Why I Don't Congratulate Moral Superiority
A local pastor and city tourism board member in my area has recently published an article about why he doesn’t congratulate same-sex relationships. In an effort to offer an alternative faith-based perspective, I’ve put together these thoughts. Here's a link to the article for reference. https://cleartruthmedia.com/s/272/why-i-dont-congratulate-same-sex-relationships
Not surprisingly, the entire rationale for his lack of congratulations rests on the assumption that the Christian Bible is the single moral and spiritual authority for the whole of humanity. While I recognize the personal right to claim that authority in one’s own life, an important line is crossed when an attempt is made to claim that authority for others to the degree that you are willing to prescribe in detail how others should deny the legitimacy of their love and relationships.
If you are to believe that the Judeo-Christian Biblical tradition serves as the single moral authority for the whole of humanity for all time, it’s necessary to disregard over two hundred thousand years of modern human development before the relatively recent beginnings of Judaism around 3800 BC. Imagine how many societal epochs, religious traditions, and cultural norms lasting for generations upon generations have surely come and gone during that span of time, all of which had absolutely nothing to do with Judaism…much less Christianity.
To sustain the arguments of this article, you must believe that an anthropomorphic theistic deity sitting on a cosmic throne remained either uninterested or purposefully uninvolved in the lives of humans for hundreds of thousands of years until a moment less than six thousand years ago when the time was finally “right.” Aside from subscribing to the scientific impossibility of the young earth creation narrative, It’s necessary to believe that all humans existing prior to 6 thousand years ago were destined by god to spend 98% of modern humanity’s existence as forsaken and “godless,” not because the god you believe in didn’t exist, but because “he” didn’t care. In my opinion, this represents heartless, counter-spiritual, anti-intellectual/anthropological behavior masquerading as religious moral superiority.
As a spiritual voice in my community, I’m compelled to offer an alternative to the opinions expressed in an attempt to show that there are other ways to cultivate a spirituality that involves following the life and teachings of Jesus. For those of you who are a part of the LGBTQ+ community, please know that the views expressed by Travis Johnson are one man's views. Those views may be shared by many who believe as he does, but the fact that he is a local pastor does not give his personal views precedence over those of others. He is entitled to his views and you are entitled to disagree and to make your disagreement known. The numbered statements in blue italics are Pastor Johnson's arguments. My responses follow.
1. Same sex relationships are unbiblical. Not only that, they are contra-biblical. They go against the very words of Scripture. Why would you celebrate or congratulate something that God rejects?
Most biblical scholars agree that the Bible is not a uni-vocal source. In other words, there are many instances of inter-biblical contradiction. I don’t mention this to lessen its potential to be source of wisdom and truth, but statements that are based on the idea that an issue is or is not against the words of scripture are problematic. In order to arrive at those sorts of statements, it’s necessary to do something that everyone does to one degree or another. Everyone negotiates with the text in an attempt to decide what themes are more important to them, or what parts of the text are to be emphasized to prove their point.
More to the point of this first statement, to make a generalization about sexuality and relationships in the bible is to try to harmonize thousands of years of human development around an issue for which we have very little data. Sexuality and relationships during the development of Hebrew and subsequently Jewish culture were driven by patriarchal privilege and ownership laws. Males were afforded the role of ownership and were seen as inherently penetrative agents. The penetrative act was commonly seen as something to be done TO someone else. Even in a heterosexual context, romantic love had little to no place, and the penetrative act of sex was a functional right and responsibility of the male. To suggest that the ancient world of the Hebrews had any concept that coincides with our modern understanding of same-sex relationships and even heterosexual relationships based on romantic love is simply to be uninformed.
Same sex interaction receives an injunction at points in the Hebrew Bible due to the idea that it detracted from the male penetrative/ownership identity. It has nothing to say about sexual interaction that occurs in the context of a loving same-sex relationship, a concept that would have been foreign and unimaginable to ancient Jews.
2. You duplicate what you celebrate. If our culture celebrated faithfulness, childrearing, and sacrifice for the gospel, we’d have more of it. Want more same-sex activity in your relational sphere? Celebrate it.
What is it about celebrating faithfulness, childrearing, and sacrifice for the gospel that is precluded through the celebration of same-sex activity? I’ve known plenty of people involved in “same-sex activity” who embody faithfulness, are amazing parents, and who are exemplary followers of Christ in self-sacrifice and love. To suggest that “same-sex activity” prevents these qualities from occurring or somehow degrades their effectiveness is to expose a personal, moral, and sexual preference. It’s perfectly acceptable for one to believe this is true for themselves. It is an oppressive theocratic overreach to suggest such an absolute truth about all of reality. Celebrating all humans, regardless of their sexual identity or preference, as they seek to cultivate deeper love, care, and relationships, is not only unquestionably Christlike (Jesus had nothing to say about sexual orientation or preference), but also wise on an anthropological and social level. Purposefully protesting or being unsupportive of the cultivation of love in any form is an act of resistance to the nature of the divine as it is represented in Christian Scripture, thus eroding the potential loving fabric of society as a whole.
3. It is a violation of 1 Corinthians 5:11. If someone is engaging in such activity and professes Christ, then Paul tells us, "that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin." Celebrating it is not only associating with them, but encouraging them in that sin.
When taken out of context, any verse or series of verses can be used to underscore a particular personal moral conviction. The name for that persuasive tactic is “proof texting.” It’s far more challenging and respectful of scripture to unearth and attempt to understand the context around a particular passage. Firstly, the Apostle Paul is writing to a specific church about their specific issues. He makes no mention of this injunction applying everywhere to everyone. In fact, historians say the church in Corinth was at this point, only comprised of anywhere between 50 and 150 people.
Secondly, In the 5th chapter of 1st Corinthians, Paul clarifies what may be in his mind when he talks about sexual immorality. He mentions reports that there is sexual activity in members of the church that is not found even among the gentiles (some translations read “pagans”). Paul goes on to say that there is a man among them who is living with his father’s wife (at the very least, his stepmother, but perhaps his mother.) The verb translated as living with suggests marital ownership which further suggests intercourse, or incest as it is commonly known.
Thirdly, the entire issue in the beginning of the fifth chapter of 1st Corinthians is qualified by verses 9 and 10 which fully clarify Paul’s injunction of disassociation to only relate to members of the church who were engaged in sexual immorality. Paul never even comes close to saying that Christians shouldn’t celebrate caring, loving, faithful relationships between same-sex individuals.
4. It is confusing to other Christians. When we high five people over some big life decision out of a desire to be a friend, but it is a life decision that flies in the face of the teaching of Christ, we send a terrible and confusing message to those watching. Their interpretation, and rightly so, is that you are not displeased with their behavior or decision.
Jesus never taught about homosexuality in the Bible. Period. What he did teach over time was the practice of unqualified and unconditional love. John 15:12-14 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you.” Which person, based on their morality, are you going to deem unworthy of your high-five? If Christians truly believed in the teachings of Christ and the power of love, it seems they would understand that supporting friends who are seeking to cultivate a greater depth of love would be the FIRST thing to do, especially if they wanted to bear witness to a higher truth.
5. It removes an important opportunity to call people to repentance. Such moments are a great opportunity to preach the gospel of Christ, to tell of his saving grace and his ability to set them free from sin. How will they be saved without repenting? Who will be their preacher?
Thankfully, there is more than one way to understand the gospel of Christ. Equating the entire gospel with a theology of penal substitution discounts hundreds of years of orthodox Christian faith tradition in which substitutionary atonement was either not present, or not the primary doctrine of salvation. There are many different ways the church attempts to understand how humanity encounters and is transformed by the life and teachings of Jesus. A focus on “calling people to repentance” stems largely from the dispensationalist ideology and rapture-based eschatology of John Nelson Darby in the early 1800s. The concept of a “rapture” and of avoiding judgement and eternal punishment in hell through the act of “getting saved” is arguably one of the most recent innovations of evangelical Christianity, only coming into vogue in the last 200 to 250 years.
6. You're high-fiving one of Satan's victorious moments. Stop celebrating the victory of the enemy of your soul. And their soul. There is nothing to celebrate. This is something to mourn.
Assuming one believes in a personified devil who is some incarnation of evil, there is simply no way to substantiate this statement in the context of whether or not you support same-sex relationships. Love, in any context, is part of the divine identity. When we truly love in any context, we join in that divine identity. The intent of this article and the accompanying points is simply to equate a personal moral conviction with the end all and be all will of God. This is not a defense of “the gospel of Christ.” It is an offense to the power of love at work in humanity, drawing us all closer to the image of the divine in each other.