I Have to Confess... I am open to lots of things. But does that mean I should embrace them?

Am I Open To An LGBT-affirming Biblical perspective?

An honest response to Rev. Morgan Guyton’s treatment on the subject.

To be clear, I am always open to hear anyone’s viewpoints on this or any other topic.  I am open to the discussions that are needed to ensure that healthy dialogue continues.  I believe that when we stop communicating and start name calling and belittling, everyone loses.  Especially those who we are seeking to give voice to.  Passion can't afford to be undermined by vitriol.  If everyone is yelling, then no one is able to listen.  You can’t do both at the same time.  And I’m not interested in “winning” a conversation.  If that’s my goal, then I’ve already lost, because that means I’ve placed more importance on my pride or “rightness” than on searching for real resolution to a deep and painful division.  With that said, Rev. Morgan Guyton’s recent and repeated challenge for any "conservative" to offer “good-faith engagement” on his blog post from last year, “Are You Open To LGBT-affirming Biblical Perspective?”, coupled with his subsequent commenting on a UM clergy group page, led me to read his blog… carefully… several times.  So, “Am I open to an LGBTQ-affirming Biblical perspective?”  And what does that mean exactly?

As I’ve stated, I’m open to any discussion, and will listen to any viewpoint.  But open to, doesn’t necessarily equal acceptance of.  For example; some very high quality people in my beloved St. Charles Parish, Louisiana eat Nutria.  And I was open to the experience of trying it once... ONCE.  It is not something that I found to be all that “agreeable”.  Scriptures however, aren’t offered buffet style.  There’s only one table, prepared for all, but the Chef offers only His entrée on the menu.  (My use of the masculine pronoun here is in reference to Jesus' sacrifice as contained in Eucharistic symbolism.)

Repeated blanket assertions that conservatives, or Scriptural passages, are “anti-gay” seem disingenuous at best.  It would be absurd for me to take the stance, for example, “that because Rev. Guyton is “obviously” liberal (something he never claims to be in his article), he must be ‘anti-hetero’.”  Or, “He hates hetero-normative couples. Because it’s quite apparent that to him, if you aren’t openly gay, you have nothing valuable to bring to a conversation about the topic, and should be shunned.”  I will never believe that because he advocates for LGTBQ issues, he “hates straight”.  It is possible to hold a differing view from someone without it requiring you to reduce them to caricatured versions of who you think they are. 

To that end, I will address the remainder of this response to Rev. Guyton directly.  Not as a way to attack or belittle.  I believe that his motives are pure in putting forth his particular blog post.  This is more of an effort to engage directly and in good faith.  And as a matter of respect, I was raised to speak directly to the person I was addressing.

Rev. Guyton,

I would encourage you to be aware that in opposing belittling and marginalizing behaviors and language from the “oppressive neo-patriarchal culture”, adopting those same behaviors isn’t exactly working from a moral high ground.  I don’t know you, and would never offer the false pretense that I do.  But based upon what I’ve read of your work, I would go so far as to venture that in your closest interpersonal relationships, you go out of your way to not engage in the use of shaming tactics and language that you seem to have a genuine distaste for.  Why would you treat a complete stranger or an anonymous reader with less compassion?

And before we begin chasing the “why don’t you respond to the specific evidence I offered” rabbit… I believe that I am.  How we say what we believe is often more indicative of what we believe than the words we use.  It may not need clarification, as your use of language suggests that there is at least some psychological, and sociological study in your background, but just to be sure, and for the benefit of those reading who may need it…   When we open with aggressive personal characterizations (stereotypes), or we blow past a question that has been asked to answer the one we want to answer; one or all of three things occur within personal communication structures…

1.  The recipient feels like they’ve been ignored.

2.  They shut down any response you may give because they are making the determination that you aren’t all that interested in real communication… just winning. And/or

3.  They immediately distrust us.  

They already have guards in place and if we skip over what we think is less important walls go higher.  If we take a little more time to let people know we're actually listening, walls begin to come down.  Slowly maybe, but down all the same.  And isn’t that your goal?  Wasn’t that your own assertion in the opening passages of the blog?  The practice of gaining growth by getting to know LGBTQ people, also works when getting to know those on the other side of the issue.  They, like you, are whole and complicated beings with histories and futures, biases and openness, emotions and indifferences, as well as strengths and deficiencies. 

Now to address the scriptural points contained in your blog…

I would like to ask, what do you base your assertions on or in?  You provided a link to only one author’s work aside from your own blog postings. And beside those you offer no references to the support of any of your arguments.  Not even which lexicons you may be using for the purpose of defining the Greek texts and/or the contextual understanding of their use.  If we are to have an honest “good-faith engagement” then it seems prudent to give credit to those works that contribute to your current understandings.  Also it is helpful to those who might seek to know and understand your frame of reference, or may wish to engage in honest dialogue and possibly offer suitable rebuttal.   

Secondly, while your treatment is certainly well thought out, it is not exactly exhaustive.  That would mean you had examined every possible text and context in Scripture surrounding these issues, and there was nothing left discuss contained within its pages.  So while it is indeed extensive, exhaustive might be a misnomer.  (i.e. There is no discussion of Gospel passages like those in Mark 10, or Matt. 19, and what they may have to say in a direct pronouncement of God's intent for marriage, even if they are speaking to questions about divorce.)  I say that just for a personal point of clarification, as your article’s thesis seems, based on what I took from your writings, to be a call to seek correct interpretation and usage of language.  You and I are in complete agreement that understanding linguistic context and usage are vitally important if we are to better apprehend what is being communicated by a message’s composer. 

In response to your position that apart from being homosexual, the people you worshiped with weren't any different than other conservative, evangelicals on a significant level.  You are absolutely right.  LGBT or Q is not the totality of who they are.  It isn't a complete definition or full picture of their personhood.  Nor does it make them any more righteous, or greater sinners than, say a porn addict, biggot, hypocrite, Klan member, or Nazi who, other than those affiliations, don't actively engage in acts of hate or violence, and really do love the Lord.  And please understand, I'm in NO way equating LGBTQ people with Nazis or Klan members.  I am simply pointing out that if the definition of whether something is sin comes from human experience or human determination of whether something is good or sinful; these people would also have a logical right to expect to not be told that their attitudes about sexualized images of men or women, or orientation toward prejudice, is wrong.  They're not hurting anyone after all.

The issue isn't that any of these complex and complete humans are beyond redemption, or a denial that they have received it.  At issue is whether we should try to redefine what Scriptures say to ease our consciences; or try to orient our living to align more closely with Scriptures instead.  We need to remember that "all fall short" isn't a goal to achieve, or an excuse to not try: but is rather an admission of the need for Grace in EVERY life, and a call to begin to move forward toward it together.

I, as a minister of the word, am held to a level of accountability in my own living financially, ethically, sexually, and morally, as are you.  So how do we define those standards?  How do we arrive at them?  Does a Jim Bakker decide? How about a Billy Graham?  The Pope?  Does God give us each a different expectation?  Experience is, at best, a marred lens through which to view the world.  It's even worse in regard to Kingdom Ethics.  Experience is tempered by the limited scope of our perceptions and feelings in response to them.  Outside perspective and counsel are needed.  Scripture offers that.  For better or for worse, the Bible gives redemptive, outside perspective.

Which brings me to your positions in regard to the specific “anti-gay clobber texts” as you call them.  You took some time to unpack them, and I appreciate that it wasn’t a random rant designed solely to unload venom.  However, may I ask your genesis for that nickname?  Because it seems to me that any text that prohibits any culturally assumed, non-normative behavior found in Scripture could be interpreted as an “anti-_____ clobber text.”  Theft, rape, murder, covetousness, greed, and even hatred are addressed as specifically prohibited and/ or shameful action too many times throughout the passages to list exhaustively in this response. (And it might be antithetical to engage in a conversation on each separately at this juncture in any case.)  But are the other corrective prescriptions contained, just within the Gospels for example, any less “clobber texts” than those you have discussed in regard to human sexuality and the prohibitions you have listed?  If so, why?   The basic premise of the Gospels is that none of us, not one person, is deserving of Grace.  By their definition, we are all told we shouldn't exist after we leave here... and yet the love of the Creator seeks to redeem in spite of that.  Any texts then that seek to guide us to betterment, especially the correctives, become a catalyst for reconciliation to God and one another don't they?  

In Section I, paragraph 2, as you deconstruct the passages in Romans 1, you ponder:

“whether the ‘shameless acts’ Paul is talking about in verses 27-28 were sinful for a reason other than the genders involved (like promiscuity, adultery, recklessness, etc), even if Paul mentions their same-genderedness incidentally.”

I find that I have two difficulties with this point:

First, on what are you basing your understanding of the contextual gender assignation of “shameless acts” you seem to be alluding to?  Are you speaking from an understanding, for example, that in the cultural context of Paul’s day “there were men’s sins, and women had different sins”?  I’m simply asking for a clearer explanation of your point.  Because what I have received from your phrasing may not be what you intended readers to “hear”.  And I generally try to seek clarification, rather than continue to work forward from a “bad point” if I have misunderstood or unintentionally mischaracterized your position.

   

And second… was it an incidental mention?  Paul had had several years to work through the theological and doctrinal ramifications of his correspondences by that point.  And had also spent a fairly lengthy amount of time with the writer of the Gospel of Luke.  Do you think that he hadn’t fully dealt with the topic until then?  While there is research suggesting that he may not have been the greatest orator depending on which scholar you cite, Paul certainly had a way with the written word.  (And I realize that depending on one’s personal relationship with, and opinion of, the Apostle’s epistles, it may be “the wrong way”. But I digress.)    

   

Continuing through your opinions on Romans 1…

With all due respect to “Doug Campbell and other scholars”, Paul’s use of rhetorical device in “recycling” isn’t a reason to dismiss verses 18-32 as a “throw away” passage on the way to a greater point.  If that were the case I could choose to use any repeated point you make as a reason to throw away your clarifying points and decide that your “greater” agenda is to prove that “Paul is a misogynistic butt-head.”  However, it’s fairly clear, within the context of your article, that your intent is to prove that orthodox views should be challenged and/ or dismissed in regard to the topic of homosexuality. 

Moving forward to Section II…

You unpack selections from 1 Cor. 6, and 1 Tim. 1, respectively.  I have to take another moment to admit honestly that I was unsure whether you were referencing the NIV translation here for support of your position, or to condemn its “exegetical crime against humanity”, as you referenced no other translations.  I would ask again, where do you build these positions from?  You have listed nothing in support of your argument.

I am willing to stipulate that your definitions of both malakos, and arsenokoitai, seem to be accurate.  But your exercise in separating them contextually from the passages and words around them seems to be a bit of a stretch.  You reference the patriarchal societal constraints in which they were first used (establishing that there was indeed a use and established meaning for these words); and then claim that because their use was obscure, it is definitive proof that they cannot be defined, and therefore need to be eliminated.  Yet you offer no concrete proof that they mean anything other than what scholars thus far have offered in translation.  There are literally centuries of disciplined, serious scholarship about and around the translation of these texts.  And you’re response is, “If there's a chance we don’t fully understand it, we must get rid of it.”  Isn’t that attitude toward the unknown something that you might chide conservatives for?

As for your next point:

But how does the presence of the words “man” and “bed” in a compound word in the New Testament and in two sentences about sex in the Old Testament prove anything? The fact that arsenos and koiten are back to back in 20:13 isn’t a slam-dunk clincher. Do any two words back to back logically and naturally form a “phrase” with one another? What about the words “back logically” in the sentence I just wrote? Let’s say I write somewhere else, “Let’s get back to logic.” Does that mean that I’ve just made an explicit connection between those two sentences? (italics added)

I’m really not trying to be snarky here; but yes... yes you did.  Especially taken in context with the whole of this particular paragraph.  You actually and LITERALLY made an explicit connection between those two sentences.  Just then. Secondarily, every time you mention logic from then on, it is connected on some level for the reader.  Is there some reason for your disconnecting the two?  There is an overarching reasoning threaded throughout the entirety of your article.  Or are your thoughts randomly typed and placed together with no regard for form, function, and/ or continuity?  Might you be dismissing connecting words and themes out of hand?  Context, as you have so fervently and rightfully argued, informs readers about their meaning.  And the use of repetition can both imply importance, and enable retention…

Okay...

I am shifting direction completely at this time, because I have come to a realization.  I only took up the challenge issued by you because I noticed that in the UM Clergy community we have in common online, you more than others, seemed to be longing for dialogue.  I have been watching your interactions online, off and on, while I’ve been working to respond to your post with careful thought and in the good faith you asked for.  The more I’ve seen though, I’m not sure that you are interested in good-faith engagement, as much as winning the argument.  I’m afraid my continuation wouldn’t enable us find any peace, or move us closer to healthy resolution.  And so, rather than expending more time and energy having largely academic "back and forth" when we could be reaching out for the Kingdom people that God calls in Grace; I will simply share a few more thoughts instead and close.

Both you and I have spent time in careful consideration over the texts in question that are contained in your blog.  Admittedly, I have made these same points from the other side of conversations probably far less than you have yours Rev. Guyton.  But I did, and continue to, approach them prayerfully.  Further, because I am neither “anti-gay” nor “pro-let’s change what the Word says”, but am instead, “God lead me to life affirming action, and you be the judge of the rest”; I don’t spend copious amounts of time pursuing online arguments, or pouring fuel on open flames…    But I will sincerely offer you the right hand of Christian fellowship if you’re so inclined to take it. 

I agree completely that Scripture is above tradition.  It is also above experience.  It even trumps reason; at least in regard to the sometimes fluid, human measurement of reason... especially in relation to God’s revealed explanations.  I firmly believe that Scripture is primary; and that all the other corners in the “quadrilateral” are means by which we begin to examine its meaning and application.  But they are subordinate to Scripture.  Why?  Because through Scripture we have an external, revealed Word to use as the measuring stick and guide.  Would God contradict Godself?  Would your experience trump mine in terms of “whose is real”?  How do we know if it does or not?  By checking them against the Rubric.    

We are burdened with, and I believe ultimately blessed through, the discomfort of wrestling with Biblical revelations.  There are both descriptive and prescriptive texts contained within these Sacred pages.  We have the sometimes onerous task of determining which is which.  They are sticky and prickly and weighty and knotted at times.  Largely due to the “outsideness” of their perspective.  But that same “outsideness” gives them value for us.  What do I mean?

If Scripture only contained that which I wanted to hear… I wouldn’t be challenged to grow or change, or repent, or abandon selfish means and motivations, or seek salvation.  But since it speaks from a perspective that IS outside of my own; it does challenge me while it gives information that contains transformational value for me.  The same is true of all who begin to live within the tension between righteousness and brokenness while engaging in conversation with Biblical passages.   If we approach their study and application solely from our own finite and ethnocentric attitude of rightness; then maybe we aren’t really seeking to find God’s answers.  Instead we’re wanting to hear our answers in "God’s voice".

I’ve not created one life in my 43 years here on earth.  So I must not be God.  I’ve not saved one soul in 14 years of ministry.  So I’m obviously not the Christ.  And I haven’t convicted one sinner over the wrongness of their lecherous behavior, ever. (Not even me.)  So I suppose that I’ve hit the trifecta… I’m not the Holy Spirit.  That means that my job description (as a fellow United Methodist, and as a clergy member) is pretty much focused on one task... share what the King has given to the heralds to proclaim in both word and deed.  God writes, I repeat.  God reveals, I repeat.  God invites, I repeat.  God corrects, I repeat.  God says “repent”, I repeat.  God says “good”, I repeat.  God says “bad”, I repeat.  God says “forgive”, I repeat.  God says "love", I repeat.  I really have no problem with that.  And not because I'm a simplton or, intellectually lazy.

I’m not so caught up in my need to be right or popular that I fear being disowned.  Mainly because I am not called to be either right or popular.  I’m redeemed and then called to live being faithful, kind, merciful, gracious, loving and just.  Which are much harder things to be with consistent integrity... especially in the face of opposition.  However, not having to be right or popular doesn’t give me license to treat anyone as less than the humans God created and loves.  So I’ll continue to love, lift, reach out to, and serve anyone and everyone that I can.  Whether or not they believe as I do.  And whether or not they reject me.

Finally, to respond directly to the parting paragraph of your blog… I don’t fear that asking questions might be construed as being less than faithful.  I just don’t ask the question with the expectation of only receiving the answer I like or want to hear.  And as for “mere fidelity to scripture”; there is nothing that prevents one from being fully devoted to its revelation while still engaging in intellectual and logical interaction with its Author.  That's actually encouraged.  So, Semper Fidelis and let’s get to the work of ministry! 

At the end of it all, it’s not an issue of my intellectual prowess or yours.  It is a question of whether or not God’s revelation is infallible...  Incapable of failure.  And thanks be to God, that takes a lot of pressure off of us.

I will humbly ask this of you though Rev. Guyton:

  
If it turned out that all of what the Bible says is true, would that change your relationship with God?  With the world?  Could you still be a minister of the Word for Christ's people?

May His peace be your way in the world friend.

Sincerely,

Chris Cooksey

ultimately, just a nobody that Grace makes into somebody because Somebody loved us even though we just knew we were nobodies.