Edgework

In Part Seven of A New Kind of Christianity, Brian McLaren addresses the sex question. He recognizes that this is a sensitive topic. But he holds out the hope that we “can find a way to address human sexuality without fighting about it.”

The flashpoint related to sexuality today is the question of homosexuality. But McLaren insists that we cannot have a productive dialogue about homosexuality if we are not willing to address sexuality as a whole. It is no secret that our traditional heterosexual model is failing badly and many of us need substantial healing in this area of our lives.

McLaren introduces a new word, “fundasexuality” to describe how fundamentalists tend to approach questions around sexuality. Many fundamentalists are preoccupied with sexuality while virtually silent on most other social issues. And they tend to display a combative stance toward all who have differing opinions to theirs which makes healthy dialogue all but impossible.

McLaren suggests that the new way of reading the Bible he has proposed in the book thus far gives us some hope for helpful dialogue to happen among us about sexuality.

First, if we leave behind the six-line Greco-Roman narrative we will be freer to think our way out of water-tight boxes. Platonic dualism sees all of reality in timeless, perfect essences like soul and body, matter and spirit, male and female, etc. The smallest deviation from this norm condemns the whole. Is it perhaps more useful to think of sin tarnishing the image of God within us but not destroying it, as Eastern Christians do?

But this is precisely where we get stuck. What do we do when nature throws a curve ball that confuses one’s sexuality? How, for example, are parents to deal with a baby born with both male and female genitals? Or a child displaying characteristics not in line with its sexuality based on genitalia? Why can we accept physical deformity, for example, but not a disruption of “normal” sexuality in a person? If we free ourselves from thinking in dualistic, either-or categories will it be easier for us to make room for creative dialogue about sexuality?

Second, what happens when we are freed from viewing the scriptures as a “constitution” that is totally consistent within itself? When we see it, instead, as a sacred library, that provides insights into God’s journey with his people? It is quite easy to see how, in times past, we have used various “proof texts” in a constitutional way to support a host of things: a flat earth, slavery, apartheid, denial of psychiatric care, the subjugation of women, specific dress codes, and many more. In each of these cases we have gone through the process of opposing new ways of thinking, making some compromises, remaining silent for a while, and finally accepting the new reality while forgiving our forebears for thinking like they did. Perhaps the question of sexuality is different from other controversial issues of the past. But what if it isn’t? Can we talk about it?

Third, what happens when we stop viewing God as violent in favor of a God of love as demonstrated in Jesus? If God only loves likeable people but smites all enemies, you want to make sure you do not identify with people whom God despises. So, since according to our proof-texts (See Romans 1), God is displeased with homosexuality, any affirmation of homosexual persons might make us liable to be smitten as well! (We often fail to note that, according to this passage, God apparently has similar thoughts about greed, deceit, gossip, arrogance and boasting, for example. However these traits in others don’t create the phobia that homosexuality does. Why not?) Is it not true that God is best revealed in the “smitten one” who always identified with the marginalized and humiliated persons of society? Should that not be our pattern for relating to others?

Fourth, if instead of reading Jesus in light of Paul we begin reading Paul in light of Jesus, our eyes focus differently. Yes, it is true that Paul names homosexuality in a list of many things that displease God. But when we look at Jesus, he was always reaching out to those who had been marginalized or abused for one reason or another, much to the chagrin of the religious establishment. If we are to “imitate Christ” should this not be our way of life as well? How is it then that many of us have no relationships with homosexuals at all?

Fifth, if the gospel is all about fixing the problem of original sin so people can avoid hell, and if homosexuality is a symptom of original sin, then we will always feel the need to “fix” such persons in our midst. If, however, the gospel is about reconciliation, liberation and the peaceable kingdom, the question becomes one of whether or not we treat one another in a Christ-like manner, no matter how different we may be.

And sixth, if the church sees itself as a catalyst for change instead of being change-averse it will find itself asking whether its attitude toward homosexuals needs changing. Is it Christ-like? To state it more directly, can you imagine Jesus turning on his heels the moment he identifies someone who is not a standard heterosexual?

I found McLaren’s musings about the Ethiopian Eunuch to be quite moving. He had wanted to worship God in Jerusalem, but had been turned away because he was not fully sexual in the standard way of thinking. The good news that Philip proclaims to him is that God accepts him, just as he is, along with everyone else. I wonder if I would have been as “liberal” as Philip was in that situation. Or would I have agreed with those who had kept him out of the temple of God?

While perfect answers may elude us, I think we must begin addressing human sexuality more directly than we have in the past.

For On-Going Dialogue

1. Have you found it difficult, as many others have, discussing the issue of sexuality freely and openly? Why is that the case, do you think?
2. Why do we have less difficulty accepting persons who are physically or mentally other than “normal” than we do accepting those who are sexually other than “normal”?
3. If Jesus met a homosexual person, how do you suppose he would treat him or her?
4. Why do you think the Ethiopian Eunuch received the gospel message so enthusiastically? What gave Philip the wisdom to be so inclusive in his approach to him?