This Is Why I Belong to My Church

I'm not particularly religious. In fact, I'm pretty damn close to being an agnostic. I question everything in the Bible and in traditional Christian dogma, and the only thing that I feel sure of is that there is such a thing as God. I only feel sure of that because I can't imagine the universe appearing out of nothing; some force had to have created it.

To anybody who knows me or who has read some of the previous entries on my blog, this is old news. I will gladly discuss my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) to anybody who listens. However, what I don't think I've talked about here a whole lot is that I actually do go to church. I am a member of Living Table United Church of Christ, and if it wasn't for that church I'm pretty sure I would've turned my back on Christianity long ago.

I guess the reason why I love being a member of Living Table is because everyone is welcome there, even those who wouldn't be welcome at other so-called "Christian" churches. Much of the congregation is made up of members of the GLBTQ community, a group that I feel has been unfairly ostracized and vilified all too often in mainstream Christianity for things that I've come to believe aren't even sinful. I have to admit to being a little nervous the first time I went to Living Table. I may be a GLBTQ ally, but I'm not part of that community. I half expected someone in the congregation to question my reasons for being there and tell me that I don't belong. That never happened. I was welcomed with open arms, just like everyone else who attends a service either as a visitor or member of the congregation. There are Christians, agnostics, pagans and at least one person who was raised Jewish in the congregation, and while most of them are GLBTQ it's clear that Living Table isn't intended as a "gay church" like I'm sure certain people would call it. Everyone is welcome and accepted there, and nobody is called upon to change who they are and repent their "sinful" lifestyles. That's what attracted me to the church, and that's why I'm proud to be a member.

And yet, my membership of Living Table doesn't change the fact that I think Christianity in America is royally screwed up for the most part. I got a sad reminder of that yesterday when I had heard that our pastor was performing a funeral service. Of course, that's not unusual. Pastors perform funeral services all the time. The thing that bothered me about this was that our pastor was the fifth pastor asked to perform the funeral. The first four who were asked refused to do it.

Why would four different pastors refuse to honor the passing of one of God's own children? Well, it turns out that this particular child of God was a transgender sex worker and therefore a sinner whose life is apparently better served as an example of how not to live.

I was stunned when I heard this news, but I probably shouldn't have been. I came to the conclusion long ago that much of mainstream American Christianity is horribly intolerant. I'm not sure if it's getting worse or if people these days are more likely to express things that conservative Christians frown upon, but it's getting harder and harder for me to hear about Christians and not imagine a group of elitist bigots who are quick to pass judgment on anybody different from them. I understand that not everybody will be comfortable with someone who is transgender, and I know plenty of people think sex work is amoral, but refusing to show respect for a person by not performing their funeral goes against everything that Christianity is supposed to stand for. I was taught that Christians should not only be compassionate and caring, but also forgiving. The fact that four pastors refused to perform this person's funeral is just sickening.

I like to call myself an agnostic Christian. The only reason why I don't call myself completely agnostic is because of Living Table and the brand of Christianity of the United Church of Christ. As far as I'm concerned, that is real Christianity; refusing to honor someone who has just died because you didn't approve of their lifestyle is not Christian.

Yes, Listen to the bigot. You might learn something.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Bryan Fischer, president of The American Family Association.

(Note: Before you watch the following video, know that I do not agree with or endorse anything it says.  What you are about to hear is vile, disgusting bullshit spewed from the mouth of a vile, disgusting human being.)




You may be wondering why I, a staunch advocate for GLBT rights and same-sex marriage, decided to post this.  I should hate this video with every fiber of my being, but I can't.  The truth is that I'm actually kind of glad that Fischer made his point of view known.  I'm glad that he came out and said that not only is he firmly against homosexuality, but that he believes that Christians should be able to discriminate against GLBT people.

This all might sound crazy, but to me it does make some kind of sense.  As an advocate for GLBT rights, I often find myself surrounded by like-minded people.  Most of my friends these days are GLBT or GLBT supportive.  There are a few who aren't, but for the most part they're respectful and civil enough to not openly discriminate against GLBT people.  The thing about almost always being around people who are accepting of GLBT people is that I'm not often exposed to anybody with a truly hateful or prejudiced mindset.  It's almost like I forget that there are still plenty of truly homophobic people out there, people who still believe that there is a "homosexual agenda" that will destroy this country unless we start treating gay people as subhuman.

I sometimes need a reminder of what GLBT people and their allies are truly fighting against.  It's too easy for me to look around at the many happy same-sex couples that I know and marvel at how much better life is for them than it would've been just a few decades ago.  It's too easy for me to forget that there are people that truly believe that gays are horrible people who are no different from deranged criminals or terrorists, so much so that I'm shocked whenever someone like Bryan Fischer steps forward and voices his hateful and prejudiced views on homosexuality.

I cannot let myself be shocked by this though, and neither should anyone else.  The fact of the matter is that while things have gotten better for GLBT people across the country, homophobia and prejudice towards anybody who is openly not straight are still serious problems.  Things like this video and the radio show where I'm sure Fischer regularly spews similarly vile, disgusting bullshit are reminders of this.  We need to know that mindsets such as this are still out there, and that we need to fight against it.

So when you hear somebody talking about how much of a threat the "homosexual agenda" is to religious freedom, don't get angry at the people saying these things.  They're letting us know what GLBT people and their allies are up against.  Thanks to them, we know about the attitudes we need to change.  It's these attitudes that truly deserve your anger, and hopefully in a few years we can convince others how archaic and backwards this discriminatory mindset really is.

An Agnostic who Believes in Jesus

Today, I’m going to talk about religion and Christianity. Again. I don’t mean to sound like a broken record on this blog, but religion has always been a subject of great interest to me. I’ve also had something of a crisis of faith over the past several months that has had me questioning my own Christian beliefs. I was raised to be a Christian, but many of the “Christians” I see are some of the nastiest, most judgmental, ignorant and bigoted people I’ve come across. It makes me wonder if the path of Christianity is truly meant for me. That being said, I thought I’d give my interpretation on the history of Christianity. I should probably do some research and be prepared to back up my statements, but that’s not the point of this little exercise. Take this as the point of view of someone who once called himself a Christian but is now more of an agnostic who believes in Jesus. And yes, I believe that is a thing. An agnostic can still believe in Jesus. Bear with me and you’ll see what I mean. * * * In the beginning, the Universe was without form, or at least any kind of form that we know. It existed as a dense, hot singularity until some abstract force acted on it and caused it to expand. This is known to modern scientists as the Big Bang, and it was the beginning of the Universe as we know it. The force that acted on the singularity is bigger, more powerful, more abstract and more mysterious than anything we can comprehend, and there is no way any human being can truly know what it is. As the Universe expanded, stars and planets began to form. After billions of years, one of these planets became capable of supporting life. We know this planet as Earth. After billions of years of evolution, modern human beings became the dominant species on Earth. These humans became aware of the world around them to decide that the abstract force that created the Universe must be watching over them. As people have a tendency to do, they attempted to personify this force. They called it many names and experienced it in different ways, but to keep things simple we’ll call this force God. People everywhere worshipped God in different ways, and this gave rise to several religions all over the world. One of these religions was Judaism, followed by people in what is now the Middle East. These people believed that they were “God’s chosen people,” and that they would one day be saved by a Messiah who was the Son of God. Many people believe that this Messiah was a man named Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was something of a radical who questioned and challenged many of the religious teachings of the time. He also taught that we should love our enemies and do unto others as we would have them do unto us. He gained many followers during His time, but those in power didn’t take kindly to the way He questioned their authority and ultimately had Him executed. It was believed that He came back from the dead, thus demonstrating His power over death and proving to His followers that He was the Son of God. Of course, not everyone believed that a man had come back from the dead or that He was truly the Son of God. After all, it’s a hard thing for a person to believe. His followers attempted to spread His teachings, and while many of them were mocked and even killed for their beliefs, eventually some very powerful people decided that this new religion called Christianity was the one true faith. This led to the foundation of the Catholic church, which eventually spread Christianity to all parts of the world. By this time it looked as if Jesus really was the Son of God, and that He and His followers did what they were always meant to do. It was during this time that the holy Scriptures of Christianity was canonized into one book, known as the Bible. Many people all over the world believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God to this day, but there are some problems with that belief. First of all, the 66 books that make up the Bible are far from the only Scripture that pertains to Jewish or Christian beliefs. They were only what the church believed to be relevant. Second of all, the Bible has been translated and reinterpreted so many times that it’s difficult to know exactly what the original meaning of what some of the Scriptures were meant to be, and the fact that many of the stories presented in the Bible predate the written word just makes things more confusing. While much of the Bible is true, much of it is also full of folklore that was not meant to be taken literally, and some of the mistranslations and misinterpretations over the years have filled the book with things that simply aren’t true. Faith can be a powerful thing however, and over time the folklore and half-truths were taken as absolute truth. Armed with the not-always-infallible Bible and a position of nearly absolute power, the leaders of the church began to impose their will on the rest of the world while passing it off as the will of God. Teachings that were meant to keep people in line became church dogma, and after several generations few people bothered to question any of it. Even different denominations of Christianity that broke away from the Catholic church fell into the same traps. The dogma of the churches allowed people to persecute and condemn others who didn’t fit into a specific mold of what a Christian should be, and soon this beautiful religion of peace that was meant to be founded on teachings such as “Love your enemies” and “Love your neighbor” became a bone of contention to modern people at best and a breeding ground for hatred and bigotry at its worst. There are still people who forego the more extreme and hateful dogmatic teachings and follow the teachings of Jesus, and they do provide hope for the future, but sadly the damage to Christianity’s reputation has been done. So now the question after that long-winded explanation is this: where do I fit in? I was raised as a Christian to be a Christian, but I’ve grown so disillusioned with church dogma and the hypocrisy of those claiming to follow Jesus that I find it hard to fall in line. I still believe in the teachings of Jesus, mainly because it’s hard to argue with anybody who says that we should love our neighbors and help the lowest, poorest and most “wretched” of people. It’s a beautiful message, and I would be hard pressed to find someone who isn’t moved by it even a little bit. I’d like to believe that Jesus was also the Son of God and that He did rise from the dead, but I’m both skeptical and open-minded enough to think that may not be the case. For now, I choose to look up to Jesus as a kind and wise teacher as well as someone who wasn’t afraid to question an unfair status quo. I have to plead ignorance of everything else while I make my own path in the world simply because I cannot know about anything else having to do with this force we call God. That’s the best I can do, and that’s the reason why I can call myself an agnostic who believes in Jesus.

Homosexuality and the Bible, Part Two of Whatever

In my last blog post I touched on the always-controversial topic of homosexuality and the Bible. Specifically, I talked about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and how it really doesn't hold up as well as a condemnation of homosexuality as some people believe it does. I was planning on returning to the topic and discussing other Biblical passages that seem to condemn homosexuality and submit what I hoped would be a sound argument against the notion that you cannot be a queer or queer-friendly Christian. That was a month and a half ago, and while it may seem that I've forgotten all about it, rest assured that I have not. This is still a topic of great interest to me, and I would like to do my best to at least touch on the so-called "clobber passages" and defend my status as both a Christian and an ally of the GLBT community.

In my last post, I decided that citing the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was not a good way to "prove" that God hates homosexuality. While I do stand by that, I can understand why it's often used as a clobber passage. If we were to interpret the way so many conservative homophobes have over the years, it essentially says that God will destroy you and your home if you are gay. I can't really think of a harsher warning than that. If someone really wanted to scare someone away from being gay (as if that was possible), threatening them with fire falling out of the sky sounds like a good way to do so. Still, there's nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that the people of Sodom were killed for being gay, so using it as a warning against the homosexual lifestyle is questionable at best.

Since the story of Sodom and Gomorrah shouldn't really be used as a warning against homosexuality, the next go-to passage in the Bible used to condemn homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22, which reads in the King James Bible as such:

"Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination."

If that sounds bad, Leviticus 20:13 is even worse:

"If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

That is really harsh. I can definitely see why these two are used as clobber passages. They are also the passages that more than ever make me question my Christian beliefs. I'd like to think that Christianity is a religion of peace, love and forgiveness. I don't want to be told that not only are all gay people (or gay men, anyway) sinners, but that they deserve to be executed. It goes against everything that I've come to believe, and these passages are brought up so often that it's easy for someone to think that being a Christian means hating gay people.

Then again, just like the story of Sodom's destruction, these passages are open to interpretation. Yes, it is rather difficult to argue that these passages aren't talking about sex between two men, but as always it's important to know their Biblical and historical context. Leviticus 18:22 is part of the Mosaic code, which states that there are two types of sin: moral sin and ceremonial uncleanliness. Moral sin is deliberate rebellion against God. This is thought to be expressed in the original Hebrew text as "toeyvah," which becomes "abomination," "detestable" or "enormous sin" in many English translations. The transliterated Hebrew texts reads as: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." If "toeyvah" means what traditional English translations would have us all believe, then sex between two men would indeed be "an abomination." Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on where you stand on this issue), homosexual sex appears to not be a moral sin within the context of the rest of Leviticus but a ceremonial uncleanliness. Ceremonial uncleanliness refers to coming into contact with a forbidden object or performing a forbidden act. An unclean act may have been perfectly acceptable for non-Hebrews, but it was forbidden to Hebrews. Those who were "unclean" were often put to death or exiled from their tribe.

I know that what I've said so far does not seem too supportive of my opinion that being gay isn't a sin. At a glance, it does appear that Leviticus 18:22 states that gay people are unclean, and that Leviticus 20:13 says that they should be put to death. Then again, Leviticus also states that those who eat shellfish, pick up sticks on a Saturday, cross breed livestock, plant mixtures of seeds in a field or wear clothing made from a blend of two textiles are also unclean. Religious conservatives are always quick to use Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, yet they all but ignore everything else that it warns us against. They are largely considered to be archaic laws that are no longer relevant. The New Testament even says that Christians no longer need to follow this code and that we are all saved according to a new covenant with God. To insist that we follow just one of these laws while ignoring the rest is ridiculous.

Of course, all of this talk about Leviticus condemning homosexuality is assuming that Leviticus actually condemns all modern same-sex relationships. The truth is that despite what most modern translations would have everyone believe, the true meaning of Leviticus 18:22 is actually pretty unclear. The verse could mean that all sex between two men is an abomination regardless of the context or the relationship between the men, but I cannot help but think that that interpretation was at one point simplified for the sake of conservative homophobes. When analyzing this passage further, one must remember that the structure of sexuality in Leviticus assumes that men are dominant and women are submissive. According to one interpretation by writer and rabbi Arthur Waskow, a sex act between two men could place one of the men in a dominant role and the other in a submissive role, thereby feminizing the submissive man and effectively turning him into "an abomination" since women were not regarded as highly as men in that society. This interpretation could mean that only certain sex acts that I'd rather not describe here were forbidden, not homosexuality as a whole. Other scholars have theorized that the passages in Leviticus that "forbid" homosexuality only do so in the context of pagan rituals, which would make sense since any Hebrews engaging in such rituals would be effectively disobeying their God according to their own religious beliefs. Again, this interpretation doesn't forbid homosexuality outright; it only does so in certain contexts. It's also interesting to note that at no time is sex between two women mentioned; Leviticus seems to be only concerned with the men of Israel.

To sum up this long-winded and possibly offensive-on-at-least-one-level blog post: yes, most modern English translations of Leviticus seem to condemn male-male homosexuality...maybe. The Scripture was written long ago and refers to a time and culture that was very different from our modern society. Many of the laws written in Leviticus are considered archaic to modern Christians, and in my opinion its very few mentions of homosexuality are open to enough interpretation to be disregarded as proof that all gay people are hell-bound sinners. People need to stop citing them as justification for homophobia and bigotry.

And yes, I'm well aware that the subject of homosexuality as a sin comes up in the New Testament. I plan to get to that as well someday. Hopefully, I won't wait a month and a half to do it.

Source:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm

Homosexuality and the Bible. Yeah. I'm going there (Part one of whatever)

For most of my adult life, I've had what I would call a love-hate relationship with religion, particularly mainstream Christian beliefs. On one hand, I believe in God and the teachings of Jesus. I believe that Jesus wanted all of us to love and care for each other no matter what, and that is a message that I can get behind wholeheartedly. On the other hand, my attempts to more fully embrace my Christian beliefs usually end with me being confronted with opinions and points of view that all but turn me off of organized religion. I believe in Jesus Christ, but I've found time and again that many of His so-called followers are horribly judgemental, elitist, prejudiced and even hateful people who believe that everyone who doesn't live as they do deserve to suffer in Hell for all of eternity. I know that's a very gross (and admittedly probably unfair) generalization of Christian conservatives, but when the most socially conservative right-wing Christians practically become the spokespeople of an entire religion in the eyes of many it becomes hard for a social liberal such as myself to identify with that religion. It's tough for me to just turn my back on my Christian faith, but it's also difficult for me to justify being a Christian sometimes. I don't like to hear about people who deserve to go to Hell just for not having the right religious beliefs, and I don't like being made to feel guilty or unsure of myself whenever I find that I agree with alleged sinners and non-Christians.

Over the years I've come to believe many things that the most conservative Christians might say are wrong. It's a long list mostly comprised of typically "liberal" beliefs, and I'm not going to go into great detail about it here. I've been able to justify most of my beliefs by saying that there is little to no Biblical evidence that says that they're sinful and wrong. It's church dogma that suggests that some of what I believe is wrong, and I've always been skeptical about organized religion anyway. However, the one major sticking point with me has been what the Bible allegedly says about homosexuality.

I'm not gay or bi myself, but I know a lot of people who are. These people are no different from me except for the fact that they find members of their own gender attractive, yet that one seemingly insignificant difference is supposedly enough to damn them to Hell for eternity. That has never sat well with me. If two men or two women fall in love and decide they want to be together, who are they hurting? How is anybody in society being affected by their decision? It doesn't make any sense to me that they would be branded as beyond redemption in the eyes of God, and it would be easy for me to write off this belief as a product of bigotry and homophobia.

And yet, there are passages in the Bible that do appear to condemn homosexuality as sinful. These passages are often referred to as the "clobber" passages since conservatives often use them to effectively end any debates about homosexuality, and probably because it really hurts to hear them quoted whenever the subject comes up. I don't see anything ethically or morally wrong with being gay or bi, but I do have a problem with people passing judgement on others for things that shouldn't be any of their business. And yet, if I were to listen to the religious right and accept most contemporary English translations of the Bible at face value I should view homosexuality and GLBT people as sinful abominations. That goes against everything that I've come to believe, and I cannot in good conscience look down on a person for being gay or bi. Yes, I know the Bible also says that we shouldn't judge others, but how can one believe that when many Biblical translations and even some contemporary teachings suggest that there are those who deserve it? I'm also not going to "love the sinner and hate the sin;" that just sounds condescending. The whole subject has been a bone of contention with me lately, and it has even made me question if I should even self-identify as a Christian.

Then again, I have never truly believed that the Bible was as infallible as many claim it to be. I believe that much of it was divinely inspired, but in the end it was written down by flawed human beings. Add that to the fact that it has been retranslated and reinterpreted countless times throughout history and it's easy to imagine that the meaning of some of the Scriptures have been lost in translation. That made me wonder if perhaps the so-called "clobber" passages were meant to be as damning as they appear to be.

There are about half a dozen major "clobber" passages that are usually said to be proof that homosexuality is sinful. I don't claim to be an expert on the Bible by any stretch of the imagination, but I decided to take a look at these passages myself. This blog entry is already getting pretty long, so obviously I'm not going to get to all of these passages in one post, but I'm hoping to address them all eventually.

Right now, I'd just like to focus on the first Bible story most often used to condemn homosexuality, that of the destruction of Sodom which can be found in Genesis 19. I'm sure just about everyone knows this story, but for those who don't Sodom was a city that was so corrupt and evil that God decided that it should be destroyed. He eventually decides that the city would be spared if ten righteous people were to be found there and sends two angels to find those ten people. They are quickly taken in by a kind man named Lot. Lot and his family prove to be very hospitable, something that cannot be said about the other men of Sodom. Before long, an angry mob shows up and demands that Lot send the two strangers out to them so that they may "know" them. Lot refuses to send his guests out to the mob and offers his two virgin daughters instead. The mob takes offense to this and tries to force their way into Lot's home. By this point, it is clear that there aren't enough righteous people in Sodom to spare it from God's wrath, so the angels help Lot and his family escape (except for Lot's wife, who disobeys their command not to look back at the city and gets turned into a pillar of salt) while God destroys the city with fire and brimstone and kills every other man, woman and child in it.

I've never really cared for this story, not because of what it's about but what it has come to represent for many people. To me, it's just a story of God punishing wicked people. The people of Sodom must have done some horrible things to deserve being wiped off the face of the earth. That much is clear, and I'm mostly fine with that. What I do have a problem with is the meaning that has been attached to this story.

The men of Sodom wanted to "know" the strangers in Lot's home. That can mean many things, but traditionally it is thought to mean that they wanted to have sex with them (the New International Version of the Bible even explicitly says that). Naturally, right-wing conservatives and homophobes have latched onto this interpretation and assumed that the unrepentantly homosexual men of Sodom were so overcome with lust after seeing two strange new men in town that they went into a sexual frenzy and decided that they needed to have sex with them, an act so disgusting and sinful that it justifies genocide. I have a huge problem with this interpretation for a few reasons. First of all, it's offensive. Regardless of what some people seem to believe, GLBT people are generally not perverts who are slaves to their sexual desires. They are no different from anybody else, and their sexuality is only a small part of who they are. Secondly, it implies that Sodom was destroyed because of an attempted homosexual orgy while completely ignoring the fact that God had already decided to destroy it before the events of the story even took place. Never is it mentioned explicitly that God is destroying Sodom for this reason. Finally, those that prescribe to this interpretation of the story rarely seem to take into account that the mob probably wanted to brutally rape and possibly kill the strangers. Rape is a violent act that is all about power, control and humiliation; it's a far cry from a consensual sexual encounter. Far too many people get hung up on the fact that what the mob wanted to do involved other men as opposed to the fact that rape is horrible no matter who it happens to or who commits the act.

Of course, those that see this story as a "clobber" passage never take into account the fact that to "know" someone can have a few different meanings. It is very possible that it was meant to have sexual connotations in this context, but it could also mean that the men of Sodom simply wanted to know who the strangers were. Sodom had recently been at war, so it would make sense if its inhabitants were wary of strangers. Perhaps they wanted to question them to see if they were enemy spies. Even if what they really wanted was to rape them, the rape would've been a way to humiliate and torture them if they were enemies. This was actually a very common practice with soldiers at the time. Such rapes were about power and humiliation, not sexual desire.

I'd really like to think that taking a closer look at the story of Sodom will allow people to see that it takes some pretty big assumptions and leaps in logic to assume that it was intended as proof that God hates homosexuality. Later verses in the Bible even state that the people of Sodom were destroyed because they were violent, inhospitable and uncaring. It's never once explicitly stated that their sin was being gay, and yet people have been supposedly reading between the lines and seeing that for hundreds of years.

Well, this first post turned out to be a lot longer than I had planned. I'm hoping I didn't offend or scare anybody off, but this is something that has been on my mind lately and I wanted to talk about it. Maybe if I'm up for it I might go through with my plans (yeah, right) to talk about the rest of the "clobber" passages and show that Christianity really shouldn't be as dismissive of the GLBT community as it seems to be at times.