Bigger Fish?

On Wednesday, Dumbarton UMC, in Washington D.C. announced that will celebrate same-sex weddings. Here is the press release:
"(Washington, D.C.) A United Methodist congregation in Washington, D.C., has vowed to celebrate same-sex weddings, putting itself at odds with other Christian churches protesting the District of Columbia's new marriage equality law.

The pastor and 12 other ordained clergy who attend Dumbarton United Methodist Church in Georgetown said they would conduct such ceremonies after Congress failed to override D.C.'s new law on March 3. The larger United Methodist Church does not permit same-sex weddings, and no other Methodist congregation in Washington has taken the same step.

"As a pastor, I am called to extend care and grace to all people even as Jesus did," said Rev. Mary Kay Totty, pastor at the 238-year-old church. "We celebrate love and loyalty wherever it is found."

Dumbarton church's stand is poles apart from the protests by other Christian churches that same-sex marriages are against Biblical teachings. Catholic Charities has announced that it will close its adoption and foster care programs in the District, rather than provide services to gay and lesbian couples. Some Christian ministers have rallied against the marriage equality law.

But Dumbarton's Church Council, in a 28 to 0 vote February 10, pledged "to honor and celebrate the wedding of any couple, licensed in the District of Columbia, who seek to commit their lives to one another in marriage."

Totty said the church is aware the clergy are at risk by performing same-sex weddings in a denomination that does not sanction them. "However," she said, "marriage equality is about justice and civil rights. The District of Columbia acknowledges that it is wrong to discriminate against people based upon sexual orientation."

Recognizing such marriages is a logical step for the District's oldest Methodist congregation, she said. In 1987 Dumbarton publicly welcomed lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their families into full participation in the life and ministries of the congregation. With the new policy, couples wanting to be married will meet with the pastor to discuss the church's marriage guidelines and to discuss counseling. "We rejoice that at this point in history, the arc of justice now bends toward equal recognition of marriage for all couples," said Totty."

It's about time somebody stepped up and said "This is a ridiculous rule and we're not putting up with it anymore". You may not agree with me, but I don't think a committed relationship of any kind is what any of the writers of the Bible were talking about. Personally, I think those references were about prostitution. Actually, temple prostitution. Except for adultery, everywhere the admonitions against sexual sin come up, they are related to areas where people worshipped Ishtar, or Astarte, or Aphrodite. All different names for the same goddess. A goddess who represented fertility and sexuality. Worship of Ishtar included sacred prostitution. A religion whose goddess required you to have sex as part of worship had more heck of lot more appeal to folks than one based on service to God and neighbor. And, I'm sure, the people strayed in droves. The Canaanites practiced this religion, and Rome and Corinth were major centers of worship for the Aphrodite cult, to say nothing of the rampant commercial prostitution in both cities. Mosiac law was written when? That's right, when the Israelites were moving into Canaan. Who else comes out against sexual sin? Paul does, in Romans and, you guessed it, 1 Corinthians. The word used for sexual sin in the original Greek is "porneia", meaning sexual immorality or perversion. However, the word used in English translations of the Bible is "fornication". That word comes from the Latin word "fornix", meaning arch. What does an arch have to do with sex, you ask? The prostitutes in Rome used to ply their trade in the archways under the city and "fornicatio" (literally "done in the archway") became slang for seeing a prostitute. Eventually, around 1303 it picked up its current meaning of sex between two unmarried people. Now, scholars say that it's a slight mistranslation, but I find it interesting that the word used for sexual sin was originally a euphemism for prostitution.

What it all boils down is this: as long as we make homosexuality (or sex in general) something dirty, something to be hidden and ashamed of, people are going to get hurt. Not just those who practice it, but those around them. Their friends, their family and even us, the people who ostracize them. Nothing good can come of the continued paranoia about homosexuals and same-sex marriage. I keep hearing that same-sex marriage is a danger to the whole institution of marriage. I'd like someone to tell me how? Every problem I've seen with homosexuality doesn't arise from the act, it comes from how society views it. As I said just a few lines earlier, something dirty, disgusting and unworthy of the light of day. If we accepted it instead of fearing it, many of the problems would melt away. Not all, of course, I'm not naive and I realize we're dealing with human beings, imperfect as they are. As for the Biblical or religious objections, as long as it's two consenting adults and no is getting hurt, I really don't think God cares who we're sleeping with. Don't you think he has bigger fish to fry?

Gay and Christian?

I'm probably going to regret this, but I'm tackling this subject anyway. First things first: no, I'm not gay. I say this because the issue is divisive enough without extra distractions. I'm writing this due to another blog I read. It's called "Jesus, The Radical Pastor", by John Frye. There's some interesting stuff on there. One is an entry titled "Jesus Goes Postal", in which Frye contends it was never Jesus' intent to clear the vendors out of the temple when he went off, he was sending a message that the exclusion inherent in Judaism and displayed in the the Temple was over. Frye makes his point best:
"Exclusion in the Name of faith. The Temple in Jesus’ day maintained a rigid hierarchy of who was closest and farthest from God. God-seeking Gentiles? Hey, let’s build a flea market in their spot. Never mind there are all kinds of markets already available on the Mount of Olives. Competition is good. Who cares that the traditional laws forbid carrying your wallet into the Temple area? This is AD 33! Get with the times. Your wallet: don’t leave home without it. But, keep the women out. Keep the cripples out. Keep the Gentiles out. Keep the am ha’aretz out! We are Jewish, well-bodied, well-educated, righteous men. We’re in! By his unexpected drama, Jesus declared that the days of exclusion were over. Are Christian gays welcomed into our ’sacred space’?"



It was that last sentence that caught me. Not too long ago, the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina amended their Articles of Incorporation to say that a church was not in "friendly cooperation" with the Convention if they "knowingly act, approve, endorse, support or bless homosexual behavior" That's verbatim from their website, by the way. What happens to churches not in friendly behavior? Ask Broadway Baptist Church in Texas. The Texas convention terminated a 127 year relationship with that congregation because they were too lenient with homosexual members. The Oklahoma convention passed a resolution that asked businesses, organizations and government to restrict their grants to two types of families: those with a headed by one man and one woman and those with single parents. Doesn't sound all that welcoming, does it?



Why all the hubbub about homosexuality? According to those opposed to it, it's based on scripture. Not that there's a lot of scripture on the subject. In fact, Jesus himself never mentioned much about sex in general outside of adultery. Most of the condemnation comes from the Old Testament. Mosaic Law seems pretty harsh about the subject. But, it's also pretty harsh about other things . Like stoning adulterous women (but, not men), forbidding divorce, that if a man dies childless, his widow is to sleep with his each of his brothers in turn until she becomes pregnant so that the dead man's line continues and others even more outlandish by our standards. We don't any of these things anymore. Why? Culturally, we have progressed from such draconian ideals. Yet, if you apply the same measures to homosexuality, you're accused of "moral relativism". Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice (from moral-relativism.com). Morally relative or not, the current view on homosexuality marginalizes a large group of people and that's contrary to the Gospel.

Think about this: Who did Jesus spend most of his time with? The elite, chosen Pharisees and devout Jews or the dregs of society, including prostitutes, tax collectors and lepers. You know the answer without even looking it up. And, when confronted about who he was with by the Pharisees, Jesus responded that these were the people he came for. The poor, the disenfranchised, the outcast. In His words, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick". If he was here today, who would he be hanging around with?

Finally, I come to the question posed in the title of this entry: Gay and Christian? That is, can you be a practicing homosexual and be a Christian also? Some would argue not. That continuing the sin of homosexuality somehow supersedes belief. I notice, however, that any sins these folks might be complicit in aren't mentioned. Funny how that works, huh? For myself, it's not my place to say who's in and who's out. That's God's job and he's welcome to it.