Queers, the Bible and Conservative Christianity

by Chris D. Kramer

Copyright Information

All copyrights are the property of Chris David Kramer. Everything on the QueerMe web site is copyrighted in every possible way that the material could be used today and at any given time in the future. If you somehow have obtained the download of the book Embraced by God: Queers, the Bible and Conservative Christianity, then you only have the right to view the book personally, not to distribute the book, nor to do anything to or with the book beyond printing yourself a personal copy.

Dedication

:

To queer youth (and adults) everywhere!

INTRODUCTION

If you've ever picked up a book of theology about queers, you probably flipped through a few of its pages, then set it back on the shelf. This isn't that book, for I've made this one an enjoyable read. More than that, this book's target audience is queer youth--an audience that gets zero theological consideration. So even if that were all this book had to offer, it would be important. But it's much more than an easy read of theological rehash interlaced with cartoons--this book also contains new arguments that absolutely shred the conservative Christians' case that God hates fags. 

So here's the scoop: I’m not here pitching Christianity, only the rightful UNQUALIFIED INCLUSION of queers into the Christian Church. If this topic is of any interest to you, then I hope you’ll give this book a chance.

There are four sections to Embraced by God. The first takes a historical look at the Church to see whether there is a precedent of the Church making wrong theological, social and/or moral judgments. This is important, for many of us were raised to mindlessly accept the authority of the Church or at least the authority of our church's pastor. Yes, even if you've never done so before, it's time to begin questioning your indoctrination. Next, we'll look at the key passages in the Bible that are used to make the case that God hates all of us abominable GLBT persons. I guarantee you there is more to be said here than what you've been told by your pastor, priest or even the seminary professor who attends your local church.

In the third section, we’ll explore how God has definitively settled the question of whether GLBT persons can be Christians, for "he" has declared everyone who has received the Spirit to be a Christian—even the queerest of folk can cash in on this one. And don’t worry, I’ll explain all that Spirit stuff. Having established that GLBT persons can be Christians, the fourth section explores how we can integrate our Christian beliefs into our lives. The focus here isn’t on rules but principles. We’ll discuss the love-bound freedom God intends each Christian to enjoy. And if that weren’t enough, you’ll also be treated to an epilogue and two appendices!

REGARDING MY LANGUAGE

:

1. QUEER vs. GLBT

Let me ask for your understanding if my choice of words in referring to the GLBT community offends you in any way. The fact is there is no good solution to the problem—every possibility contains some elements of offense to some readers as shown below:

Queer = A term of oppression? Is it inclusive?

GLBT vs. LGBT (or the 14 other letter combos) = competitive rankings?

It could be said we need a new inclusive term for us queers, but any new word would eventually pick up baggage, causing it to be embraced by some segments of our community, not others. Personally, I favor the idea of reclaiming the word "queer" from our oppressors, but in the absence of a perfect solution, I’ll use both GLBT and queer in a very complicated pattern of randomness (i.e., whatever word comes into my head).

2. GOD AS "HE" OR "SHE":

Pronouns for God will be put in quotation marks to indicate that God is without gender.

Section 1

The Church doesn’t err,

but it’s begun to apologize

The Church History Intro

Church history is a mixed bag—there are good reasons to love and hate the Church. To address this history, Pope John Paul II used the arrival of the new millennium to lead the Church into a greater willingness to apologize for the human failings within this divine institution. Similarly, some Protestant denominations made declarations of apology for various wrongs.

While it’s hard not to be cynical about the Vatican’s defensive, technically worded, thirty-five page "apology" on behalf of individual Catholics, not the Church (cf., Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past, 03/07/00, @ www.vatican.va), it was John Paul’s personal attempts to apologize throughout March of 2000 that won over people’s hearts. Highlighting these events was the pope’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land, for in it we saw his tender heart of compassion for all peoples.

In all these things we are reminded that the Church is a work in progress—as are each of us in our own lives. Whether we blame the institution and/or its members, history tells us that God has been willing to allow the Church to disagree, fracture, evolve, and continually screw-up. In highlighting a few of the Church’s screw-ups, my point in this section is simple: since the Church has been wrong about so many important things over the past two thousand years, could it be that the Church has also been wrong regarding queers?

The Crusades (1096 - 1270)

:

Killing Muslims and Jews "in the name of Jesus"

Background: There were eight major military crusades inspired by the Roman Catholic Church in the attempt to free the Holy Land (ancient Israel) from Muslim dominance and Jewish influences.

Pope Urban II’s sermon kicking off the 1st Crusade:

"Begin the journey to the Holy Sepulcher; conquer that land which the wicked have seized, the land which was given by God to the children of Israel and which, as the Scripture says, ‘is all milk and honey’....Undertake this journey, therefore, for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of ‘glory which cannot fade’ in the kingdom of heaven....When you make an armed attack on the enemy, let all those on God’s side cry out together, ‘God wills it! God wills it!’"

(Source: The Crusades: A Documentary Survey, James A. Brundage, ed., 1962, pp. 19-20)

The slaughter at Jerusalem as reported by an anonymous eleventh century chronicler of the 1st Crusade:

"An enormous host coming from all regions and all nations, went in arms unto Jerusalem and obliged the Jews to be baptized, massacring by thousands those who refused" (Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism, 1992, p. 41).

2000 – The anticipated "Crusades apology" to Muslims and Jews (e.g., Jonathan Petre, "Churches prepare Crusades apology," The Washington Times, 3-22-99, p. A15), turned out to be a bust. Unfortunately, the "apology" itself doesn’t directly address the Crusades, but it does vaguely condemn such things as "intolerance" and "the use of force in the service of truth" (cf., Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past, 03/07/00, @ www.vatican.va)

The Inquisition (1231 – 1800s)

:

Torturing people into the loving arms of Jesus

Background: The Inquisition of medieval Europe was an investigative and judicial system of Church courts that would be temporarily set up in an area to wipe out heresy, other religions and witchcraft. "Mention of the Inquisition calls to mind an institution that was in theory planned for churchly reform; but it lives in modern memory as an instrument of terror unparalleled in cruelty in its day....Torture was permitted by papal decree. A final punishment could mean death by burning" (Source: Martin E. Marty, A Short History of Christianity, 1987, p. 151).

Effective use of torture, by Nicholas Eymerich, a Grand Inquisitor of the 14th century:

"If, when he has been decently tortured, he will not confess the truth, let other kinds of torture be laid before him, and let him be told that he must go through all of these. If, even so, he will not [confess], then a second or third day may be fixed to terrify him, or even in truth as a continuation of his torture (which permitted) but not a repetition; for tortures may not be repeated unless fresh evidence comes in against him; then indeed they may be repeated. But there is no prohibition against the continuation" (Source: Nicolas Eymerich, Directorium Inquisitorum, 1376).

2000 – As with the Crusades, the "apology" that was anticipated wasn’t the one we received. Yet, the "apology" does admit "basic human rights were violated" by Church leaders at various times in Church history (cf., Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past, 03/07/00, @ www.vatican.va)

Joan of Arc (1412 - 1431)

:

Whoops!!! We just burned a saint!

Background: Directed by visions of Saints Catherine and Margaret, and of the archangel Michael, telling her to drive the English out of France, a peasant girl known as Joan of Arc became a legendary military hero of France. Unfortunately, Joan's lucky voices gave her some bad advice and she was captured by the Burgundians (part of France loyal to England), then sold to the English. Now Joan was on her own, for her king, Charles VII, made no effort to save the headstrong warrior who had given him his crown. Ultimately, Joan's doom was sealed when in a savvy political move, the English avoided making Joan a martyr by turning her over to a pro-English ecclesiastical court of the Roman Catholic Church to be tried as a heretic and a witch. Joan’s trial was held in Rouen, France, under the protection of the English. Still on her own during the three month trial, Joan gave a stunning defense of her actions, but the Church only heard what they wanted to hear (i.e., the headstrong blabbering of a heretic witch who refused to accept the "error-free" authority of the Church over that of her voices).

Joan's Journey to Sainthood:

1431 - The "heretic witch" known as Joan of Arc is burned at the stake in Rouen.

1450-1456 - Joan's posthumous retrial.

1456 - Pope Calixtus III nullified the 1431 verdict.

1869 - Canonization proceedings begun.

1920 - Joan of Arc’s reversal of fortune culminated in her being canonized as a saint of the Catholic Church as decreed by Pope Benedict XV.

Galileo (1564-1642)

:

Mr. Science vs. The Inquisition!

Background: An Italian mathematician, astronomer and physicist, Galileo repeatedly angered Church officials with his vigorous defense of Copernicus’ heliocentric theory of the universe (i.e., the planets orbit around the sun, not the earth, as the Church thought the Scriptures taught). Galileo’s dangerous ideas were silenced by the Inquisition, and Galileo twice avoided physical torture by quickly rethinking his scientific theories.

1615 – Galileo was interrogated before the Inquisition in Rome. After renouncing his views, he was allowed to go free and sin no more.

1632 – Galileo published a very pro-Copernican book, angering the Church. This led to another appearance before the Inquisition in Rome.

1633 – Galileo again renounced his views and was sentenced to house arrest in Florence for the rest of his life.

1992 – Pope John Paul II formally acknowledged Church leaders erred in condemning Galileo for supporting Copernicus’ theory. (Source: Paul Geitner, "Pope John Paul II praises discovery by Copernicus; Breakthrough condemned by church in 1616," The Washington Times, 06-08-99, p. A15).

Colossal errors in a list

And just a little closer to home, too

Anti-Semitism: The Church in its actions and teachings has been casually to rabidly anti-Jewish throughout its history.

Slavery: Many pastors used their Bibles to support it.

The Ku Klux Klan: Some Christians participated while most kept silent—and the KKK still exists today.

Holocaust Silence: As Hitler’s Final Solution was bringing about the genocide of six million Jews, the Church—world wide—largely kept silent.

Anti-Civil Rights: As the Civil Rights Movement marched and boycotted against racism and injustice, many white Evangelical Christians rallied to slow or even stop real changes from taking place in American society.

Anti-Women’s Rights: Evangelical Christians have led the fight against women’s rights.

The AIDS Crisis

:

"God hates fags!"

Background: During the mid-1980s the AIDS crisis became known to most Americans, but to the extent AIDS was seen as the "Gay Disease," few conservative Christians really cared. The Christian Right’s hatred of homosexuals easily translated into an understanding that AIDS was in some sense God’s judgment on the evils of homosexuality. Eventually, more compassionate voices could be heard, but churches around the USA once again started out on the wrong side of an important social issue.

God and his psychiatrist...

AIDS as God’s judgment on Homosexuals:

"God says...that homosexuality is a perverted and reprobate lifestyle. God also says those engaged in such homosexual acts will receive ‘in their own persons, due penalty of their error.’ God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah primarily because of the sin of homosexuality. Today, He is again bringing judgment against this wicked practice through AIDS....Homosexuals are gaining control of towns and communities....We must preserve America by convicting her of sin and the folly of endorsing a lifestyle that is strangling the very life out of her" (Jerry Falwell in 1987, as quoted in Richard Smith, AIDS, Gays, and the American Catholic Church, 1994, p. 18).

October 23-24, 1999 – Reverend Mel White and 200 members of his GLBT group Soulforce met with the Reverend Jerry Falwell and an equal number of his followers. As a result, both sides agreed to tone down their rhetoric, and Falwell generously offered to keep praying for the salvation of homosexuals.

2000 – No papal apologies to date

Section 2

Debunking the BIG Bad BiBle

Of the ReliGious RigHt

:

The Big Bad Bible Intro

To many, these verses are the debate over the GLBT and the Bible. I strongly disagree. Our Biblical discussion is way bigger than just a handful of verses that are typically read with little or no concern for the context in which they were written.

Context is everything—especially if conservative Christians are correct in their belief that the whole Bible was written by humans under the direct inspiration of God in such a way that the original texts of the Bible were basically without error and totally authoritative for our lives. If this is true, then it is hugely important that individual verses are understood within the context of the whole Bible, not just one sentence or paragraph of it. To pluck a verse out of the Bible and start bashing anyone with it is to deny the validity of the Bible as the Word of God, for no verse can legitimately stand on its own if the Bible as a whole is God’s Word to us.

All this would be great if we actually had the original texts that compose the Bible to examine but we don’t. The textual fragments and complete books available to scholars are mere copies typically made hundreds of years after the originals, and none of these copies are identical. As the original texts were hand copied over the years, and the copies themselves became copies of copies, changes were undeniably made. While many changes were accidental copying errors, it is beyond any debate that others were intentionally made by the copyists in order to change or shade a given text’s meaning (e.g., John 7:53-8:11 is likely fraudulent—it’s not in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts). So at least to some extent, our Bible today has errors in it—even conservative scholars admit to this.

Speaking of these "original texts," we need to note that the Bible is an edited book—it contains 66 separate books that were collected and put together by various people. The Bible has two main sections: the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament contains the Scriptures Christianity inherited from Judaism—the Jewish Bible—and it was put together by Judaism’s religious elite (i.e., editors) over hundreds of years. Likewise, the New Testament—the books by Jesus’ followers—is an edited collection of writings that were written over many decades in the years following Jesus’ death. One reason the New Testament had to be edited is that there were many competing writings circulating throughout the various Christian churches across the Roman Empire. Some very popular books like the Epistle of Barnabas were eventually left out, while the rather dubious Revelation of St. John just barely squeaked in against popular opinion due to the support it received from St. Augustine.

From all this you might have already gathered the fact that the first few hundred years of Christianity—the Early Church—wasn’t a franchise operation. Unlike today’s McDonalds™ restaurants which strive to be identical throughout the world, the Early Church varied significantly from region to region, and even within regions, churches held to their own beliefs and practices. The "Bible" wasn’t set in stone—and major Church doctrines (key beliefs) were still largely debatable. Eventually some factions won and others lost. In all of this we come to realize the Bible isn’t simply a book that was gloriously handed down to us from God on High; rather, it is a compiled book with a very human history that reflects several hundred years of religious power struggles within the Early Church.

From this we can see that inspiration was likely a much more earthy process than the mystical notions we may have previously held about how the Bible came to be written. The truth is that God let a whole bunch of flawed, even bigoted and misinformed, real people write and edit the Bible. And "He" inspired them to tell "His" story from their vantage point—and they did a pretty good job. The Bible was never meant to be an end in itself; rather, it’s a guide that gains meaning as we learn to embrace our own journey with God.

As we look at the verses typically used to attack GLBT persons by conservative Christians, I hope you’ll find my case compelling. If you’re still not sure, hang on, for the third section will blow everything you’ve learned here out of the water—I don’t even need this second section to convincingly win the debate against the Religious Right, but I’ve included it to strengthen you against their attacks. It’s okay to skip ahead if you must, but this Bible section is the next logical piece of the puzzle. Enjoy!

Genesis 1 - 2

: God creates Adam and Steve Eve

The debate: Is God’s pattern of creation only male-female, meaning that queers must somehow be the result of sin, not God’s will for creation?

Genesis 2:15-25

The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it....Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal...and brought them to the man....but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man....And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man....And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed. (NRSV)

The point: God is the source of all creation

Deep thoughts:Let’s keep this simple: the story of creation isn’t at all interested in answering our questions about the morality of homosexuality, bisexuality or transgenderism. This non-scientific story is merely claiming to know that GOD created the universe and everything in it. Beyond this, little can be said, for all else can never rise above conjecture (i.e., Reading between the lines isn't an accepted technique of Biblical scholarship). The fact is most of our questions about creation go unanswered in the book of Genesis. For example, children often ask how dinosaurs fit into this story of creation. 

As for "patterns," does anyone really believe God makes people with a cookie cutter? Variation abounds! None of us are the same—not even identical twins. Sexual orientation, for example, is likely just one of the many aspects within our genetic code that combine to make each new life a celebration of God’s creativity.

More to the point, it is totally absurd to claim that Adam and Eve could be a pattern of anything—patterns can only be witnessed over many generations. Yet, from our 21st century vantage point we can calmly note that in the history of human sexuality the pattern is pretty clear—queers are everywhere! Therefore, since God is sovereign and actually works with a plan, let’s just guess that our huge numbers indicate God has got more ideas for human sexuality than simply populating the earth. Let the truth be known: our God is a creative genius with a playful love of variation.

Bottom Line: This story of creation makes no comment on GLBT persons, and it needn’t be considered to exclude our genetic presence in creation, or if you prefer, the evolution of human beings. So what does the Genesis creation story tell us about how queers came to exist and what's God's opinion of them? Absolutely nothing.

Genesis 18:20-19:26

: God nukes Sodom and Gomorrah

The debate: Did God destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because they were a bunch of queers?

The text:

The LORD said, "Abraham, I have heard that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are doing all kinds of evil things. Now I am going down to see for myself if those people really are that bad. If they aren’t, I want to know about it"….That evening the two angels arrived in Sodom….[Abraham’s nephew, Lot, gave the angels lodging]….Before Lot and his guests could go to bed, every man in Sodom, young and old, came and stood outside his house and started shouting, "Where are your visitors? Send them out, so we can have sex with them!"….[Then Lot] said, "Friends, please don’t do such a terrible thing! I have two daughters who have never been married. I’ll bring them out, and you can do what you want with them"….[The angels stepped-in and defended Lot’s family]….The two angels said to Lot, "The LORD…has sent us here to destroy the city. Take your family and leave." (CEV)

The point: God’s heart is with the downtrodden, the outcast and the stranger—and "he" demands we give them true justice and loving compassion.

Deep thoughts:The story of God’s destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is the most famous and easily one of the weakest of the biblical texts used to condemn homosexuality. So how did these abused verses become such a favorite among the queer-haters?

First, it wasn’t because of their careful reading of the story itself. Despite all the hype, this Bible story makes no mention of homosexuality whatsoever. What? I’m serious. Nowhere does the storyteller inform us whether any of the men had ever in their lives even engaged in male-male sex, nor does he moralize on the general subject of homosexuality (e.g., Is it ethical for men to fall in love with each other and form relationships?). Instead, we read a narrative that includes an attempted gang-rape of two male angels by all of the town’s men—young and old.

Newsflash to queer-haters: just as biblical stories about male-female rape are not a judgment on heterosexuality, neither is this story of attempted male-male rape a condemnation of homosexuality. Male-male rapes are acts of violence, not homosexual romance. For example, in the Greco-Roman world it was not uncommon for a soldier to rape an enemy soldier as a final act of humiliation and violence on him. Regardless of what the men of Sodom would have done to the two angels if given the chance, their attempted violence was the final testimony that they were ready to get all blown up by God (per the story teller).

Strangely enough, the story never does say what sins these people supposedly did to piss God off in the first place—remember, "he" heard something was going on down there?! Admittedly, God’s vision problems do concern me (e.g., is God affected by cloud cover?), but luckily the Bible does contain several other passages which do specify the source of God’s initial anger.

Yet, this passage didn’t become a queer-haters’ favorite from anything said about Sodom and Gomorrah in the rest of the Bible. So after you’ve read the S & G story with your relatives, painstakingly take the time to read to them the other Bible passages that refer back to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (e.g., Ezekiel 16:49-50; Jeremiah 23:14; Luke 10:10-12). Why don’t any of these texts mention homosexuality as one of the many sins of these "wicked" cities?! What we do learn is God’s anger came from these people’s blatant inhospitality, pride and heartless treatment of the poor.

Now for the answer to why queer-haters keep abusing this passage. Can you say indoctrination? As such, your conservative Christian relatives and their pastor are merely repeating "Bible lessons" they’ve learned regarding a subject that makes them very uncomfortable (i.e., human sexuality)—it’s not like they’ve actually thoroughly researched the debate over homosexuality and the Bible.

Historically, this indoctrination started slowly around 50 B.C. At that time some Jewish writers contemporized the story in a way that fit their world-view. Now the story of Sodom was the story of Rome—the new Sodom. No longer was the story a morality play against social injustice but a statement of God’s judgment against the evils of the Roman Empire—especially in regards to all eroticism.

Don’t be surprised that interpretations change, for most, if not all, biblical passages have undergone a variety of reinterpretations since they were initially written. Like the case of this story, the Church has often reinterpreted the Bible’s demands for social justice into merely calls for personal morality—a morality that was afraid of all sexuality, causing some theologians in the early Church to glorify celibacy as superior to marriage.

Bottom line: At worst, this passage condemns male-male rape—which isn’t the same as homosexuality, nor is it part of the so-called "homosexual lifestyle." Yet, since all rape is a great evil, maybe the real moral tragedy of the Sodom story is the Bible’s failure to condemn Lot for offering his daughters so freely to the crowd—what a coward and jackass of a father.

Deuteronomy 22:5

: 

Abominable Fashion Statements

The debate: Is cross-dressing prohibited in the Bible, and does this verse have anything to say to transgender persons today?

Deuteronomy 22:5

A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the LORD your God. (NRSV)

The Point: This is a religious prohibition for the ancient Israelites, and it's probably tied to the fertility rituals of Israel's very tempting neighbors.

Deep Thoughts: Is there something deep down wrong about cross-dressing? If yes, then what clothing can each gender wear--and from what time period? The fact is that clothing styles have evolved throughout history--and so has our sense of what is feminine and masculine. Therefore, the most one could argue from this verse is that honorable men and women are to wear clothing that reflects the gender expectations of their present day situation. Before making the case that Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't apply to Christians, let's examine why it was written in the first place.

Two reasons: 1) To maintain the exalted status of men; 2) To combat the fertility religions of ancient Israel's neighbors. Regarding the exalted status of men in ancient Israel, it's essential to note that this verse was written in a society and time period in which men were important and women were not. So what was the value of anything deemed feminine in Israelite society, and/or the even worse status that most women held throughout the rest of the Roman Empire? Not much. Therefore, a man was seen to be degrading himself by wearing any clothing item that would make him seem effeminate (i.e., less than a man). Similarly, no woman should aspire to the greatness of a man--even by dressing like one. 

So if we are to apply this verse, its concern isn't about specific items of clothing but about maintaining the status of men over women. By enforcing gender rules, males--in most cultures--have dominated women for thousands of years. Even today, women on average don't make as much money as men. 

As for combating the appeal of her neighbor's fertility religions (e.g., nothing says "church growth" like temple prostitutes), this was an ongoing struggle that scholars believe to have been the driving force behind a number of Israel's religious laws. Specifically about cross-dressing rituals, archeologists have discovered evidence at multiple sites around the ancient Near East that rites of male-female clothing exchanges took place in the fertility religions of Israel's neighbors.  From this we learn what made Israel religiously distinct from, but not necessarily better than, her neighbors. Such distinctions had as much or more to do with religious nationalism (i.e., each country typically had its own gods and rituals), than an honest pursuit of truth. Religiously, Judaism chose to fight her sexy international competition, the fertility religions, by simply declaring the enticing rituals of her foes to be taboo.

Next, let's look at why this verse doesn't apply to Christians today. Skipping the fact that in today’s fashions most garments are non-gender specific, there are several different lines of attack we can take here—I’ll save my favorite for last. First, the literal scope of Deuteronomy 22:5 is limited to cross-dressing. It makes no comment on transgender individuals, only individuals who dress in opposition to their gender. Transgender persons have no problem here, for they do dress according to their gender when they embrace themselves as being transgender. Ironically, transgender persons would only be in violation of this verse when they dressed according to conservative Christian ethical standards.

¤

T" in GLBT""T" in GLBT

While most queers know the "T" in GLBT stands for Transgender, we quickly show our ignorance when talking about "T". The biggest difference between the "T" and the "GLB" is that while the terms Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual have to do with one’s sexual orientation, Transgender refers to gender identity (i.e., at a deep inner level, do I perceive myself as being a man, or a woman--or in some way am I both, even enjoying myself as either gender?). Despite these differences, our similarities are greater, for each of us is a gender warrior--we are not the boys and girls we were supposed to be. As such, to the conservative Christian who has been successfully indoctrinated, we are symbolic of the downfall of all that is good and decent. Gratefully, with the ongoing help of my editor, I am too big a person to feel the same way about them! 

Here's a definition of Transgender that a transgenderist friend of mine gave me, saving me from the lame definitions I had found:

Transgender is a term used to describe someone who presents a gender image different from what society would expect from the person’s perceived biological status. That difference may be achieved through wearing the clothing and/or adopting other appearances and traits of the opposite gender. And the difference may be presented only occasionally (a cross-dresser); be the predominant gender identity of the person (a transgendered person); or be the person’s full time gender role, with or without sex reassignment surgery (a transsexual).  (Source unknown)

Transgender persons know that even though genitalia usually announces one’s gender, genitalia doesn’t equate gender, for gender awareness comes from deep within—one’s inner awareness. No surgery or tragic accident can change this fact, for we are who we are—and we know who we are from the core of our being. Therefore, neither adding a penis, nor taking one away has any bearing on whether one is a man or a woman--or in some way both, for gender is internal, not sewn on. As for the creation of this inner awareness, many scholars say that gender identity is firmly in place by the time a child is five years old, but how this comes about we just don’t know. As genetic research advances, answers will come, but for now we’re stuck with the old "nature vs. nurture" blame game. Is it really such a big intellectual leap to realize that some individuals have genitalia-gender combos that don’t fit the standard categories?

From the time they are young children, transgender persons start to learn the heartbreaking lessons of not fitting into standard categories. Puberty brings the further heartbreak that one’s body is changing—but in all the wrong ways. Dating presents another huge problem, for relationships a self-aware transgender teen would internally perceive as heterosexual will be viewed by others—including one’s date—as homosexual and vice versa.

To the extent a transgender teen lacks self-awareness, his or her internal debate will likely focus around the misleading issue of sexual orientation. Eventually, the ongoing tension between a transgender person’s internal and external worlds can lead the person to wonder if they are mentally ill. Others may try to cope with the tension through abusing alcohol and drugs. If their despair intensifies, some transgender persons have gone down the tragic pathways of self-mutilation and/or suicide. Yet, this isn't the only story, for as more and more transgender persons are finding their way to self-acceptance, an empowered transgender community has emerged that is leading the way to a better tomorrow.

Needless to say, if you’re struggling with anything in life, help is available—so don’t give up now. Regarding being transgender, you’ll want to start networking ASAP, so that you can immediately end the lie that you are all alone. Many people are willing to help you on your life’s journey, so don’t try to be the brave loner. If networking sounds too hard, relax—it’s gets no worse than making a few anonymous phone calls. After that, maybe you’ll choose to let someone inside your pain, even as one day you’ll help someone else.

¤

Second, since this verse is the extent of all the verses in the whole Bible that can be claimed to speak on the subject matter of transgender persons, this issue was likely of little concern to the Biblical writers. Theologians know that when an issue truly mattered to the Biblical writers it became a repeated theme found throughout the Bible. Furthermore, it’s worth noting that the writer of this verse thought so little of this issue that he didn’t even attach a punishment to the act of cross-dressing.

Thirdly, Judaism’s Law doesn’t apply to Christians (note: a detailed discussion of this point will be made later in reviewing Leviticus 18 & 20). Most Christians realize this to some extent, but this concept is least understood by conservative Christian leaders—the lovers of selective literalism. To the conservative Christian leader, any verse that can be construed to bash a perceived enemy of this leader’s belief system becomes a good verse for the modern Christian to live by. Although such leaders think they’re the great protectors of God’s truth, that isn’t how religious indoctrination works, for indoctrination has little concern for true debate; rather, it mindlessly seeks the continuation of a set of unquestionable beliefs.

Yet my favorite reason this verse doesn’t apply to anyone—perhaps ever—comes from an examination of the verse’s context. To a reader of books, context is everything. So if you’ve got the time, grab a Bible and read a chapter or two on each side of Deuteronomy 22:5 in order to get a quick sense of its immediate context. As you’re reading, try taking note of all the verses that are absolutely absurd by any standard—if you still believe in inerrancy, the horror of finding such stupid verses in the Bible will pretty much kill you. Okay, here’s a quick list of some of my favorites:

•20:16-18: When conquering the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, the Israelites were allegedly told to absolutely slaughter them—men, women, children, and livestock. I’m sorry, but today we call that genocide (very comparable to Hitler, folks).

•21:18-21: Disobedient sons can be stoned to death. Can you say child abuse?

•22:6: If you happen upon a nest of birds while you are out walking, then only eat the baby birds and let the mother go free. Perhaps eating the mother bird would be the sin of gluttony or maybe one can only eat one generation of birds at a time.

•22:9: If you’ve got a vineyard, you can only plant one type of seed or else! Damn unions.

•22:11: Never wear clothing of more than one fiber. For being the Creator of the Universe, God doesn’t seem to be very fashion conscious.

•22:12: Don’t forget to attach tassels to your cloak. I’m good on that one.

•22:28-29: If a rapist of a virgin girl is caught in the act, he must pay the girl’s father 50 shekels of silver and take the girl as his wife—whom he can never divorce "since he has exploited her" (NAB). Okay, so one way to get a wife is to rape her--with the door open so you get caught, then pay her father 50 shekels of silver. And God’s inerrant Word to women on this matter is what—stand by your rapist???

•23:2: If you’ve got crushed testicles or your penis got chopped off somehow, then don’t even think about trying to be admitted to "the assembly of Yahweh." God is gay!

•23:13-15: All bowel movements must happen outside of your campsite, for God sometimes likes to walk around one’s campsite—and make sure you cover it with dirt or God will abandon you (excrement really bugs him). This one I actually agree with.

There’s lots more, but I’m getting upset. This crap isn’t God’s Word to anyone! The really sad thing is that conservative Biblical scholars have to try and talk their way around hundreds of equally absurd verses in the Bible just to blindly maintain a view of Scripture that makes God out to be worthy of hell. As I’ve said before, the Bible becomes the Word of God when the Spirit shows us how to walk through all these minefields of BS in order to find the pebbles of truth on the other side. Unfortunately, reading Deuteronomy is a lot like eating a badly filleted fish—it’s hardly worth the effort.

As for how the Church today might overcome its failed history and begin to open its heart to transgender persons, Jesus’ instruction would be disarmingly simple: love them into your hearts with your best quality love. To love like that we would have to be intentional—both as churches and individuals. Perhaps more to the point, to love like that most of us would have to learn anew how to love. Therefore, as churches and individuals, let’s each begin where we’re at, for we know we’ll get nowhere without first responding to Jesus’ call to love—and it’s awfully hard to love others when we hate ourselves.

The bottom line: Jesus welcomes everyone into his family—even people who come to realize their gender doesn’t match their genitalia. As we have seen, there are many reasons why Deuteronomy 22:5 isn’t a valid teaching for Christians. While some will respond to my attacks by defending the absolute perfection of Scripture, I believe it is much more important to defend the absolute perfection of God. The bottom line is that the writer of Deuteronomy has presented us with a portrait of God that is utterly blasphemous—a god that is absolutely unworthy of our worship. From the example of Old Testament heroes like Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego—who courageously risked their lives by refusing to worship false gods—let us gain the courage to increasingly confront the false god(s) of conservative Christianity.

Deuteronomy 23:17-18

: 

Discrimination in the workplace 

(e.g., Israelites cannot be Temple prostitutes)

The debate: Once upon a time, this passage was used to attack homosexuals, but archaeological discoveries have led scholars to conclude it was being mistranslated. Unless you have the King James version or another old translation, most major versions of the Bible reflect this change in translation. (Note: This same translation error was also corrected in I Kings 14:22-24, 15:12, 22:46 and II Kings 23:7).

The mistranslation: "whores and sodomites"

There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow; for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God. (KJV)

The corrected translation: "temple prostitutes"

None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute. You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the LORD your God. (NRSV)

The point: Judaism had to struggle to keep out the influence of fertility religions.

Deep thoughts:Translation is a tricky business; yet, our conservative Christian accusers want us to believe bad English translations are "literally" good enough. As always, a bad translation can live a long life if it supports the prejudice of the religiously powerful and those who worship their scholarship. Other passages loved by Bible-thumpers may some day get a corrected translation, too.

Bottom line: Our knowledge of the Bible is ever-growing. Since ignorance has many causes—sometimes it stems from a bad translation—we must challenge all sources of ignorance and not simply sit back and watch them destroy the beauty of our queer presence in God’s kingdom.

I Corinthians 6:9-10 & I Timothy 1:9-10

: 

Paul rehashes a couple "sin lists"

The debate: Who is a "sinner"? Are these verses only to be literally interpreted to the extent they turn out to condemn queers—are liars and the greedy off the hook? And have these verses been homophobically translated?

Regarding translation squabbles, there are two key Greek words at question: "malakos," and "arsenokoites." Below is a brief look at this debate, but because translations squabbles are a bit tedious, I’ve mercifully put the details in Appendix A. (Note: Sorry about how the endings of these two words keep changing, but Greek words nuance their meanings by changing the word endings).

I Corinthians 6:9-10

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes [malakoi], sodomites [arsenokoitai], thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (NRSV)

The point: The kingdom of God is based on the love of God and neighbor.

I Timothy 1:9-10

This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites [arsenokoitais], slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (NRSV)

The point: If you have embraced the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

MALAKOS: In moral terms, this common word was a blanket condemnation of all effeminacy as defined by Greek male society--not 20th century USA. It had nothing to do with limp wrists, nor did it determine with whom one had sex. Instead, this was a culturally based women-bashing term that has no place in a modern Christian’s belief system.

ARSENOKOITES: This is an extremely rare word that cannot be accurately defined—nobody knows what the term meant. The Bible translations above are only foolishly guessing, period.

Deep thoughts:"Male prostitutes and Sodomites" are heading towards the fires of hell along with liars, perjurers and a bunch of others. As you likely know, our English language version of the Bible is a translation from the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament—and this passage has been translated wrong, period. In Appendix A, I’ll make this case from recent scholarship, but for now, I’ll limit my concerns to the bogus nature of "sin lists."

¤

Homosexuality" in the Greco-Roman world vs. today""Homosexuality" in the Greco-Roman world vs. today

In the Bible days, Greco-Roman society celebrated male-male sex.  This was in great contrast to the Jewish culture of ancient Israel where any male-male sex appears to have been extremely closeted due to religious taboos.  According to the Greeks, women were married to supply one with legitimate offspring, but all of a man’s real life occurred outside the home—away from his house-servant-wife whostayed at home and had no life.

Along these lines, the philosophers sang the praises of adult male relationships with boys and male youths (pederasty).  At their best, adult males saw pederasty as being primarily a mentoring relationship—although they sang praises of the sex, too.  Pederasty was so common and praised that some scholars go so far as to argue that the only male-male sex this culture knew of was pederast.  As for the ethics of pederasty, the only real argument seems to have been whether boy prostitutes and boy slaves purchased as sex toys were abuses of the ideal pederastic relationship, for these involved little, if any, mentoring.  It should be noted that youth-adult relationships were also common in Judaism, for rabbinical sources envision twelve as the ideal age for Jewish girls at first marriage.

Today, male-male relationships are said to be “homosexual”—a word coined in the late 19th century.  Homosexuals by definition are “persons sexually attracted to persons of the same sex.”  Thus, we often speak of a person’s “sexual orientation”—gay, lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual.  In contrast, pederasty is at base a debate over age of consent (i.e., youth-adult relationships).  The point is that the morality of “homosexuality” and “pederasty” are separate questions, and the current debate over homosexuality has virtually nothing in common with the culture of youth-adult relationships known to the ancient Greek philosophers and their biblical critics.

Therefore, even if the Bible condemns the “homosexuality” of the Greco-Roman society, we can only say for certain that it was condemning some or at most all forms of pederasty, not modern homosexuality.  Why?  Because we would be violating the historical context of these texts if we fail to wrestle with the truth that homosexuality in our historical context isn’t even remotely like that which occurred in the Greco-Roman world.  Homosexuality today may be a sin in the eyes of some, but you won’t prove it by referring to texts that at most are merely condemning pederasty!

¤

Here’s my gripe: conservative Christians seem to think sin lists refer to "bad people," not them. Thus, these verses are only dragged out to bash queers, not liars and the greedy (i.e., themselves). Jesus vehemently condemned the kind of people who see lists of sins everywhere, not the real people they affect, saying, "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them" (Matthew 23:4, NIV). One of the biggest problems I see with Biblical literalism is that it is always a selective literalism. For example, one of the top few concerns throughout the Bible is that the poor be treated with true justice. Not surprisingly, that concern is seldom selected as one of the Bible’s literal demands on us when it is read by affluent Christians. Let’s face it, soup kitchens, orphanages and child sponsorship programs are nice but nothing like what God envisioned when "he" said through the prophet Amos that we should "let justice roll on like a river" (Amos 5:24a, NIV).

Bottom line: Paul’s message to us from these "sin lists" is that without holiness no one will see God. Simultaneously true is the principle that the kingdom of God is based on the love of God and neighbor, not the observance of religious rules. Taken together these two points tell us that all who have embraced God by faith are on their own journey to holiness, and this journey of Spirit-led freedom is traveled from "YES!" to "YES!" as we learn to love God, neighbor and ourselves.

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

:

The careful art of lying with a man

The debate: Does Leviticus’ “Holiness Code” apply to Christians today?  If so, should gay men be rounded up and killed?

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.  (NRSV)

The point: "Abomination" means religiously unacceptable behavior for Jews

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.  (NRSV)

The point: Israel was a tribal society focused on rapid numerical growth

Deep thoughts:At first sight, these passages in Leviticus are impressive—death to fags!  If true, should gay-bashers be deputized and sent forth to end the queer menace to society?  I guess anything short of killing us is an act of mercy on the homophobes’ part, right?  But on second thought, let’s consider some other options:

Some scholars argue these verses only refer to male temple prostitutes—who  knows, they may be right (see discussions of Deuteronomy 22 and 23).  Other scholars claim the Holiness Code rejected male-male sexual activity as being religiously “unclean” (i.e., things the Jews decided not to do for religious reasons—like their strict dietary prohibitions), but they didn’t actually view male-male sex as inherently sinful.  Another powerful argument is that these rules merely reflect the primacy of procreation in tribal societies—only relationships that helped build the numerical strength of the tribe were allowed, for these were warrior peoples who lived or died by their fighting capabilities.  It is likely the twelve tribes of ancient Israel feared wasting semen, not homosexuality.

Yet, even if these verses actually attempt to address the morality of male-male sex, honesty demands us to remember that such laws were only written in distinction from Israel’s supposedly immoral Gentile neighbors.  In making such a distinction, these verses would be talking about male-male sex in the Greco-Roman world, not modern San Francisco.  As such, these verses are likely to be only condemning some or all forms of pederasty (refer back to: "Homosexuality" in the Greco-Roman world vs. today).

Regardless of the above discussion, whatever these verses once meant to the ancient nation of Israel does not carry over to Christians today, for our morality is guided by Jesus’ twofold Law of Love—not culture-bound religious rules (see: “The Big Debate: Was Judaism's Law Abolished or Embraced by Jesus and His Church?”):

1)     Love God with all your heart and strength

2)     Love all people everywhere—one’s “neighbor”—as you love yourself

¤

THE BIG DEBATE:

Was Judaism's Law abolished 

or embraced by Jesus and his Church?

First, in this context the Law refers to Judaism’s system of moral, ceremonial (religious ritual) and civic laws that guided all aspects of their lives.  While the Church no longer accepts the validity of the ceremonial and civic laws, the debate rages on as to whether the moral laws have ended, too.  Regarding this remaining debate, I believe the moral laws simultaneously continue and end in Christ.  The Law continues in Christ, for the Spirit encouraged the early Church to embrace the Old Testament as valid teaching for moral guidance.  Yet, the Law equally ends in Christ, for he is now our Law and the Spirit is now our guide.  Therefore, the moral Law continues even as it has ended.

How?  In Christ, we honor the Law even as we look at it through the lens of Christ.  As such, all laws come under Christ’s summary principle (e.g., Matthew 22:37-40) or new commandment (John 13:34): “The Law of Love”—the wholehearted love of God and neighbor.  This love-commandment sifts all other laws to determine what continues in Christ and what is left behind.  Another reason the laws need sifting is found in God’s acknowledgment to the Prophet Ezekiel that some of the laws given by God to Moses were punitive in nature. God explained this was due to Israel’s continual rebellion in The Wilderness, saying, “Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live” (Ezek. 20:25, NRSV).

(Note: Highlight these words from Ezekiel in your memory, for they are likely to become a key concept in the debate over homosexuality and the Bible.  Unfortunately, I stumbled upon this verse late in my writing, but I plan to do more with the Ezekiel text in later editions of this book).

Jesus personally embraced the Law in his claimed mission to be the Jewish Messiah, but he also foresaw its end as it would one day be written on people’s hearts, not scrolls.  As such, Jesus was a good Jew who at times challenged what he saw as corruption of the Law by the religious leaders--both past and present.  There are many unknowns here, for the Jews largely rejected Jesus as their Messiah, leaving us to only wonder how an embraced Messiah would have transformed Judaism.  Instead, we are left with a Church that went through an awkward transition from being the True-Jews who embraced their Messiah to an eventual acceptance that they had become a new religion that would be called Christianity.  As Christians, Jesus is our Law, the Spirit is our guide, and all Scripture is profitable when viewed through the lens of Christ.

¤

This Law of Love isn’t against the Bible; rather, it simply acknowledges the truth that Jesus is now our ultimate Law.  All Scripture must now be seen through the lens of Christ—and in this and all things the Spirit is now our guide. The Old Testament is still of great value as a source of inspiration, but now we are guided by the principles of the Law, not the letter of it.  We are free to love God wholeheartedly and our neighbor as ourselves.  As we do these things, we have fulfilled the law--that’s Jesus’ promise to us.  Can we err?  Of course, but the Spirit is our guide, and God continually opens our eyes to the ever expanding possibilities within a life filled with love.

Bottom line: We can debate what these verses may have meant to their Israelite audience long ago, but whatever we conclude, these verses don’t carry over to Christians today, because Jesus’ teachings are principle driven, not rule-bound.  Today’s Christians can only begin to understand God’s Word to us if we view the entire Bible through the lens of Christ and his Law of Love, not our ancestors’ tribal limitations.

Romans 1:26-27

: What big errs you have!

The debate: Does this text give us the origins of homosexuality? Has God abandoned queers and left them to a "debased mind?"

The text:

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because....20Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him....23and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die--yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. (NRSV)

The point: Idolatry (i.e., rejecting God) can lead to unrestrained lustful passions.

Deep thoughts: Paul’s theology is a hotly debated topic among scholars, for there is no consensus as to whether he should be characterized as a liberal, moderate or conservative. In Paul we meet a man of complex arguments, flawed theological speculations and more than a few shocking theological sound bites. From there we each try to understand Paul, the very human theologian, as best we can. Personally, I see Paul as a transitional figure—a theological genius to be sure but flawed, too (see side-bar: Paul’s tragic flaw). The reason Paul seems to be everyone’s theologian is that he was purposefully trying to "...become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22b, NIV). As a transitional figure, Paul was a bridge to the future, not the future himself. Paul had too many theological flaws to be the future, but he can point us in its general direction.

¤

Paul's tragic flaw

Paul’s tragic flaw was his belief that Jesus was immediately and triumphantly coming back to earth, for it caused him and the Church to devalue everything that didn’t promote rapid Church growth.  More specifically to our discussion, Paul’s incorrect End-Times theology caused him to devalue human sexuality.  As he told the Corinthians, sex and interpersonal commitments like marriage were to avoided if at all possible, for they took away from the time one had to witness for Jesus (1 Corinthians 7)!

In the name of expediency, the missionary task became the only task and the world was left to rot.  In such a context, issues of liberation were seen as tangents that only would distract the Church—and social justice was damned to hell.  The significance of an early return of Christ is easily seen in an issue like slavery.  Although Paul was likely against slavery as being a welcome part of the “Kingdom of God,” he clearly chose not to champion the issue for the sake of the gospel (cf., Philemon—Paul’s timid letter to a Christian slave owner on behalf of a runaway slave).  Peter went so far as to even insist that slaves reverently obey not only good masters "but also to those who are harsh" (1 Peter 2:18)!  Despite our Abolitionist reading of the Bible today, the Bible itself passed on the opportunity to be an Abolitionist document.

So how are we to respond to Paul and the other biblical writers’ tragic flaws?  The answer is to focus on the great principles of the Bible—the big ideas that hold everything together.  This is because true wisdom is only found in the timeless principles of Scripture, not the temporary, culture bound specifics that are built upon them.  As for the Abolitionists’ accomplishment, they found principles in Scripture that trumped Paul and Peter’s “don’t rock the boat” sentiments.  In this sense the Bible itself is on a spiritual journey, as the Spirit is ever restless over its flaws and our lack of comprehension.  On this journey the Bible is continually becoming the Word of God, but it only gets there to the extent the Spirit is able to illumine our stubborn minds to see beyond the page to the Word it represents.

Paul’s tragic flaw has cost the Church dearly.  Listen up, we are not ignoring our Christian duties by loving and being loved by others!  Neither is our need to be touched, held and even erotically healed anything but an embrace from Christ himself.  It is his gift to us—a gift Paul tragically missed out on.

¤

In Romans, the key principle and pointer to the future was Paul’s insistence that we are put right with God—made Righteous—not through grandiose moral accomplishments but by faith. Paul, ever the complex theologian, put it this way: "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand" (Romans 5:1-2a, NIV). This may sound complicated but it’s not—honest.

As stated, we become righteous by faith, not works. Faith involves a person somehow saying "YES!" to God’s active and saving presence in their life—it’s a relationship that blossoms from yes to yes, for the righteous live by faith (1:17). Works—trying to earn merit with God—fails, for nobody will get right with God by obeying the Law (3:20). Now righteousness isn’t connected to the Law (3:21), with the result that there is no fundamental difference between Jews and Gentiles, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ" (3:22b-24, NIV).

As for our behavior, Paul says, "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship....Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love" (12:1, 9-10a, NIV). The lesson here and elsewhere in Paul’s theology is that even though good works will flow from our "YES!", they can never substitute for it, for God’s ultimate concern is to mold our souls, not to teach us "stupid human tricks" (cf., Ephesians 2:8-10).

The difficulty in understanding Romans 1:26-27 is that it’s just a small section of Paul’s bridge to the future, so our task is to see the whole bridge and beyond—to see his future that we are even now creating. On the one river bank is the Law, on the other, Christ is the end of the Law (Romans 10:4), and the bridge is the gospel of liberation. Paul wanted everyone to accept this gospel—the good news that one gets right with God by faith, not works—and the preaching of this gospel became his mission in life (Romans 1:14-16). The first eleven chapters in the book of Romans are Paul’s major presentation on this teaching.

The two verses we are specifically examining (1:26-27), are part of a large subsection in Paul’s argument that’s contained in chapters one through three. Paul’s theme in these three chapters is the universal need for God’s plan of salvation. Paul’s point is purposefully built on overstatements and it goes like this:

•Chapter One: Roman culture is idolatrous and perverse

•Chapter Two: Jewish culture is full of hypocrisy and religious lawbreaking

•Chapter Three: No one is righteous (by their own efforts)

In the defense of queers, Romans 1:26-27 has been dealt with in a number of ways. First, scholars will point out that the context is that of a discussion of idolatry. From there some scholars argue that what is being condemned is limited to the idolatrous sexual acts that occurred within the religious rituals of fertility cults which were commonplace in the Greco-Roman world. Others go back to the argument that Paul was merely condemning some types of pederasty.

Also, it is often noted that Paul and the other New Testament writers’ viewpoints on sexual morality were derived without any consideration of sexual orientation, for this is a relatively recent advancement in our understanding of human sexuality. Thus, it can be demonstrated that despite Paul’s brilliance, he was largely speaking from an inaccurate data base, so regardless of what his words on the topic of homosexuality actually meant to his readers, they carry little weight for Christians today. Another approach is to argue that what this passage is condemning is all non-procreative sex—both as a leftover concern of tribal society as mentioned in our Leviticus discussion and as a reflection of Paul’s tragic flaw. Maybe I’m wrong, but in a world of six billion people the old tribal concern that everyone procreate little warriors isn’t terribly compelling. Finally, a number of scholars have questioned whether the vague Greek words in verse twenty-six actually refer to lesbianism or just heterosexual kink—it’s a grammatical toss up.

Frankly, I couldn’t care less which of all the above options are correct, because what I do know is the only valid interpretive options are those which align themselves with Paul’s major points in Romans and elsewhere about faith—and on that point I’ve already won. And I’ve won because there aren’t two sets of rules—one for queers and another for heterosexuals. If queers aren’t saved by faith, then nobody is saved by faith and we’re all still under the Law and haven’t a chance of being righteous, for no one will be declared righteous by obeying the Law (3:20). Everything in Paul’s theology has always been about coming under the righteousness of Jesus, not our own.

If queers must earn their way to heaven by first denouncing themselves as GLBT persons, then there would be a higher standard for queers than simply putting their faith in Jesus. And if this is so, then these additional steps can only mean that queers must do something extra in order to make up for something that was lacking in what Christ did for us on the cross. We know "doing something extra" doesn’t match up with conservative theology, but we’re asked to believe such nonsense out of a hatred of ourselves as queers.

The unbiblical fact of the matter is that our attackers would like us to believe that somehow the saving work of Christ on the cross is only sufficient for other people, not us. Against all this, we know we are of God, for "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children" (8:16, NIV). So let us each walk with the Spirit, allowing others and ourselves the freedom to follow the light that we’ve been given. We can trust God to love each of us to "himself," for that’s God’s job.

Finally, Paul slams the point home, saying: "What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us?....Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies....For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (8:31-39, NIV).

Bottom line: After all is said and done, Romans 1:26-27 is just a theological sound bite needing a context. In the context of Romans, this sound bite is held in check by Paul’s teachings about the gospel, grace and faith. Regardless of whether Paul the flawed theologian understood the pro-queer implications of his major theological teachings doesn’t ultimately matter. What does matter is that from his many spiritual insights and our own the Church today is continually becoming more inclusive of all persons. From Paul we’ve learned the stunning truth that the Creator of the universe is also the lover of our souls. Whether queer or straight, our part is to say "YES!" And whether queer or straight, "...each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another....As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean....[because] everything that does not come from faith is sin" (Romans 14:12-23, NIV).

Paul’s charge to us is simple: live courageous lives of faith!

Section Three

God settled the question

"God, who knows the heart,

showed that he accepted them 

by giving the Holy Spirit to them, 

just as he did to us"

(Acts 15:8, NIV)

Knock-Out Punch Intro

I liken the point I am about to make to the knock-out punch in boxing—it settles the match. In this section we’ll explore the implications of what the Bible clearly states in Acts 15:8, and elsewhere in the New Testament: that anyone who has received the Spirit is a Christian. Since this doctrine enjoys basically unanimous support among conservative theologians—the very ones who most often attack queers—its queer implications are unstoppable. It is my contention that queer Christians do exist, and they have been authenticated by receiving the Spirit. (Note: Try to avoid getting caught up in whether or not you personally accept the theology behind the argument I am making here. Instead, focus on learning how a key belief in the conservative Christian's own theology undermines his or her whole case against us queers).

The Knock-Out

: We've received the Spirit, how about you?

Let’s begin by unpacking what it means to have received the Spirit. First, Christians believe the Spirit to be literally God as personally and actively present to each of us at all times. We receive the Spirit as we somehow say "YES!" and open ourselves to this active and saving presence of God in our lives (1 John 4:13-17). The Spirit is said to literally live in each Christian—both as proof that God has accepted him or her and to somehow help guide the person in living out the Christian life (Romans 8:9-11). Specifically to my point, Paul claimed receiving the Spirit proved one was a Christian, saying:

"Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory" (Ephesians 1:13b-14, NIV).

If you have received the Spirit, then God has put "his" seal on you, guaranteeing you’re an authentic Christian. So how do we know if someone has received the Spirit? Ultimately the evidence is the same for all persons claiming to have the Spirit in their lives—one’s personal testimony and a life exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit: "God’s Spirit makes us loving, happy, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled" (Galatians 5:22-23a, CEV). The reality is that many queers do claim to be Christians and to know the Spirit’s presence in their lives. We know these claims to be true, for we have experienced first hand the loving warmth of God’s presence in their lives—you only know a person if you’ll journey with them.

Certainly someone could simply deny our claims to have been given the Spirit, but if our claims can simply be declared invalid, how can any Christian’s spiritual claims be validated? Jesus said: "Don’t condemn others, and God won’t condemn you. God will be as hard on you as you are on others! He will treat you exactly as you treat them" (Matthew 7:1-2, CEV).

Since nobody can conclusively prove any spiritual claim, let’s show some humility and allow God alone to be the judge of everyone’s claims. At the very least conservative Christians should acknowledge that IF we have received the Spirit, THEN they have been wrong about us. With such a beginning we can end the bitter war of words as each side learns to see the other with God’s merciful and loving eyes.

Here’s my case in brief:

• If all persons who have received the Spirit are Christians, then queers who have received the Spirit are also 100% God-certified Christians.

• If such queers have received the Spirit without somehow repenting of their being queer, then God has embraced them as queer Christians.

• If these queers have been embraced as queer Christians, then the debate over queers and the Bible has ultimately been settled in our favor—all other interpretations melt before this simple verdict.

Finally, it is important to note that I am not saying anything new here, for the principle that receiving the Spirit proves a person’s acceptance by God dates back to the early Church. It was around the year 48 A.D. when the early Church leaders got together to consider an important question: were converted Gentiles redeemed if they remained uncircumcised and did not keep the religious laws of Judaism? This meeting is referred to as The Jerusalem Council—and it is considered by scholars to be one of the most important Councils in Church history (cf., Acts 15).

(Note: nearly all of the early believers in Jesus were Jewish converts who saw themselves as still within Judaism—they were Jews who claimed Jesus to have been the Jews’ Messiah as foretold in the Old Testament).

In determining that Gentile converts didn’t have to follow Judaism’s laws, nor be circumcised, the Council was swayed by one huge fact: the Gentiles had already received the Spirit without having to jump through any of Judaism’s religious hoops. Thus, there was no point in anyone trying to make Gentile converts into obedient Jews—they were free to obey the Spirit’s leading in their lives! Again, since God had given the Gentile converts the Spirit, just as "he" had to the Jewish converts, they were Christians, end of debate. Whether or not one was circumcised or followed the specifics of Judaism’s laws were of no consequence.

Like Gentile converts prior to the Jerusalem Council, queers today are declared by the Religious Right to be unacceptable Christians. Similar to how many of the early Jewish converts viewed Gentiles, many Christians today view queers as people who must become just like them in order to become a Christian and join one of their churches. Against such thinking, God bypassed the Jewish convert’s prejudice against Gentiles and today’s Religious Right’s hatred of queers, giving all believers the Spirit without seeking the permission of their morally conservative critics.

Pretty cool, huh? And that’s how the debate was won with a first-round knock-out punch.

Section 4

How then shall 

we live?

"Be cheerful and enjoy life while you are young! 

Do what you want and find pleasure in what you see. 

But don’t forget that God will judge you for everything you do" 

(Ecclesiastes 11:9, CEV).

The Life of Freedom Intro

Now that we’ve established that a person can actually be a queer Christian, we’ll next explore integrating our Christian beliefs into our lives. Let’s start by asking the "bottom-line" question: what’s really expected of us?

Nobody really knows. It’s like we’re up to bat and God is pitching—and "he’s" got all the pitches (e.g., a supersonic fastball, a curve that mocks gravity and a change-up that stops time itself). So what is "he" going to throw—and could we hit it even if we knew?

Personally, I don’t think God is trying to strike anybody out. I believe this life of faith to be more like the intergenerational baseball games that happen at family reunions when lots of little kids are playing. God could strike us out but he just lobs it up nice and easy. If we miss, "he" steps a little closer and starts coaching us a bit. There’s no competition—"he" just enjoys seeing everyone do well. And yes, God is also the umpire, but the only real rule in family reunion baseball is love—so if you care about each other you’ll never get thrown out of the game.

It seems the bottom-line is that there is no bottom-line: faith has never been about finding the least one can do to pacify God, for God doesn’t want to be pacified but loved and enjoyed forever and ever, amen. In the discussion that follows, you'll find a few principles to help guide you ethically. From these principles and/or others you will make your own rules for life. If you are part of a community of faith and in other social settings, you will certainly dialog with others to sharpen your beliefs. So lighten up and enjoy life as you seek to be a person who loves both God and neighbor.

Note: Since this book is written to those who for various reasons care what the Christian Bible has to say about GLBT persons, I have chosen to also approach this discussion of queer ethics from within Christianity. If this excludes you, don’t fret—truth is truth, so see if any of this "rings-true" and assimilate what you can into your own spiritual journey.

Freedom-Life 101

:

1. Jesus is our Law

"So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law" (Galatians 3:24-25, NIV).

As stated in the discussion of Romans 1:26-27, we are made righteous by faith in God, not by doing the works of the Law. The Old Testament’s laws had a purpose, but Christians are no longer under the supervision of the Law. John, the disciple Jesus loved (John 13:23), said: "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17, NIV). Just as Jesus is greater than Moses, so too his teachings out rank anything Moses ever said or wrote.

This simply means we are followers of Jesus, not some collection of laws found in the Old Testament or anywhere else. Jesus is our example and his teachings are principle-driven, not rule-bound. Love will always place people above rules, so any given religious law is only pulled-through to today if it is embraced by Jesus’ "Law of Love"—the wholehearted love of God and neighbor.

Therefore, when Christians read the Old Testament—and we should—we are to look for lessons or principles, not exacting rules of behavior. For example, one key lesson we learn by reading the Old Testament is that of God’s heart for the poor and downtrodden—we learn about Justice. We read to learn more about wholeheartedly loving God and all our neighbors, even as we learn to love ourselves.

Most importantly, because Jesus is our law we need to tear down the barriers between straight and queer Christians, for as Paul said: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28, NIV). Jesus embraces everyone who comes to him in faith, and so that becomes our model for inclusiveness within the body of Christ, his Church. We need each other to be whole, for all types of segregation within and between churches—whether by class, race, gender or sexual orientation—present a distorted, freakish image of the body of Christ.

2. The Spirit is our guide

"But when you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law"

(Galatians 5:18, NJB)

The Spirit can be our guide, for the Spirit is everywhere—the Creator in the midst of "her" creation—drawing people to God. As the Spirit says: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me" (Revelation 3:20, NIV). If we’ve somehow opened the door to intimacy with God, then we are deeply embraced, even lived-in, by the Spirit. In all of this, the Spirit will not violate our free will, so "she" prompts and waits.

As for being "led by the Spirit," that’s just letting your life be a daily "YES!" to God, "for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Philippians 2:13, NIV). Similar to intuition, wisdom comes to you from the Spirit and you don’t really know if you just thought of it or what. Like the news anchors with their earpieces, it’s like the Spirit has a non-verbal earpiece to our conscious and subconscious minds.

This communication has similarities to "listening to one’s conscience," but in our quietness it works more like a free flowing stream of ideas as one is mostly silent and occasionally saying things, even praising God. Spending time in solitude with God brings more clarity to one’s life than anything else. All I can figure is that the Spirit really needs times when we’ll listen in order to bring us the little daily doses of wisdom that we can readily have if we’ll disengage from the noise of life.

So try to pray—even if just here and there. Don’t worry about praying through lists of requests—God isn’t a vending machine; rather, just lay out your heart and ask for guidance as you go through the day. Beyond this, look for times when you can "turn off the radio" and reflect with God on your day and how it’s going. It’s not foolproof, but it can bring more clarity to your life. The Spirit has no limits as to how "she" can speak to us if we’ll let it happen—if we’ll slow down and notice the dance of God all around us. Your most spiritual times may happen paddling a canoe, reading the Bible, meditating or talking with a thoughtful friend—seek out such treasures.

3. Freedom’s call: love God and neighbor

"The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love....The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’" (Galatians 5:6b, 14, NIV).

How complicated does this need to be? We all know something of what this means but the rest of it is on-the-job training. Unfortunately, we will often pass on the chances we are offered to become a person who really loves others. For example, I remember a few years ago when a new family moved in across from where I was living—I wasn’t oblivious to the fact they could have used some help putting in their new lawn but I sure didn’t offer. Thus, in exchange for a day in front of the television, I missed out on really bonding with a new neighbor family whom I never did get to know.

Freedom also applies to dating and relationships. Thus, if you are truly desiring to act towards your dates, lovers, partner, etc., with the kind of love you have for yourself (i.e., "love your neighbor as yourself"), then what does that mean to you? Think about what makes you feel good about yourself, then treat others with the same respect. Ask yourself dozens of questions like that and you’ll realize you know a lot more than you realized about how to honor and love your "neighbors" at all levels of intimacy.

¤

Creating loving and playful friendships

:

A Model for Relationships

However you feel about monogamy vs. nonmonogamy (our next sidebar), being coupled or single, “creating loving and playful friendships” can be a helpful model to guide your formation and maintenance of sexual relationships.

Friendship is an easy model, for we already know a lot about it.  While there is no need for your friendships to involve sexual play, your sexual play can be strengthened by adding friendship to the mix.  If all you want is sex, then don’t expect to find intimacy until you start to truly care about the people with whom you have sex.  Intimacy isn’t even possible without some sense of friendship—some connection as real people, not mere flesh on flesh.  Because we have souls, Christians believe we will live eternally with God.  As eternal creatures, it’s short-sighted when we treat each other as if we’re nothing but physical bodies.  We need to care for the well-being of each other’s soul.  Honor the soul—honor the person—or your focus on his or her body will devalue you both (e.g., that’s why one-night-stands often turn out to be life draining, not life enhancing experiences). 

The price of intimacy is friendship, and as the friendship goes, so goes the intimacy.  Healthy friendship based relationships are built on loving respect and communication.  If you want your relationships to last and flourish, then you’ll need to continually learn and relearn what it means to be a true friend.  Practically speaking, this means as you are beginning to date someone, you’ll want to build your mutual emotional and physical levels together—even letting the physical level lag behind at first as you seek to build a foundation of friendship.

Regardless of how you’d choose to explain your approach to sexual relationships, if you want to honor God, then you’ll need to honor your lovers with the same kindness, respect, love and compassion that God expects you to show yourself.  God calls us to learn how to truly love ourselves—and to share that same love with others.  That’s how amazing God’s love for us truly is.

¤

4. Freedom's destruction: self-indulgence

At first thought it would seem that self-indulgence should be the battle cry of Freedom. Yet, if all one hears from a word like "freedom" is the chance to get wild without any rules to stop you, then you’ve completely misunderstood the concept. If you use "freedom" to bring bad stuff into your life, then your life is going to totally suck, period. 

So is "freedom" just the backdoor to "rules"? No, but freedom only brings forth life when it is guided by the Spirit who teaches us to live-out the principle of wholeheartedly loving God and neighbor. The difference is that while true freedom embraces and finds life by loving God and neighbor, self-indulgence foolishly and franticly grabs at life, only to be left empty handed. True freedom's gift to us is the "fruit of the Spirit"--all the great stuff that happens both internally and externally when our focus is on loving God and "neighbor."  As Paul told the Galatians:

"After all, brothers, you were called to be free; do not use your freedom as an opening for self-indulgence, but be servants to one another in love....When self-indulgence is at work the results are obvious....On the other hand the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control; no law cantouch such things as these" (Galatians 5:13, 19, 22, NJB).

 Therefore, if you use "freedom" to make the most of your life, then not only will your life be rewarding and genuinely joyful, the Bible says you will be greatly rewarded by God in heaven. If that’s too weird for you, then simply realize positive behaviors bring good karma to your life—"you reap what you sow."

¤

Monogamy vs. Nonmonogamy

Monogamy is when a person has only one lover at a time—an exclusive relationship.  Nonmonogamy—multiple lovers—can be practiced by couples in “open relationships” (nonexclusive) or by single persons.  Similar to nonmonogamy are polygamy (multiple wives) and polyandry (multiple husbands). 

In the GLBT community there is no easy answer to the question of monogamy vs. nonmonogamy.  Some claim monogamy alone is ethical, while others counter-charge that the monogamists have a tragic case of internalized homophobia (i.e., they’re aping heterosexual norms like that of marriage in order to feel “normal”).  Unfortunately, even GLBT friendly churches have had little to add to this discussion beyond a few vaguely worded statements crafted at denominational meetings. 

As for the Apostle Paul, the key ethical consideration in the monogamy debate would likely be his deep concern that no person’s conscience be violated by another person’s moral freedom.  As Paul told some early Christians, “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak” (1 Corinthians 8:9, NIV).  It’s not that the morally squeamish get to call all of the shots, but neither will I flaunt my freedom to another’s destruction.

In this regard, Paul says: “‘Everything is permissible’—but not everything is beneficial.  ‘Everything is permissible’—but not everything is constructive.  Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others” (1 Corinthians 10:23-24, NIV).  We really are free if we’re truly seeking to journey with the Spirit—but be forewarned that much in life is neither beneficial, nor constructive.

My prayer for each of us is that we’ll learn to trust God and dive into life—I think God really appreciates people who aren’t afraid to make a mistake.  Jesus’ parables often had this same basic theme, calling people to honor God by daring to make something beautiful out of the life they were given.  The truth is that respectful, loving relationships come in all shapes and sizes.  Some are monogamous, others are not.  My bias is that monogamous relationships would tend to be healthier, for I believe two lovers can become one much more readily in an intimacy that isn’t shared with anyone else.  But it’s not my opinion that really matters here: know thyself!

¤

5.  Accepting Freedom

: 

The Church has continually run away from freedom, but we're not running anymore

“You stupid people in Galatia!....How is it that you received the Spirit--was it by the practice of the Law, or by believing in the message you heard?  Having begun in the Spirit, can you be so stupid as to end in the flesh [Law this, Law that, etc.]?....It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.  Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 3:1-3; 5:1, NIV).

Two millennia have come and gone, but most churches today, like this “stupid” church Paul wrote to so long ago in Galatia, are still struggling with how to implement the concept of freedom in an actual church setting.  

Many of us would like someone to tell us what to do—if you do these ten things, then God will be happy with you.  In contrast, God sees freedom as a necessity, for it trains us to be like Jesus the Christ, who walked in Spirit-led freedom.  We fear freedom, for it asks so much more of us than rules ever did.  Freedom is messy, while rules are neat and clean.  Freedom asks us what we think, while rules specify exactly what we are to do. 

Despite all its failings and its continual struggles with freedom, the Church has learned a lot from the Spirit over the past two thousand years—change has been slow but real.  Apparently it is part of God’s plan to let “his” Church awkwardly find its way as the Spirit gently prods us along in the right direction.  By gaining such a historic perspective, we are encouraged to keep finding both the courageto help the Church move forward—whether it be with baby steps or giant leaps (e.g., Vatican II)—and the patience to wait when change seems far away. 

It is a good and enriching thing to be an active participant in a community of faith, but don’t be oppressed by your church’s own issues of bondage.  It’s sad when a church rejects any of us for being queer; yet these churches are just filled with flawed people like you and me.  Forgiveness is a powerful gift of liberation, so let’s share it freely with those who fear GLBT persons.  If you live in a city, then you’re likely to find that in fact many of the churches are open to having GLBT persons as members, so ask around (e.g., GLBT organizations can point out “welcoming” churches to you).

IMPLICATIONS

Think....read....reflect....ask questions....seek God as you are able....ask the Spirit daily to guide your love of God and neighbor....live your life as fully as you can....avoid self-indulgence....seek to build love, joy, peace, patience, etc. into all your relationships....seek community not isolation....avoid ready made rules....explore how to better love those around you....love yourself or you’ll have nothing to offer your neighbor but contempt....play....play....play....smile and run free.

Want a little more direction ethically? Here’s a good book for you: Taking a Chance on God, by John J. McNeill (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988, 1996 new preface).

Epilogue

I've made my case, so what do you think? In the end, we are left to wonder what is really true. As liberals, moderates or conservatives in the early years of a new millennium's horrors and joys, each of us are left holding a Bible that we’ve invented for our time, as each has done before us. We have had to do this, for God has been less than clear with us, offering us instead a freedom that isn’t bound by clarity but the exploration of the truth that love is even greater than faith or hope—as the Apostle Paul said:

"Now all we can see of God is like a cloudy picture in a mirror. Later we will see him face to face. We don’t know everything, but then we will, just as God completely understands us. For now there are faith, hope, and love. But of these three, the greatest is love. Love should be your guide" (1 Corinthians 13:12-14:1a, CEV).

Imagine that, God values our ability to love others even over our ability to believe in "him" (cf., Matthew 25:31-46). Very simply, "God is love; and anyone who lives a life of love embraces God, and is embraced by God" (1 John 4:16b, QMB). This isn’t how to "earn" your way to heaven; rather, God is in the process of teaching everyone this lesson, for hate will have no place in heaven. If you want to hate, then you’ve got to wait—as C. S. Lewis said in The Great Divorce, that even if there is a hell, it is locked from the inside. Eventually, I believe everyone will find healing in the loving embrace of their Creator, for to resist LOVE is an act of ignorance, not true rebellion.

Ultimately, God doesn’t care what your sexual orientation is; rather, God cares about what kind of person you are. Are you kind, compassionate, considerate and loving? Work on those kinds of things as you embrace God with a giant "YES!" and leave your accusers to themselves—they know almost nothing of this God of love.

Peace and love.

~~~~~~~~~~

APPENDIX A

I Corinthians 6:9-10 & I Timothy 1:9-10:

Malakos and Arsenokoitai explained

Welcome to hell: As promised, I will now give you the most joyous reading experience of your life! Even though there is quite a bit more that needs to be said about these passages, I will limit your pain to only a discussion of the two key Greek words at question: "malakos" and "arsenokoitai." During the past 20 years scholarship has begun to give these verses a greatly needed review. The situation is that your Bible at home—even if it’s quite new—still reflects old scholarship on these terms. Unfortunately, there is a long lag time between advances in scholarship and seeing the updated versions of the texts at a Bible store near you.

MALAKOS: Of the two terms being debated, "malakos" is an extremely common word with many meanings—most commonly it referred to something as being "soft." In moral terms, it condemns or mocks anything seen by Greek male society as "soft," such as cowardice or laziness. All these negative "soft" failings were seen as feminine qualities. It was a blanket condemnation of all effeminacy as defined by Greek male society--not 20th century USA. It had nothing to do with limp wrists, nor did it determine with whom one had sex. Instead, this was a culturally based women-bashing term that has noplace in a modern Christian’s belief system.

In the ancient Greek world-view, women were pretty much worthless except as the bearers of legitimate offspring. In no context did they compare favorably with men, not even remotely. Thus, effeminacy was quite a cut-down. In contrast to today, Greek males saw womanizers as being effeminate (too interested in worthless pursuits), and male-male sex was typically argued by philosophers as being far more manly (not effeminate) than heterosexual sex, for it was associated with athletics, learning and books, not the delicate, pretty ways of women.

Dale Martin summarizes his research on malakos, saying:

"There is no question, then, about what malakos referred to in the ancient world. In moral contexts it always referred either obviously or obliquely to the feminine. There is no historical reason to take malakos as a specific reference to the penetrated man in homosexual intercourse. It is even less defensible to narrow that reference down further to mean 'male prostitute.' The meaning of the word is clear, even if too broad to be taken to refer to a single act or role. Malakos means 'effeminate'" ("Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences," in Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, ed. by Robert L. Brawley, Knox Press, 1996), p.128.

The history of the term is that for hundreds of years prior to the Reformation in the 16th century, malakos was typically thought to mean "masturbators," then advances in scholarship led to what is probably the correct translation, "the effeminate." From then on, effeminacy became the preferred translation until early in the 20th century. Yet, perhaps due to scholarship’s misunderstanding of what constituted effeminacy in ancient Greek male society, the term was used increasingly to condemn either homosexuals en mass, subgroups within homosexuality or male prostitutes.

ARSENOKOITES: The funny thing about this word is that as soon as scholars have finished admitting this is an extremely rare word that cannot be accurately defined, they set forth to tell you what it actually means. Realize this, there are zero known occurrences of arsenokoites in historically remaining ancient Greek literature predating this New Testament reference. ZERO! Even if Paul coined the term, the Bible itself offers no help, for in the whole Bible arsenokoites is found only in these two passages’ sin lists, so we have no context to help define the term—everything else is pure conjecture, not fag-damning facts.

Later literature is also of no certitude, for it can only tell us various meanings for the term that existed in other centuries--meanings often change but even if they don't, how many terms have only one possible definition--doesn't context often shade meanings as well? So I can tell you what this scholar says it means and what that scholar says it means but at the end of the day where has it taken us when the facts are they're actually trying to pass off "educated guesses" as proof that God hates/loves fags.

One more thing, some scholars will try to snow you with a faulty method of doing "word studies." In this method, they'll pull compound words like arsenokoites apart (arsen / koites), define each half (male / bed), then stick the word back together again with the combined definitions (FAGGOT!). Sounds great but....hmmm....okay, here's my thought: if this doesn't work on English words, then why does it work on ancient Greek words? You can't simply pick a compound word apart that you don't know and say it means the combination of all the smaller words contained therein. Do you get it? Try it with the following words: foot/ball (soccer?); under/stand (to stand under?); dark/room (simply a room that’s dark?); hall/mark (a crayon mark on the wallpaper?); pee/been (something you ask a small child before bed?); AND ARE YOU BEGINNING TO BELIEVE ME?

Furthermore, even when this approach gets the definition approximately right, you’ve still lost all the nuances that truly bring the term to life—you’ve just got the corpse of the term, not its spirit. Therefore, I salute Dale Martin's confession that "I should be clear about my claims here. I am not claiming to know what arsenokoites meant, I am claiming that no one knows what it meant" (Martin, p.123). Despite my praises of Martin, he, too, couldn’t resist guessing the mystery word, saying it seems to have referred to some sort of economic exploitation by means of sex but not necessarily limited to male-male sex.

Concluding thought: Thanks for reading the appendix, I wasn’t sure if it was worth including but you changed my mind.

APPENDIX B

Bible Translations Used:

CEV: Contemporary English Version

KJV:King James Version

NIV: New International Version

NRSV: New Revised Standard Version

QMB: QueerMe Bible (author's translation)

Chris' bio...

 (October 18, 2001)

Born: April 3, 1963 (don't do the math)

Place of birth: Florence, Italy

Siblings: 2 brothers (both older); 2 sisters (one eldest; one youngest)

--yes, that makes me the forth of five children

Parents: married nearly 50 years and loving it

Hometown: St. Anthony Village, Minnesota

--it's a suburb of Minneapolis

Education:

--Bethel College, St. Paul, MN: B.A. in Biblical and Theological Studies

--Bethel Theological Seminary: M.A.T.S. (Masters of Theological Studies)

(NOTE: I don't recommend either of these schools, for they are hostile to GLBT persons and have terminated professors that didn't hate queers enough).

Current Employment: Triage Consultant for an Employee Assistance Program. If you're ever offered a job with this title, run for your life! It's sadly funny that I was absolutely thrilled about this job before it started:(  Yep, it's back on the search for a tolerable job to support my hobbies!

Ambitions: 1) Write approximately six theology books for queer youth; 2) write two children's books; 3) record two CDs of original songs; 4) spend my golden years as an artist, doing paintings and taking long walks with my partner, the love of my life--he's still hiding out there somewhere! 

I like the fact that I was born in Florence, Italy--it gives me the feeling that life is an adventure. According to family legend, my birth adventure came about when, at the request of my dad's job, our family lived for two years in Florence--I saw the second year! It amuses me to think that my parents, who have since lived in the same house for over 35 years, were once adventurous and young.

As far as I can recall, I was five years old when I became a Christian by saying the "Sinner's Prayer", and I was baptized--Baptist style--when I was in the fourth grade. My parents, siblings and basically all of the relatives I knew as a youth were conservative Christians. Today, some of us have become moderates and liberals but most are still selling "Get out of hell free passes" that they get from "Sweet Jesus"--the Son of the guy who would just as soon torture us for all of eternity in hell if we neglect to become a conservative Christian (no other type of Christian is a real Christian).

In my life I have known extremes of popularity and that of being an outcast--and times of being somewhere in-between. I've had a good life on the whole, and I truly look forward to my continuing adventures. My dreams are bigger than I can realistically hope to accomplish, but I know with a lot of work and a little luck they could start to click-off one by one. Since money means very little to me, my "career" choices have often made little sense to my relatives--and sometimes even myself. 

My biggest career failure was likely my year in Nashville as a singer/songwriter ('96-'97); yet, it was that year away from life in Minnesota that brought healing to my life as I finally came to peace with the fact that I was gay. Making that realization was a difficult journey for me, for I had been so thoroughly trained to be a conservative Christian that I survived my inner turmoil by dedicating myself to God and celibacy. Believe me, I wish I could have known my life as a gay youth, but if I had, I never would have written this book, either. So maybe all the strange twists and turns of my life do make sense--or a least can find their meaning in this book and any others that my journey inspires me to write.

Whatever the future brings, I hope this book helps you know that God's love is real and freely offered to all GLBT persons. May we all learn to rest in the loving embrace of our God.

E-mail QueerMe...

chrisdkramer@QueerMe.com

Be nice...

ppppppppplease

:o)