspect are still widely held in evangelicalism (and Roman Catholicism) among laypeople, clergy, and academics. The evangelical world is a large one in North America. While the idea that gays are Hell-bound by definition has thankfully become a minority position, the belief that gay sex is outside God's will and that gays should remain celibate still dominates. TWU is one of Canadian evangelicalism's largest and most important institutions.  Therefore, Trinity's view on the matter is still highly relevant as far as freedom of religion issues are concerned. 

I guess I have to ask the critics, what did you expect of a university that defines itself as evangelical faith-based? That it would not act like one? That it would be indistinguishable from public universities in every respect? And who created the exceptions to human rights legislation, along with bona fide occupational requirements upon which the university relies for hiring, in the first place? The lawyers that comprise the Supreme Court of Canada. Now that the exceptions have been legally provided, are institutions supposed to be pushed to the margins for using them? How is that freedom of religion? That of the Parti Quebecois, perhaps, but hopefully few others. 

Students who do attend are taught by highly qualified academics and receive, if the rankings mean anything, a first-rate education. Its student body is as diverse as the students I taught for several years at the Univ. of British Columbia. TWU's students have ample opportunity to evaluate both their own convictions, and those of the university, just as I did as a Queen's University undergrad.

The university's courses and programs (including several graduate degrees) meet all required standards of any Canadian university. The university's graduates can be found in all of the professions, including medicine, teaching, university professorships, accountancy, scientific research, politics--and many are lawyers. Despite whatever stereotypes or conspiracies that some of TWU's critics might believe, TWU students are taught primarily how to think, not what to think.

Should that not satisfy the state? Or has the mindset that the Parti Quebecois displayed with their discredited secular charter taken hold in the law societies?

Do I wish that TWU would reconsider their views on gays and same-gender marriage? Absolutely. Ardently. It is an area in which the church has been mistaken for a long time, just as it once was regarding women, non-white races, and interracial unions. But I didn't get to where I am on the gay issue overnight. I'm 66 and it's only in the last ten years have I seriously addressed the matter. It is still in the relatively recent past that conservative Protestants generally have begun to reconsider long held views on homosexuality. A little patience is in order, provided that evangelicals put an honest effort into objectively considering the newer arguments.

But do I think that while they re-examine their position, they should not be allowed to run genuine university programs and professional schools, including a law school? Absolutely not. Freedom of religion is far too important for that.

Jesus committed abominations

One of the difficulties in sorting out Old Testament legal material is that we misunderstand the reasons behind its various formulations. Thus, we have Jews who to this day follow a kosher lifestyle, and others who may still be people of faith but who don't observe those old laws. Christians, by and large, have relegated most of the Holiness Code to the culturally-bound trash heap, although some still distinguish between ritual laws which no longer apply, and moral ones that do.

I want to spend a little more time on this because of the view of many Christians that homosexuality is immoral and that the only legitimate marriage is between a man and a woman, based to a large extent on the teaching in Leviticus 18 and 20, as well as Romans 1. It is this very view that is arousing such animosity among those critics who want to deny Trinity Western University, my old employer, the right to found a law school.

Of the many (613 to be exact) Mosaic laws that defined Israelite life in the ancient near east, a good number of them served as, for want of a better expression, identity markers. Keep in mind what I said in an earlier post--when the Israelites left Egypt for the Promised Land, they were by and large "Egyptianized", when it came to everyday life. There was not much that made them stand out from the dominant Egyptian culture. Many would not even have been monotheistic. Therefore, having taken the Israelites out of Egypt, God took the further step of taking Egypt out of the Israelites through a series of laws, commemorative feasts, even physical markings. Circumcision was one such example of these markers, the 10 Commandments another, Passover and the other sacred festivals a third. They built a sense of national identity and solidarity, and firmly established Yahweh (or Jehovah) as the one true God.

Other laws had to do with issues of being clean and unclean. This had nothing to do with physical cleanliness per se, or even with moral purity. The issue was one of ritual purity; i.e., being in a state of readiness to participate in religious rites. To be unclean didn't necessarily mean that you had committed a sin, but only that you were not in a fit state to worship.

[Editorial note: In my fundamentalist upbringing, fitness for worship included a jacket and tie for the males, and appropriate dresses or skirts for the females. But I digress :-).]

There were an amazing number of normal and completely acceptable human activities (e.g., a husband and wife having intercourse) that rendered a person unclean--not sinful, remember, just ritually unprepared for worship. For each there was an appropriate regimen that had to be followed to rid oneself of this ritual impurity. Here is a helpful list from BibleStudyTools.com:

In Old Testament times the ordinary state of most things was "cleanness," but a person or thing could contract ritual "uncleanness" (or "impurity") in a variety of ways: by skin diseases, discharges of bodily fluids, touching something dead (Num 5:2 ), or eating unclean foods (Lev 11 ; Deut 14 ).

An unclean person in general had to avoid that which was holy and take steps to return to a state of cleanness. Uncleanness placed a person in a "dangerous" condition under threat of divine retribution, even death (Lev 15:31 ), if the person approached the sanctuary. Uncleanness could lead to expulsion of the land's inhabitants (Lev 18:25 ) and its peril lingered upon those who did not undergo purification (Lev 17:16 ; Num 19:12-13 ).

Priests were to avoid becoming ritually defiled (Leviticus 21:1-4; Leviticus 21:11-12 ), and if defiled, had to abstain from sacred duties. An unclean layperson could neither eat nor tithe consecrated food (Lev 7:20-21 ; Deut 26:14 ), had to celebrate the Passover with a month's delay (Num 9:6-13 ), and had to stay far away from God's tabernacle (Num 5:3 ).

Purification varied with the severity of the uncleanness. The most serious to least serious cases in descending order were: skin disease (Lev. 13-14), childbirth (Lev. 12), genital discharges (Leviticus 15:3-15; Leviticus 15:28-30 ), the corpse-contaminated priest (Eze 44:26-27 ), the corpse-contaminated Nazirite (Nu 6:9-12 ), one whose impurity is prolonged (Lev 5:1-13 ), the corpse-contaminated layperson (Num 5:2-4 ; 19:1-20 ), the menstruating woman (Lev 15:19-24 ), the handling of the ashes of the red cow or the Day of Atonement offerings (Leviticus 16:26; Leviticus 16:28 ; Num 19:7-10 ), emission of semen (Lev 15:16-18 ), contamination by a carcass (Lev 11:24-40 ; 22:5 ), and secondary contamination (Lev 15 ; 22:4-7 ; Num 19:21-22 ).

Purification always involved waiting a period of time (until evening for minor cases, eighty days for the birth of a daughter), and could also involve ritual washings symbolizing cleansing, atoning sacrifices, and priestly rituals. "Unclean" objects required purification by water (wood, cloth, hide, sackcloth) or fire (metals), or were destroyed (clay pots, ovens), depending on the material (Lev 11:32-35 ; Num 31:21-23 ).

What could possibly be wrong with sexual relations? or menstruation? or childbirth, for Pete's sake?

Why should I be able to eat chicken but not pork? Couldn't one just slap a bandage on that skin problem and head off to the Tabernacle? Because these things made me sinful? Not at all. Their reasons were symbolic, as BibleStudyTools.com goes on to explain:                                                                       The purity system conveys in a symbolic way that Yahweh was the God of life and was separated from death. Most of the unclean animals were either predators/scavengers or lived in caves (e.g., rock badgers). The pig, moreover, was associated with the worship of Near Eastern chthonic deities (i.e., spirits of the underworld). Leprosy made a person waste away like a corpse (Nu 12:12 ). Bodily discharges (blood for women, semen for men) represented a temporary loss of strength and life and movement toward death. Because decaying corpses discharged, so natural bodily discharges were reminders of sin and death. Physical imperfections representing a movement from "life" toward "death" moved a person ritually away from God who was associated with life. Purification rituals symbolized movement from death toward life and accordingly involved blood, the color red, and spring (lit. "living") water, all symbols of life (underlining is mine).

Please remember that a ritually impure person did not have to repent as such. There was no sin in play, and therefore no required contrition. But a ritual purification was necessary as outlined above.

That's why I said that Jesus must have often been unclean. He didn't avoid lepers (skin disease being the worst form of uncleanness); he touched and healed them. Dead bodies? He raised them from the dead. A woman with chronic menstruation grabs his robe--no problem. She is healed as well. Jesus was, from time to time, unclean, yet without sin.                                                                                                 

And here is another curious point--many of these unclean entities, experiences, and behaviours were called abominations. An abomination that wasn't a sin!

Now that's worth exploring further.      

Unclean Jesus?

I feel like I am nearing the end of my study of biblical teaching on LGBT issues--not because I have established definitive conclusions that can be demonstrated chapter and verse, but because (as with so many subjects of modern interest) there is insufficient explicit teaching.

"What's that?" you gasp. "A topic that the Bible doesn't conclusively address? A monstrous suggestion!"

Well, not really. Of the controversial topics which have occupied a good deal of my professional and personal life, very few can be said to have the benefit of a clear body of biblical material which one can easily apply in sorting them out. Advice and opinion from equally fair-minded Christians has been all over the map. These issues include, in no particular order:

• Whether there is a Christian way of doing business. Canada's richest and most successful Christian businessperson says that there is not.
• Which political party to support, or even whether to vote at all.
• Whether one should bear arms or participate in war. My conscientious objector father-in-law, and my father who fought in WW2 and later became a cop, might see the matter differently.
• The acceptability of abortion under any circumstances.
• Ditto with euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
• Contraception. My Roman Catholic friends have a well-worked out opinion on this which I don't happen to agree with.
  
• Labour relations and the role of the strike weapon, particularly in the public sector (e.g., strikes by teachers and nurses).
• Vast areas of business ethics.
• Setting up independent, faith-based institutions (I taught at evangelical Trinity Western University for eighteen years, and worked for five years for the Christian Labour Assoc. of Canada, a Christian labour union) versus living out one's faith with integrity within secular and pluralistic systems (I have been a public school trustee for twenty-seven years and lectured at the Univ. of British Columbia).
• Bankruptcy. I wrote a book on this topic and encountered vastly different opinions on its morality both among people of faith and in society generally.
• The role/status of women in church and the family. While this issue is not what it once was (thank goodness), there are still many churches here in Abbotsford (which has over 100 such institutions for a city of approximately 140,000 citizens) where the muzzle is for all intents and purposes still firmly applied when it comes to women preaching/teaching and giving church leadership. 
• Capitalism versus socialism versus some other 'ism'. My wife's Mennonite cousin in Waterloo Ontario told me that Mennonites in his area typically vote NDP based on their commitment to social justice. He was gobsmacked when I told him the Mennonites here in British Columbia more often vote Conservative.
• What constitutes "the Gospel". 
• Divorce and remarriage.
• The acceptability of drinking alcohol. I side with Jesus on this one and indulge in all forms of the grape. A former academic vice-president at Trinity Western clearly saw such behaviour as sinful and only recently was the outright ban on TWU employees taking a drink finally lifted.
• Whether Hell or Heaven is the default destination for all human beings from birth.

I could go on, but I think you get my drift. At one time or another I have heard what are alleged to be biblically-based answers to all of these questions, but in almost every case the answers were as varied as the colours of the rainbow.

Which brings me back to matters LGBT. What I hope that I've demonstrated is--while taking a high view of the infallibility and relevance of scripture--that whether all forms of sexual relations between people of the same gender are unacceptable to God is not nearly as clear cut as those who boycotted World Vision for a day or two see it to be--quite the opposite in my opinion. When explicit teaching is missing, we have to go with principles, values, and objectives underlying biblical material, and with the broader context within which the teaching occurs.

I know that some of you, despite my best attempts to dissuade you, will go right back to Leviticus and its "unambiguous" teaching in chapters 18 and 20.  So I want to take one last crack at the dangers of using of Old Testament legal material to define present-day morality. And I want to do this for the following reason:

Taking Leviticus at its word, we have to say that there were times when Jesus must have been, in his Father's eyes, unclean.

I hope this whets your appetite to read on.