Are churches (especially churches in the Pacific Northwest) that draw a line in the sand by taking a stand against homosexuality shortsighted?
In his book Jesus the Savior, Presbyterian theologian William Placher contends that "here is precisely not the place to 'draw the line'" (102). Placher first observes that Jesus says nothing about homosexuality, and that the Bible mentions "sexual intercourse between people of the same sex...only about half a dozen times, and never at any length" (96). Placher then considers Paul's undeniably negative comments about at least some "homosexual activity," wrestling inconclusively with the question of whether Paul condemns all such activity or only exploitative relationships and acts (98-100). Looking for clarity in the story of Jesus, Placher finds that "the pattern of Jesus' ministry"--what Jesus repeatedly and consistently did--affirms the generous treatment of "the outsiders, the disreputable, and the fearful" (102).
Jesus the Savior was published in 2001--more than a decade ago. In 2014, there is an additional reason to question the wisdom of drawing a line in the sand by taking a stand against homosexuality. Today, it appears increasingly likely that these churches will find themselves on the wrong side of history in the near future. As Bob Dylan puts it, "The times they are a-changin'."
My point is not that churches should base their teaching on cultural changes. My point is that Scripture and culture should be read in conversation with each other; theological integrity demands that we start with the first, and pastoral sensitivity demands that we move to the second. Bible-onlyism is likely to lead to under-contextualized ministry (just as ignoring Scripture is likely to lead to over-contextualized ministry). Context matters. Our changed and changing context is one in which most people now have at least one loved one who is openly gay (see the PRRI poll above); Christians know how much relationships matter--we worship a relational God.
In my presbytery (a regional body of Presbyterian churches that encompasses southwestern Washington and much of Oregon), several churches have drawn a line in the sand by taking a stand against homosexuality--specifically, they have left our denomination for more conservative denominations. In two decades, these churches may think no differently than they do now, continuing their countercultural stand; after all, Jesus was and is countercultural.
Still, as admirable as countercultural attitudes and actions can be, they are not always so; sometimes the culture is ahead of the church, with gender equality one of the best examples. (The Spirit's work is not confined to the church!) It is possible, then, that the aforementioned churches will regret drawing a line in the sand where they have. They may regret making something that Jesus never mentioned a focus of their ministry. They may regret that they did not embrace a more gracious reading of Scripture. They may regret that they under-contextualized their teaching and practice, picking a battle more likely to alienate their neighbors than welcome them.
When I was a student at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary fifteen years ago, I worked in the school's library. One day as I shelved books, I came across a large portrait of the seminary's founder, Presbyterian theologian Robert Lewis Dabney, in a secluded section. It seemed a strange place for this painting, as few people would see it. Later, I learned that Dabney (armed with various Bible verses) had supported slavery. Then I understood.
Jesus the Savior was published in 2001--more than a decade ago. In 2014, there is an additional reason to question the wisdom of drawing a line in the sand by taking a stand against homosexuality. Today, it appears increasingly likely that these churches will find themselves on the wrong side of history in the near future. As Bob Dylan puts it, "The times they are a-changin'."
- A 2013 Barna poll found that 53% of Americans now favor "changing laws to enable more freedom for the LGBTQ community"--an increase from 42% in 2003. Increased friendliness toward gays and lesbians was seen in each of four subgroups--including "practicing Protestants" and "practicing Catholics." Will this trend continue into the future? The poll found that 65% of Americans under forty favor more gay-friendly laws. (Note that Washington, the most populous state in the Pacific Northwest, is relatively young.)
- A new survey from Public Religion Research Institute verifies Barna's earlier findings. PRRI reports that 53% of Americans now support gay marriage (with only 41% opposed). In the West (a region that encompasses all of the Cascadian states), 58% "favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry." (Gay marriage is legal in the state of Washington and the province of British Columbia, where the majority of Cascadia's population lives.) Again, generational demographics point to the likelihood of increasing support for gay marriage in the coming years: "Today, nearly 7-in-10 (69%) Millennials (ages 18 to 33) favor same-sex marriage, compared to 37% of Americans who are part of the Silent Generation (ages 68 and older)." For Northwesterners, also pertinent is the fact that "unaffiliated Americans (73%), white mainline Protestants (62%), white Catholics (58%), and Hispanic Catholics (56%) all favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry"--62% of Washingtonians and 57% of Oregonians belong to one of these groups.
- Interestingly, Gallup's tracking of attitudes toward interracial marriage shows that 48% of Americans approved of these relationships twenty years ago; in 2013, 87% of Americans approved of them. Will approval of gay marriage grow at a similar rate? If so, then gay marriage will be no more controversial in two decades than interracial marriage is today.
My point is not that churches should base their teaching on cultural changes. My point is that Scripture and culture should be read in conversation with each other; theological integrity demands that we start with the first, and pastoral sensitivity demands that we move to the second. Bible-onlyism is likely to lead to under-contextualized ministry (just as ignoring Scripture is likely to lead to over-contextualized ministry). Context matters. Our changed and changing context is one in which most people now have at least one loved one who is openly gay (see the PRRI poll above); Christians know how much relationships matter--we worship a relational God.
In my presbytery (a regional body of Presbyterian churches that encompasses southwestern Washington and much of Oregon), several churches have drawn a line in the sand by taking a stand against homosexuality--specifically, they have left our denomination for more conservative denominations. In two decades, these churches may think no differently than they do now, continuing their countercultural stand; after all, Jesus was and is countercultural.
Still, as admirable as countercultural attitudes and actions can be, they are not always so; sometimes the culture is ahead of the church, with gender equality one of the best examples. (The Spirit's work is not confined to the church!) It is possible, then, that the aforementioned churches will regret drawing a line in the sand where they have. They may regret making something that Jesus never mentioned a focus of their ministry. They may regret that they did not embrace a more gracious reading of Scripture. They may regret that they under-contextualized their teaching and practice, picking a battle more likely to alienate their neighbors than welcome them.
When I was a student at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary fifteen years ago, I worked in the school's library. One day as I shelved books, I came across a large portrait of the seminary's founder, Presbyterian theologian Robert Lewis Dabney, in a secluded section. It seemed a strange place for this painting, as few people would see it. Later, I learned that Dabney (armed with various Bible verses) had supported slavery. Then I understood.
