{"id":1558,"date":"2004-09-30T19:34:20","date_gmt":"2004-09-30T23:34:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/nateptest\/2004\/09\/30\/shall-the-gay-inherit-the-church\/"},"modified":"2004-09-30T19:34:20","modified_gmt":"2004-09-30T23:34:20","slug":"shall-the-gay-inherit-the-church","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/2004\/09\/30\/shall-the-gay-inherit-the-church\/","title":{"rendered":"Shall the gay inherit the church?"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

The Revealer had a lovely piece<\/a> a few days ago about gays and the church.<\/p>\n

For those of us in the country’s secular minority, it seems intuitive that serious Christians and serious gays do not mix.<\/p>\n

But that is simply not so: Christianity itself is changing as
\nhomosexuality gains an ever more unapologetic place in our culture.
\nThis is true even if some Christian denominations are not changing
\noutright so much as struggling to articulate a fair position on
\nhomosexuality, and it is true even if some other denominations are
\nresisting a fair position (because even resistance betrays tension).
\nSince the 1960s, Christians have held meetings and issued proclamations
\nabout their official views on homosexuality, and many have shifted
\nthose views. This didn’t suddenly happen because of Will & Grace<\/i> or Queer Eye for the Straight Guy<\/i>;
\nit happened slowly, in large part because of gay Christians in the 60s
\nwho were not ashamed to admit their dual citizenship. And they still
\nexist, these religious puzzles wrapped in homosexual enigmas. They
\nexist in large numbers, insisting on their right to love Jesus and love
\npeople of their own sex. We should pay attention to these
\ncross-cultural emissaries because, as two recent sociological studies
\npoint out, the conflict over homosexuality within churches (and within
\nbelievers) is one of the most compelling, and telling, back rooms of
\nthe debate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The piece then goes on to discuss two new entries into the
\nsociology of religion, specifically dealing with how gays have been
\nreceived into particular congregations (participant observer
\nethnography).  The writer of the piece singles out one of the
\nbooks for higher praise, because she thinks it points toward more
\ntransformation.<\/p>\n

But she points out — in several statements — the crux of the matter for Christians.<\/p>\n

People who might ordinarily regard each other as nothing
\nbut bigots or buggers are forced to see each other as human beings
\nbecause, ultimately, they have to face each other every Sunday morning.<\/p>\n

And, oh, the pretzels these humans twist themselves into! It turns out
\nthat nothing threatens to undermine a millennia-old religion so much as
\nits own adherents giving voice to what they believe and why….<\/p>\n

As Moon points out, the in-church debate over homosexuality is so
\nexplosive because it threatens to undermine the illusion of unity that
\neach congregation requires to continue worshipping together. Not only
\ndo members’ opinions differ, even when they basically agree, their
\ncreative views on sexual morality reveal how imaginative, and
\nartifice-laced, the very phenomenon of faith is.
\nAfter spending nearly two years in two separate congregations, one
\nliberal, the other more conservative, Moon discovered that anti-gay
\nChristians felt they had a common foe — not your garden-variety pansy,
\nbut politics….<\/p>\n

The political exhaustion of such remarks is not unique to anti-gay
\nChristians; what’s unique to them is the perception that, for instance,
\nthe church’s old struggle with civil rights is fundamentally different
\nfrom its current struggle with homosexuality. Indeed, Moon finds many
\nChristians who debate the niceties between embracing minorities and
\nendorsing homosexuality: Social justice is okay for ex-slaves, but gay
\nmen and lesbians are trounced by six disputed passages in the Bible….<\/p>\n

Moon argues that politics — that is, power struggles in their most
\nbasic form — exist inside each congregation. To get to Jesus, you have
\nto go through the disciples, and even they were not free of schemers….<\/p>\n

And, what’s more, only one force can remind Christians of their social-justice heritage — other Christians….<\/p>\n

After all, when Moon makes crucial observations about pro-gay
\nChristians — they should stop endorsing homosexual suffering as a
\nreason for Christian tolerance, and stop air-brushing the physical
\nreality of sex between any permutation of genders, but rather answer
\nthe “It’s not moral!” charge very directly with “It is moral!” — she
\nis offering useful information to ordinary people. If Christians are to
\nredress the injustice in their own faith, they need to recognize that
\nfaith may be spiritual, but church is a social institution. Moon’s
\nresearch shows that many Christians are cultivating the cynicism with
\nwhich they view “merely human” (i.e., political) dialogue and change….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Many Christians believe that there exists some form of separation
\nbetween the spiritual and the material, between the church and the
\nsociety, between religion and politics, between the City of God and the
\nCity of Man.  Which is a strange thought to hold in one’s mind
\nthese days, as the supposition of a separated religious and social
\nsphere grows less and less.  (This is an observation, rather than
\na judgment.)<\/p>\n

Augustine wouldn’t agree.  The Reformers wouldn’t agree. 
\nChrist wouldn’t agree.  Central to the basic teachings of the
\nChristian religion is that God is present in all times and spaces in
\nthe universe.  You can’t go anywhere without God, you can’t
\nseparate God out from some activities, you can’t limit God.<\/p>\n

But, as been said a number of times in this space and many others, the
\nChristian teachings at the heart of the religion prove radically
\nrevolutionary and upsetting to all that we hold as ordered in the
\nsocial realm.<\/p>\n

The Gospel passage this last Sunday was the story of “the rich man, poor Lazurus, and Father Abraham.”  Here it is in full.<\/p>\n

“There once was a rich man, expensively dressed in the
\nlatest fashions, wasting his days in conspicuous consumption. A poor
\nman named Lazarus, covered with sores, had been dumped on his doorstep.
\nAll
\nhe lived for was to get a meal from scraps off the rich man’s table.
\nHis best friends were the dogs who came and licked his sores.
\n“Then he died, this poor man, and was taken up by the angels to the lap
\nof Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell and in
\ntorment, he looked up and saw Abraham in the distance and Lazarus in
\nhis lap.He
\ncalled out, “Father Abraham, mercy! Have mercy! Send Lazarus to dip his
\nfinger in water to cool my tongue. I’m in agony in this fire.’
\n“But
\nAbraham said, “Child, remember that in your lifetime you got the good
\nthings and Lazarus the bad things. It’s not like that here. Here he’s
\nconsoled and you’re tormented. Besides, in all these
\nmatters there is a huge chasm set between us so that no one can go from
\nus to you even if he wanted to, nor can anyone cross over from you to
\nus.’
\n“The rich man said, “Then let me ask you, Father: Send him to the house of my father <\/sup>where I have five brothers, so he can tell them the score and warn them so they won’t end up here in this place of torment.’
\n“Abraham answered, “They have Moses and the Prophets to tell them the score. Let them listen to them.’
\n“”I
\nknow, Father Abraham,’ he said, “but they’re not listening. If someone
\ncame back to them from the dead, they would change their ways.’
\n“Abraham
\nreplied, “If they won’t listen to Moses and the Prophets, they’re not
\ngoing to be convinced by someone who rises from the dead.'”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There’s a radical social upheaving going on
\nhere.  Lazarus did not DO anything to merit getting the good after
\nhe died.  The rich man may have been quite moral, even if
\nrich.  Each man’s moral status appears of no consequence to his
\neventual fate.  Those who have already have their reward, and
\nthose who don’t will see their lives turn around.  The poor, the
\ndespised, the unjustly treated, the rejected — all these, the Gospel
\nseems to say, will be relieved.<\/p>\n

And it’s something of this trend picked out in the two books that the
\nRevealer examines.  Gays hold the despised, tolerated, rejected
\nposition in today’s rich-world church.  I think that the injustice
\nwith which the Western-world parts of Christianity treat gays,
\nlesbians, bisexuals, and trans people demonstrates us not living up to
\nour own Gospel.  It’s a hard Gospel to live up to, and if we did
\nour wholel live would be turned over.<\/p>\n

But we’re all pretty rich.  And if the story says anything, it
\ntells us that all of us — gays and all unjustly treated here — have a
\nlot to think about with regard to the poor all over the place.  <\/p>\n

Politics is not the enemy, social justice is not the enemy, gays or
\nconservatives are not the enemy.  We ourselves are our own enemy.<\/p>\n

As the Revealer points out, the only people who can remind Christians
\nof their obligations are the other Christians.  It’s precisely the
\nfact that they’ve all got to meet on Sunday mornings and that they’ve
\nall got to deal with the politics of that social institution that is
\nthe contemporary church that offers the chance to work and change each
\nother.  Sure not all Christians do a very good job of following
\nChrist.  But one hopes there is enough yeast in the Christian
\ndough to work its way through and raise them up.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Revealer had a lovely piece a few days ago about gays and the church. For those of us in the country’s secular minority, it seems intuitive that serious Christians and serious gays do not mix. But that is simply not so: Christianity itself is changing as homosexuality gains an ever more unapologetic place in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":709,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[47],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-rayleejun"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5G3PH-p8","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1558","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/709"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1558"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1558\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1558"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1558"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1558"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}