Tale of Two Cities

I looked at the two pictures below within minutes of each other as I enjoyed my daily morning ritual of reading the paper. I literally didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

On the left is a group of Ugandan children showing support for the country's horrific new anti-gay legislation. On the right is NBA player Jason Collins entering play with the Brooklyn Nets for the first time since declaring his sexual orientation.

Now it could be that in Arizona (and Putin's Russia) the laughter would have been for the kids on the left. Many Arizonians appear to share the Ugandan revulsion for what they deem "unnatural acts". While the legislature in Arizona only wanted to shun gays, make them second class citizens, and push them to the margins, it didn't propose that they be placed behind bars for life--not bars of steel at any rate. But their difference with Uganda is one of degree, not kind. In both cases, a certain orientation, a certain behaviour, has been singled out from all others for treatment that Canadians (and I dare say most Americans) would consider beyond belief. It is to my country's credit that our political leaders have roundly condemned Uganda's law.

In Arizona, proponents of anti-gay legislation lump such attitudes in with other "sacred beliefs". Can this position genuinely be defended on biblical grounds? That's what I propose to evaluate. I just can't seem to get at it for all of these breaking events. 

A former president of my old employer, Trinity Western University, once remarked, "God gets blamed for a lot of things." Where does our heavenly father come down on the pictures above?

Now we know why it's called Air-izona, not Ahr-izona.

As you, my faithful reader knows, I have been posting on what I think is a major error on the part of the Christian church--that being gay is, in moral terms, any different from being straight. But a quick digression here for breaking news.

I used to wonder why the state of Arizona was pronounced as if it started with 'Air', unlike say Arkansas. Now I know--it's short for Airheads.

I want to begin my post with this assurance--I'm not making this up. This is not some contrived slur to make citizens of that rather conservative state where a U.S. congresswoman was shot in the head for being a Democrat look worse than they are. This is real and you can read about it here: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/21/arizona-passes-bill-letting-people-to-refuse-service-to-gays-over-religious-objections/.

That's right. The legislature elected by those noble and, apparently, very devout citizens, has passed a law letting businesses refuse to serve gay people if homosexuality is against their religious beliefs.

No, I'm not channeling 1960 when American businesses would place No Coloured signs on their doors and send African Americans to the back of the bus. And I'm not confusing a state of the Union with the Union of South Africa and the apartheid era. This is a considered act by a Republican-dominated legislature in 2014 to defend religious freedom:

Republicans who support the bill pushed back against accusations it would promote discrimination, saying they are solely attempting to ensure people’s sincerely held religious rights are protected.
“Within religion, people are to love each other,” said Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park. “What we’re trying to do is make sure that we don’t force somebody to go against what they think is very sacred to their faith.”(Source:http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140221brewer-religion-bill-1062-controversial.html?nclick_check=1).

Very sacred to their faith? Something that goes beyond love? I wonder what that is. St. Paul's counsel to Christians was, So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. (Colossians 3:12-14).

This isn't religious freedom. It isn't a sacred belief. It's hatred. It's bigotry. It's discrimination of the highest order. Such beliefs as are espoused here are beneath contempt. They are indistinguishable from the rationalizations for racism or misogyny. Hitler had the same regard for the Roma, Jews, and developmentally challenged people as some Arizonians apparently have for gays.

I'm holding my breath for what comes next. The Jewish and Christian Scriptures are replete with lists of behaviours that are condemned on a regular basis. I'm waiting for those god-fearing (I won't say God-fearing because I'm not sure they know who the real God is) Arizona Republicans to pass an omnibus bill allowing businesses to discriminate against gossipers, materialists, adulterers, and slanderers. Perhaps they'll throw in the masturbaters while they're at it (although they had better check with their 16 year old sons first).

Beyond the issue of the moral and religious repugnance of this legislation, we have the practical matter of how to know when you are serving a gay person. Does one go by appearance? Rock Hudson probably could have avoided detection, not to mention Canada's own Ellen Page. Gestures? Clothing? How many straight women or men slightly to the left or right on the masculine/feminine continuum are likely to be challenged by a zealous merchant or lawyer or barber or shoeshine boy? Behaviour? I once watched a Russian hockey coach kiss every one of his players after a big win over their arch foes, the Canadians. Perhaps they could get some nice pink triangles from the purveyors of Nazi paraphernalia. That would simplify life greatly.

I have to hand it to Arizona, however. They have done the seemingly impossible. They have made McCarthyism look good.

Damn. I've tried to make light of the matter. But in fact, I think I'm going to be sick.

Sans Peur

I am a proud member of the Clan Sutherland. Our clan motto is Sans Peur (Without Fear). My daughter has it discretely tattooed on the inside of her left wrist. I have been thinking of doing the same thing myself, but I'm afraid it will hurt (I trust you noted the irony).

One of my relatives has several daughters. During a visit, one of my nieces announced that she was thinking that she might like to get a tattoo. Her father, who is rather conservative by nature, immediately whipped out his Bible and turned to the Old Testament book of Leviticus, sometimes referred to as the Holiness Code. He went to chapter 19, verse 28, which to my astonishment he had already underlined:

You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks for yourselves. I am the Lord.

For my relative, this was decisive. It was unequivocally God's will that his daughter should not procure a tattoo. What I wanted to ask him was,

1. Ever eat lobster? Shrimp? Prawns? Crab? Better read Lev. 11:10 where they are banned, along with several dozen other potentially edible living organisms ranging from rabbit to bear to snails to crocodile. Grasshoppers are okay, however.
2. If a man entered your house and tried to assault you, would you object if your wife attacked the intruder and saved your skin? Well you may have to fit her for a prosthesis should she immobilize him in the wrong fashion, as God's law in Deuteronomy 25:11-12 indicates: If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
3.  You are a pillar of your local church. If the grandson of an illegitimate person were to start attending, would you have any objection? No? Then clearly you haven't considered God's clear teaching in Deut. 23:2, which would forbid church attendance not only to a child born on the wrong side of the blanket, but also his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchild: No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
   
4. I sported a beard for about ten years. Unlike the rubes on Duck Dynasty, I got a routine trim. Should you have taken me to task for such obviously sinful behaviour? God says you should have in Lev. 19:27: You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.
5. You seem to love your wife and daughters dearly. But do you consider them to be, in human worth, about 60% of what you are? No? Apparently you should according to Lev. 27:1-5: The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels; for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekels...

I could go on for several paragraphs, but I simply wanted to illustrate the problem with using a certain kind of bibilical literature, written in a particular cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical context, and applying it literally to today's culture and context.

But while my relative would not consider any of my five examples above as relevant to life today, he and many others would quickly cite other teaching from Leviticus with respect to the issue of gays:

Lev. 18:22: Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Lev. 20:13: If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Given that these are two of a mere handful of biblical passages that address the gay issue at all, the question must be asked, Do I take these as definitive for making a decision about God and gays, or do they go the way of shellfish and untrimmed beards?

So you know what we'll look at next.

The Bible according to football and and other fundamentalists

While most professional football players showed support on social media for NFL prospect Michael Sam after announcing he was gay, Arland Bruce was not among them. The Montreal Alouettes receiver wrote an offensive message towards Sam over Instagram on Tuesday night, suggesting that the Missouri defensive end Sam should "submit to God." 

"YOW!," he wrote. "Mr/MSam you scared to rub on ------- and --- and ------- you gaey. Man up and do some --- push UPS and get on your knees and submit to God fully. Come out of her" Americas Trap. Lil homie don't go thru with it it's a trap bruh."

The message could cost Bruce his job as TSN's Farhan Lalji reports the Alouettes are expected to release Bruce. (Source: TSN)

I like Arland Bruce as a football player. He brings real sizzle to the game. He delighted those of us who support the British Columbia Lions in his time here. I gather that he is some kind of fundamentalist Christian, judging from  his comments above. Amazingly Bruce has both a gay brother and gay half-brother. But he is typical of many in the dinosaurian world of men's professional sports when it comes to the issue of gays (a word which apparently Bruce can't spell).

For instance, Chris Culliver, a member of the 2013 Super Bowl San Francisco 49ers, was asked whether he would have problems with a gay teammate. His response probably did not go down well in his team's city, given the large gay community there:

 “I don’t do the guys. I don’t do that,” Culliver said. “We don’t have any gays on the team. They gotta get up outta here if they do. Can’t be with that sweet stuff.”

He went on to say that if a player were gay, he should definitely keep it to himself: “Yeah, come out 10 years later.."

To my knowledge, no gay professional football player has ever acknowledged his orientation, at least during his playing days. I believe the same can be said for baseball and hockey. Only last year did an NBA player, Washington Wizard Jason Collins, admit publicly to being gay. While many other basketball players praised him for his candour, no other player has taken the same step.

This animus is probably more prevalent than even we tolerant Canadians realize. A gay friend of mine who lives in Vancouver, believed to be one of the world's most gay-friendly cities, said that a day does not go by that he doesn't receive some kind of slur or negative gesture to indicate a passerby's disgust with his orientation (indicated, I gather, by his appearance or some aspect of his behaviour).

There has been an evolution in evangelical thought towards the matter of sexual orientation and what it means for participation in church life. While more "liberal" or "mainstream" denominations have dropped virtually all barriers to gay involvement in the church (up to and including pastoral and even bishop's roles, and in the case of the United Church of Canada, denominational moderator), evangelicals have pitched various camps. 

Some maintain the traditional view that the Bible consigns gays to Hell unless they repent of their orientation. Such people often believe as well that gay orientation is a choice, and that a gay person could choose to be straight. See, for instance, the teaching of a Dr. John Oakes who produces a website entitled Evidence for Christianity. Please note that I have added the underlining.

You seem to believe that homosexuality is not a choice. I beg to differ with you on that. The homosexual community may try to present it as something we are born with and inevitable. I do not deny that some people are born with a stronger tendency toward this particular sin. Others are born with more tendency to alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, violence, and any of a host of other sins. The fact that one person is genetically more disposed toward one sin than another does not remove our responsibility to repent and to stop sinning. Those who are attracted to the opposite sex more strongly cannot use this as an excuse that "the devil made me do it" any more than those who are attracted to the same sex. All are responsible for their own sin. 
 
Will homosexuals go to hell if they do not repent? I believe that they will. I believe that liars will go to hell if they do not repent. I believe that swindlers, arrogant people, abusers, selfish people, manipulators and gamblers will all go to hell if they do not repent. In other words, all of us will go to hell if we do not repent of our sins.  There is no difference (Romans 3:10-12).  I will acknowledge that homosexuality carries some special issues with it, but in the end, there is no significant difference in how God will deal with one kind of sinner than another. 
 
You should tell your homosexual friends that God loves them, that they are no "worse" than adulterers, those who engage in premarital relations with the opposite sex and others who have sex outside of marriage. There is as much hope for them as for anyone else. All they need to do is to repent of homosexual acts (as well as all their other sins, just like anyone else), accept the love of God, make Jesus Lord, be baptized, and they will be forgiven of their sins, receive the Holy Spirit and be saved of their sins. (https://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/what-does-the-bible-say-happens-to-homosexuals-if-it-is-not-a-choice-then-how-can-they-be-held-accountable/)

Other evangelicals have taken a different tack. They have accepted, in part or in whole, modern scientific findings that sexual orientation is not a choice which a person makes, and that a genuine orientation is (or may be) permanent. Such people should be shown love and acceptance without any expectation that their orientation should change, or even that they have to repent of it, as they didn't ask for it in the first place. Nevertheless, they still view this orientation to be an aberration, and sinful if acted upon. See, for instance, a good summary of this position by the highly esteemed Anglican clergyman, teacher, and writer John Stott at http://www.ccel.us/samesex.toc.html. I don't think that I am misrepresenting his position when I say that high profile teacher and public spokesperson John Stackhouse of Regent College in Vancouver falls into this camp as well.

Pope Francis was saying more or less the same thing in his famous utterance about gays last summer:

If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?....The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says they should not be marginalized because of this [orientation] but that they must be integrated into society....The problem is not having this orientation. We must be brothers. 

His reference to the Catechism indicates his belief that while a homosexual orientation is not a sin, homosexual acts are.

A growing group of evangelicals are accepting that sexual orientation is not a barrier to the full love and acceptance by God, and total participation in church life, provided that the orientation is acted upon in the same way as the Bible teaches for heterosexual relations (monogamy, fidelity, etc.). As one fellow (and completely straight) church member said to me, "The time will come when the church will look back and wonder why we made such a fuss about this matter."

As I indicated in my first post on this subject, I fall into this latter camp. But as a Christian committed to the full authority of Scripture, can I hold this position with integrity?   This is what I will now begin to study. 

And we will plunge in at the deep end, with a scrutiny of the teachings of the Old Testament's Holiness Code, the book of Leviticus.

"There are no gay people in Sochi." (Sochi mayor Anatoly Pakhomov)

Given that Sochi, the 2014 Winter Olympics host city, is known as a centre for gay life in Russia, it is ironic that the city's mayor announced that homosexuality was not accepted in the Caucasus and that there were no gay people in Sochi (source: the BBC News). While his worship is not the first mayor to make vacuous statements about their city, Mr. Pakhomov was simply following the party line regarding the unacceptability of gays in President Putin's Russia, and the danger which they represent to society, children in particular.

But as uninformed and prejudicial as many see the Russian stance, it pales in comparison with certain African countries. Both male and female same-sex sexual activity is illegal in Nigeria. The maximum punishment in the twelve predominately Muslim northern states that have adopted Sharia law is death by stoning. In mostly Christian southern Nigeria and under the secular criminal laws of northern Nigeria, the maximum punishment for same-sex sexual activity is 14 years' imprisonment (source: Wikipedia). The most recent legislation, signed by the president without announcement, has made it illegal for gay people to even hold a meeting. The Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act also criminalizes homosexual clubs, associations and organizations, with penalties of up to 14 years in jail (source: Associated Press, Jan. 13, 2014 as reported by CBC News).

Uganda takes its opprobrium to an even higher level. As reported by the CBC News (Dec. 20, 2013):

Ugandan lawmakers on Friday passed an anti-gay law that punishes "aggravated homosexuality" with life imprisonment. The bill drew wide condemnation when it was first introduced in 2010 and included the death penalty, but that was removed from the revised version passed by parliament.

Although a provision for the death penalty was removed from the original bill, the law passed Friday sets life imprisonment as the maximum penalty for the new offence of "aggravated homosexuality," according to the office of a spokeswoman for Uganda's parliament.

The bill was introduced to parliament by a lawmaker who argued the law was needed to deter Western homosexuals he accused of "recruiting" Ugandan children. Homosexuality was already illegal in Uganda under a colonial-era law that criminalized sexual acts "against the order of nature," but the Ugandan lawmaker who wrote the new law argued that tough new legislation was needed because homosexuals from the West threatened to destroy Ugandan families and were allegedly "recruiting" Ugandan children into gay lifestyles....Despite criticism of the bill abroad, it was highly popular among Ugandans who said the country had the right to pass laws that protect its children.

Same-gender marriage, of course, is illegal in the vast majority of the world's countries (see the excellent map http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/map-same-sex-marriage-world/).

Canada's relatively tolerant attitude toward gays is a recent phenomenon. As a high school and university student in the 1960s, I was enculturated by both church and society to take a completely intolerant view of "homos" or "queers" as we typically called them. Justice Minister (and soon to be Prime Minister) Pierre Trudeau's famous statement in 1967 with reference to homosexual relations that "There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." sent shock waves through the country and was roundly rejected by the church. It was only in 2005 that same-gender marriage was legalized in Canada, just the fourth country in the world to do so at the time.

To this day many Christian denominations reject any notion that homosexuality is biblically condoned or that same-gender marriage should be permitted by the state. The more conservative elements within the church still see gays as Hell-bound by definition. But that theological position rests upon a remarkably small number of biblical texts. My project for the next few posts is to look at each of these texts in context and come to some conclusion of my own about what they teach. I should admit up front that my present belief is that the gay orientation is not condemned by Scripture. But I have never done a verse by verse analysis on the subject.

So here goes. Wish me luck.