The question I'm wrestling with is this: "What is actually, categorically wrong with two adults of the same gender (and/or sex) engaging in a physical expression of their love for one another within the boundaries of a committed relationship?"
My answer: Absolutely nothing. And I honestly have never heard a compelling reason to change my answer. Here's why (Part 3):
First, let's review:
When arguing about (homo)sexuality...
1. ...the Bible isn't helpful. Not as a direct and unfiltered source. (See Part 1)
2. ...and "nature" isn't either. Plenty of things are "natural" but also wrong. Plenty of things are "unnatural" but also beneficial. (See Part 2)
We can't simply go from "what the Bible says" or "what nature says" to "how we ought to live." To get from what "is" to what "ought" to be, we have to offer some kind of "bridge principles" to get us there.
This means that there are many common arguments in this conversation that simply don't hold water. These include (but are not limited to):
"The Bible says it's wrong, so it must be wrong." (Wrong: the Bible says lots of things are wrong that most folks have no problem with.)
"The Bible doesn't actually say it's wrong, so it must be right." (Wrong: the Bible doesn't say anything about whether it was a good idea to split the atom and lead creation to the brink of annihilation. That doesn't mean it was a good idea.)
"It's not natural, so it must be wrong." (Wrong: it's perfectly natural, if by that you mean it is found in nature...and may even be beneficial to the species.)
"It's perfectly natural, so it must be right." Otherwise known as "S/he was born that way, so it's okay." (Wrong: As a Lutheran, I have to say here that I believe people are "born" with all kinds of messed up predilections, motivations, and drives. Pedophilia in particular is one of the most intransigent "natural" characteristics in a portion of the population... and I think we can all agree that it's perfectly wrong.)
"It's not a choice." (Wrong: it [i.e., having sex] absolutely is a choice. We are human beings, not robots. Unless, of course, we're talking about rape - which is a completely different conversation.)
"Only sex that makes babies is morally right." (Wrong: Do you have any idea how much sex is happening in the world right this minute that cannot possibly produce children? That's a whole lot of sex that apparently cannot be considered as morally legitimate. Not to mention, this makes for an exceedingly boring sex life - the kind we all wish for our parents but never for ourselves.)
"Kids need mommies and daddies; therefore gay families are inadequate." (Wrong: I agree that having multiple adult role models of a variety of genders, races, personalities, etc., is a good and healthy thing for children. The science tends to support that as well. And, an increasing number of kids are (or are not) benefiting from that diversity of adult attention and modeling regardless of the legal make-up of their household. I'd rather not have as many kids being raised by single parents (usually moms) as we have. I'm also aware that divorce can often be the best choice among lots of unattractive choices. I'm a man, but if my son is going to learn how to fix things or throw a football, he's going to need his straight uncle or his sister's gay godfather or his grandma to help - I'm out of my depth there. Thankfully I'm embedded in a diverse and loving community of family and friends who can offer my kids a variety of models of how to be human men and women. But unless we're ready to go back to the days when two-parent, heterosexual families were the only legitimate and legal household structures, then we're going to need a little flexibility and fairness when adjudicating which parents are better for which kids. Besides, I know a lot of straight parents who really suck at raising kids.)
"It's an aberration of nature - just like pedophilia or bestiality or (insert your favorite gross sex practice here)." (Wrong. Wrong. Wrong! There is no legitimate reason to bring this up at all. Rape, incest, bestiality, pedophilia - these are completely different categories of behavior that require separate ethical consideration.)
Side note: I think you'll find that when push comes to shove, most of the above arguments are a thin veneer over what's really happening, which I like to call the "Ugh!" or "Yay!" factor. Look at Phil Robertson. After dragging the Bible and sin into it (very inadequately, I must say), the real "substance" of his argument was about which parts fit where - and his revulsion at the idea of anal sex, compared to his apparent abundant love for the vagina (his words, not mine). Fair enough - he's really not into anal sex - really. I'm not into Brussels sprouts, but I do happen to love sushi; my wife feels the exact opposite. Tastes vary (and, btw, they also happen to have real biological roots). I'm not about to suggest that we should structure our food ethic around my particular tastes - no matter how much my gag reflex instantly kicks in when a Brussels sprout touches my tongue.
And while we're talking about stuff that's gross - it's important to note that there is a fundamental, categorical difference between eating Brussels sprouts and eating, say, shit - although both thoughts make me wretch. One is (apparently) food. One is waste. Think of that the next time you want to compare adult, committed, same-gender sexuality with having sex with children or goats. Crude, yes - and strangely considered appropriate conversation among some (maybe) adults.
"Who are we to judge?" (Wrong. Wrong. Wrong! We must judge. Because we live in a world where sexuality easily becomes a tool for controlling other people's bodies and lives, the community must make reasonable, sound, judgments about what is and is not acceptable sexual behavior. Sometimes these norms will agree with "the Bible" or "nature" (e.g., parenting is a good thing that should be supported by the community). Sometimes they won't (e.g., multiple spouses and sexual partners create social and economic vulnerabilities that ought to be avoided in civil society, no to mention it makes life really complicated.)
The question is not whether we judge - it's how. What principles help us organize the available data (traditions, scriptures, laws, natural phenomena, experiences, etc.) into a reasonable ethic for human sexuality in our community?
3. ...let's imagine we're starting from scratch. How would you describe an ideal human, mature, sexual relationship?
We probably won't agree on all of these - and some will undoubtedly want to add some that I might balk at. That's the joy of living in community. But here's my humble offering of a place to start:
Choice and freedom - partners choose one another; sexual expression is mutually-agreed-upon without pressure; partners can choose to end a relationship with some reasonable and fair repercussions; because one must be free to make choices, reaching the age of moral agency is vital for a relationship to be "freely chosen" and not coerced.
Commitment and responsibility - relationships take work and energy and dedication; sexual expression should wait until partners have reached a mature decision to care for one another in the morning and jointly bear the joys and consequences for their behavior; structures should be in place that encourage partners to work on problems before quickly dissolving the relationship; legal protections and structures should be available and encouraged - and I have yet to hear any good reason for gender to be a determining factor in the availability of legal protection.
Mutuality and justice - power is divided equally; labor is distributed fairly; choices are talked about openly; consequences are borne together; there is give and take, but full moral agency requires mutuality.
Community and diversity - children are a part of the picture - even if they do not legally depend upon the couple in question; communities raise generations together; parenting should be legally and structurally supported and encouraged and shared - within and outside the home; a diversity of adults should be involved in modeling and caring for children; mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends, etc., should be a part of children's lives, within responsible and safe boundaries.
And, of course, love and passion - Relationships should be fun; sexuality should be treasured and celebrated; and as people grow and change, relationships should seek to find new ways to celebrate love and passion in their lives together; beauty and attraction are not the exclusive property of teenagers, and society does well to encourage a love of bodies and people across the whole diversity of human life and love.
That's just a start - feel free to add or subtract. It seems to me a much more robust way of celebrating the gift of love and relationship than reducing people to "which parts fit where." And while it takes some good sifting and translation, most (if not all) of these values can be found in both scripture and nature - along with lots of other, much less beautiful or helpful stuff.
The question, then, is this: Can two adults of the same gender willfully enter into a relationship that can be judged and understood within the boundaries of these principles? Can two adult women choose one another, raise children together, share power and life and love, and embed themselves in a just and loving community? Can two adult men have a mutual, loving, beautiful, complicated life together - which may or may not involve directly raising children of their own, but which takes responsibility for the welfare and joy of the world in which they live and the generations yet to come?
My answer: Absolutely. Not hypothetically, but actually. These relationships happen all around me all the time. Some are better than others. The same is true of my friends who are coupled with people of different genders.
So, absent any compelling reason to say "no" to these dear friends and fellow citizens (not to mention children of God) and their relationships, then what is actually, categorically wrong with their lives?
Absolutely nothing.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
"What's wrong with that?": Changing the conversation about sexuality, Pt 2: "Nature" and "Choice"
The question I posed in Part 1 is this: "What is actually, categorically wrong with two adults of the same gender (and/or sex) engaging in a physical expression of their love for one another within the boundaries of a committed relationship?"
My answer: Absolutely nothing. And I honestly have never heard a compelling reason to change my answer. Here's why (Part 2):
When arguing about (homo)sexuality...
1. ..."nature" isn't really helpful...
1a. ...because all kinds of sex happens in "nature," too. First of all - humans are a part of "nature," right? Among the human species, persons with the same genitals do happen to couple. So - I guess it's "natural" after all.
(It also, btw, happens with great regularity in the non-human world - bonobo chimps [very close cousins of ours] get all kinds of freaky.) The conversation about what is "natural" often devolves into a middle school sensibility of "which parts fit where." And, to be frank, lots of parts fit together in lots of different ways. That may sound crude, but I'm not the one who started the conversation about what is a "natural" way for parts to be joined.
1b. ...and, so what? Just because something occurs "in nature" does not make it right or wrong. Cancer is "natural." It also really sucks. Alcoholism has genetic markers. Same-gender attraction probably does, too (the science is inconclusive, but some of it is quite compelling). EO Wilson famously argued that homosexuality actually provides an evolutionary benefit, as it frees up some gay aunts and uncles to help their breeder siblings raise their kids. Some animals eat their own children - in nature. Some of these are good. Some are bad. Some have outlived their evolutionary value. But they're all "natural."
And there are lots of "unnatural" things that are actually quite beneficial and morally good - as in, like, nearly all the contributions of the medical sciences.
This cuts both ways: Folks on the proverbial "right" cannot claim that same-gender sexual behavior is "unnatural," unless appealing to procreation (see below). Folks on the proverbial "left," however, also cannot claim that just because it might be "natural," therefore means that it is also morally acceptable.
In philosophy, this is known as the "is-ought gap." You cannot make a moral argument (what "ought" to be) simply from what "is." You have to bridge the gap. You have to explain why this phenomenon is or is not morally commendable. These are called "bridge principles," which help organize various sources of evidence into reasonable moral categories.
E.g.: Alcoholic behavior is wrong - but it is not unnatural... so why is it wrong? (Because it endangers the life of the individual and the whole community, etc.)
This is where I simply have not heard any compelling bridge principles to make any argument against lgbtq sexual expression meaningful. I'm still waiting. (More on that in Part 3).
Often, the last resort is babies...
1c. ...and the fact is, children happen - or not - in lots of different ways. Procreation seems to be the last bulwark for those who defend a position that excludes lgbtq folks from moral legitimacy. They argue that sex should at least carry the possibility of producing children. That's only "natural."
Except, of course, the vast majority of sexual activity does not result in pregnancy - even when the parts are complementary. Only unprotected sex that happens in a 5-7 day window (give or take) each month between young, fertile, heterosexual couples carries the possibility of producing children.
That's a fairly narrow plank on which to build a sexual ethic for a whole diverse community.
Ask a couple who have been trying to get pregnant for years, to no avail. This argument and its ritual celebrations (e.g., Mothers' Day) can be profoundly demeaning and dismissive.
Ask a couple who still enjoys one another's bodies after menopause has closed the door on producing children.
I could, of course, go on and on.
Sexuality is much more full and complicated than the few days each month that young straight folks can make babies. (And, often, they really shouldn't be.)
On the other hand, people with similar genitals are having children. It takes a little more effort, perhaps, but surrogacy, adoption, in vitro, donors, and many other techniques and technologies are helping couples of all genders and ages enjoy the horrible/wonderful journey of raising children.
And people with complementary genitals are choosing not to. And they've got all kinds of technologies to help them avoid it. And that doesn't mean they should stop having sex, or that the physical expression of their love is somehow disordered, dirty, or deranged. In fact, almost no one makes that argument. Which is exactly why it's wrong to apply it to couples of the same gender.
Unless we want to get all medieval (or "officially Roman Catholic") on this one, we're going to have to accept that "procreation" is no longer the guiding norm for what we can call "legitimate" (i.e., "legal") coupling. And even our most conservative Roman Catholic friends are incapable of offering a legitimate argument for limiting non-procreative sex to heterosexual couples... because it just doesn't make any sense.
And that leaves us with the matter of choice.
2 ..."choice" matters... but not the way you think it does.
2a. ...because everyone makes choices about her/his sexual behavior.
Invariably, the first line of argument from someone who loves her gay son (or his lesbian sister) is something like this: "Being gay really sucks. No one in her right mind would choose to be gay. Therefore, it must not be a choice. And, therefore, it's okay." Basically: Gay people must be naturally predestined to be gay, because they'd have to be completely crazy to want this life for themselves. It's a kind and loving gesture, but it's not at all helpful.
The problems with this (albeit well-intentioned) argument are myriad, even beyond the fact that it is incredibly demeaning.
First, you're right: being gay often sucks in a heterosexist culture - to be sure. But many lgbtq folk I know happen to love being "gay" (or, at least, they earnestly love their partners). They just wouldn't mind if everyone else would leave them the hell alone...unless, of course, they're ready to celebrate the fact that another lonely person has found love in this big scary world. Wouldn't that be novel?
Look, the fact is that everyone - everyone - "chooses" who to love (or not). I was not biologically predestined to marry the person I married - I chose to... and I continue to affirm that choice every morning. (Some mornings are harder than others. Some mornings it just comes, well, "naturally.")
Simply being pre-disposed to a desire for one kind of sexual behavior over others does not take "choice" out of the equation. Some people like tall skinny people. Others like short and soft ones. Some like smart folks - others want brawn. Some will only marry Swedish Lutherans... others are open to Irish Catholics...others, to people of other "races" (!). And yeah, some people seem to be naturally predisposed to having sex with children - and choose to act on it.
(And, btw, that's a whole other ball of wax. Pedophilia and homosexuality do not belong in the same conversation. Period. More on that in Part 3.)
Some of these choices are cute, some quirky, some beautiful, and some just downright abhorrent. And delineating the differences between acceptable and unacceptable choices is the careful, thoughtful work of a community doing ethics.
Is it okay for a 20yo man to marry a 12yo girl? Why or why not? His "nature" seems to be really into it... but does that make it right?
Is it okay for a 40yo woman to marry a 38yo woman - to find some way to rear children - to grow old together and care for one another through disease and death? Why or why not? It's certainly her "choice" to do so. No one is making her (indeed, lots of forces stand in her way).
What's the difference between these scenarios? Lots. That's where ethics begins. And that's where this conversation should actually be taking place.
See Part 3.
My answer: Absolutely nothing. And I honestly have never heard a compelling reason to change my answer. Here's why (Part 2):
When arguing about (homo)sexuality...
1. ..."nature" isn't really helpful...
1a. ...because all kinds of sex happens in "nature," too. First of all - humans are a part of "nature," right? Among the human species, persons with the same genitals do happen to couple. So - I guess it's "natural" after all.
(It also, btw, happens with great regularity in the non-human world - bonobo chimps [very close cousins of ours] get all kinds of freaky.) The conversation about what is "natural" often devolves into a middle school sensibility of "which parts fit where." And, to be frank, lots of parts fit together in lots of different ways. That may sound crude, but I'm not the one who started the conversation about what is a "natural" way for parts to be joined.
1b. ...and, so what? Just because something occurs "in nature" does not make it right or wrong. Cancer is "natural." It also really sucks. Alcoholism has genetic markers. Same-gender attraction probably does, too (the science is inconclusive, but some of it is quite compelling). EO Wilson famously argued that homosexuality actually provides an evolutionary benefit, as it frees up some gay aunts and uncles to help their breeder siblings raise their kids. Some animals eat their own children - in nature. Some of these are good. Some are bad. Some have outlived their evolutionary value. But they're all "natural."
And there are lots of "unnatural" things that are actually quite beneficial and morally good - as in, like, nearly all the contributions of the medical sciences.
This cuts both ways: Folks on the proverbial "right" cannot claim that same-gender sexual behavior is "unnatural," unless appealing to procreation (see below). Folks on the proverbial "left," however, also cannot claim that just because it might be "natural," therefore means that it is also morally acceptable.
In philosophy, this is known as the "is-ought gap." You cannot make a moral argument (what "ought" to be) simply from what "is." You have to bridge the gap. You have to explain why this phenomenon is or is not morally commendable. These are called "bridge principles," which help organize various sources of evidence into reasonable moral categories.
E.g.: Alcoholic behavior is wrong - but it is not unnatural... so why is it wrong? (Because it endangers the life of the individual and the whole community, etc.)
This is where I simply have not heard any compelling bridge principles to make any argument against lgbtq sexual expression meaningful. I'm still waiting. (More on that in Part 3).
Often, the last resort is babies...
1c. ...and the fact is, children happen - or not - in lots of different ways. Procreation seems to be the last bulwark for those who defend a position that excludes lgbtq folks from moral legitimacy. They argue that sex should at least carry the possibility of producing children. That's only "natural."
Except, of course, the vast majority of sexual activity does not result in pregnancy - even when the parts are complementary. Only unprotected sex that happens in a 5-7 day window (give or take) each month between young, fertile, heterosexual couples carries the possibility of producing children.
That's a fairly narrow plank on which to build a sexual ethic for a whole diverse community.
Ask a couple who have been trying to get pregnant for years, to no avail. This argument and its ritual celebrations (e.g., Mothers' Day) can be profoundly demeaning and dismissive.
Ask a couple who still enjoys one another's bodies after menopause has closed the door on producing children.
I could, of course, go on and on.
Sexuality is much more full and complicated than the few days each month that young straight folks can make babies. (And, often, they really shouldn't be.)
On the other hand, people with similar genitals are having children. It takes a little more effort, perhaps, but surrogacy, adoption, in vitro, donors, and many other techniques and technologies are helping couples of all genders and ages enjoy the horrible/wonderful journey of raising children.
And people with complementary genitals are choosing not to. And they've got all kinds of technologies to help them avoid it. And that doesn't mean they should stop having sex, or that the physical expression of their love is somehow disordered, dirty, or deranged. In fact, almost no one makes that argument. Which is exactly why it's wrong to apply it to couples of the same gender.
Unless we want to get all medieval (or "officially Roman Catholic") on this one, we're going to have to accept that "procreation" is no longer the guiding norm for what we can call "legitimate" (i.e., "legal") coupling. And even our most conservative Roman Catholic friends are incapable of offering a legitimate argument for limiting non-procreative sex to heterosexual couples... because it just doesn't make any sense.
And that leaves us with the matter of choice.
2 ..."choice" matters... but not the way you think it does.
2a. ...because everyone makes choices about her/his sexual behavior.
Invariably, the first line of argument from someone who loves her gay son (or his lesbian sister) is something like this: "Being gay really sucks. No one in her right mind would choose to be gay. Therefore, it must not be a choice. And, therefore, it's okay." Basically: Gay people must be naturally predestined to be gay, because they'd have to be completely crazy to want this life for themselves. It's a kind and loving gesture, but it's not at all helpful.
The problems with this (albeit well-intentioned) argument are myriad, even beyond the fact that it is incredibly demeaning.
First, you're right: being gay often sucks in a heterosexist culture - to be sure. But many lgbtq folk I know happen to love being "gay" (or, at least, they earnestly love their partners). They just wouldn't mind if everyone else would leave them the hell alone...unless, of course, they're ready to celebrate the fact that another lonely person has found love in this big scary world. Wouldn't that be novel?
Look, the fact is that everyone - everyone - "chooses" who to love (or not). I was not biologically predestined to marry the person I married - I chose to... and I continue to affirm that choice every morning. (Some mornings are harder than others. Some mornings it just comes, well, "naturally.")
Simply being pre-disposed to a desire for one kind of sexual behavior over others does not take "choice" out of the equation. Some people like tall skinny people. Others like short and soft ones. Some like smart folks - others want brawn. Some will only marry Swedish Lutherans... others are open to Irish Catholics...others, to people of other "races" (!). And yeah, some people seem to be naturally predisposed to having sex with children - and choose to act on it.
(And, btw, that's a whole other ball of wax. Pedophilia and homosexuality do not belong in the same conversation. Period. More on that in Part 3.)
Some of these choices are cute, some quirky, some beautiful, and some just downright abhorrent. And delineating the differences between acceptable and unacceptable choices is the careful, thoughtful work of a community doing ethics.
Is it okay for a 20yo man to marry a 12yo girl? Why or why not? His "nature" seems to be really into it... but does that make it right?
Is it okay for a 40yo woman to marry a 38yo woman - to find some way to rear children - to grow old together and care for one another through disease and death? Why or why not? It's certainly her "choice" to do so. No one is making her (indeed, lots of forces stand in her way).
What's the difference between these scenarios? Lots. That's where ethics begins. And that's where this conversation should actually be taking place.
See Part 3.
"What's wrong with that?": Changing the conversation about sexuality, Pt 1: "The Bible"
A couple weeks ago, during the flap over Duck Dynasty, a member of my parish asked me to dig a little deeper into my claim that I have never heard a compelling argument for why same-gender partnering is categorically wrong. I've written several hundred pages about this in a variety of college and seminary research projects... but they're dense and long and not very interesting. So I'm going to try to be brief (which still requires a 3-part series - see Part 2 and Part 3):
The question I pose is this: "What is actually, categorically wrong with two adults of the same gender (and/or sex) engaging in a physical expression of their love for one another within the boundaries of a committed relationship?"
My answer: Absolutely nothing. And I honestly have never heard a compelling reason to change my answer. Here's why (Part 1):
When arguing about (homo)sexuality...
1. ...the Bible doesn't really help...
1a. ...because it's full of crazy sex talk. Scratch the surface of scripture, and you'll find a whole host of commandments, stories, and models for sexual behavior that any 21st century Christian would find abhorrent. Polygamy, dowry, incest, rape, easy divorce, no divorce at all, handing women off from brother to brother (and all manner of other expressions of misogyny)... it's not good stuff. Folks who claim the inerrancy of scripture and a literal, fundamental reading of the Bible have to do cartwheels to explain why the stuff about same-gender sex is eternally binding, while all the other (much more abundant) stuff about sex just isn't. Interesting to watch, but not convincing.
1b. ...because this "issue" barely (or, even, never) comes up. There is only one place in scripture where both male-male and female-female sexual partnering gets even a mention. One. The rest of the "clobber passages" deal only with male-male sex. Now, having different rules for men and women was quite fashionable in biblical times, but I have trouble understanding how we could build a sexual ethic for today that baldly treats men and women differently. Nevertheless, let's talk about the Bible and dudes:
Leviticus 18:22 - straightforward enough: it's an abomination. And according to Leviticus 20:13, the punishment is death. (Welcome to Uganda.) Of course, everyone with a Bible and some time on her hands will point out that Leviticus (and Deuteronomy, and Exodus...) are full of such straightforward injunctions and punishments, and virtually no one takes most of the other ones at face value. Christians, in particular, have a different approach to "the law" altogether. Regardless, until everyone who uses these passages can also show me he avoids cotton-poly blends, bacon cheeseburgers, and mixed-use farming (to name only a few)... well...
Genesis 19 - Sodom and Gomorrah. The issue here is gang-raping visitors rather than showing the open hospitality that has always been the trademark of God's people. The visitors, btw, are angels (not dudes), which is why Jude 6-9 talks about the sin of Sodom as going after "strange flesh" (another passage about "unnatural lust" that inanely gets applied to this debate). If this story is about sexual ethics at all, it's meant to link the men of Sodom to the angels who came down and made weird monster babies (Nephilim) with the women of earth in the time of Noah, leading God to decide to send a flood so we could all just start over (Genesis 6). So there's that.
1Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1Timothy 1:10 - lost in translation. Corinthians uses the Greek word malakos ("soft") and both passages use the term arsenokoitos ("man-bed"). Trouble is, no one really knows what these words actually meant for Paul and his readers. The majority report is that this might be a reference to pederasty, a common practice in 1st century Greco-Roman culture in which older, wealthy men would "tutor" young boys and exploit them sexually as a symbol of privilege and honor. I believe we can all agree that this is morally wrong - then and now - not because of gender, but because of the nature of "consent." Nevertheless, this is clearly not the same thing as what my denomination clumsily calls "publicly-accountable, life-long, monogamous same-gender relationships" (PALMSGRs, if you can believe that).
That's it, folks. All the male-male sex talk you can find in scripture.
Now, on to Romans 1:24-32, the only place where the lesbians get some play:
To begin, let's be clear: It is very likely that Paul found sexual activity between people of the same gender (men or women) to be abhorrent and morally wrong. He was a Pharisee - and he knew his Bible. He also grew up in a Roman context where the sexual mores of his pagan neighbors were horrifying to his Jewish sensibilities. Of course, same-gender sexuality in Paul's day was most likely completely different from what my lgbtq neighbors are living today. Nevertheless, anyone who argues that Paul didn't really disapprove of same-gender sexual expression is reaching... too far... and: they don't have to.
Paul's argument relies on his understanding of "nature." They "exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural" and "degrading" passions (v. 26). Interestingly, he doesn't argue from scripture - but, rather, nature. (We'll take up "nature" more fully in Part 2.) And when he does, he groups a whole bunch of other "degrading" and "unnatural" offenses together with same-gender sex - like "envy...strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander...rebellious toward parents..."- you know, like middle school, the most unnatural environment in creation.
Intriguingly, Paul uses the "nature" argument elsewhere, too: In 1Corinthians, he argues that "nature teaches" that it is "degrading" for a man to wear his hair long (11.14). So unless you're ready to burn all the pictures of the long-haired Swedish Jesus that adorn nearly every Sunday School room in the U.S., then let's agree that Paul's understanding of what is "natural" and "unnatural" - "degrading" or "glorious" - might just be different from ours. And there is no good reason to assume that Paul's argument in Romans 1 is more "binding" than the one about hair in 1Corinthians 11; the language is identical.
Having had long hair myself, I disagree with Paul on this point. I also disagree with him about whether it is - or is not - "natural" (or "morally acceptable") for two men or two women to express their love for each other with their bodies... and his feelings about celibacy... and his (disciple's) idea that "wine" is the best treatment for an upset stomach (1Timothy 5:23)... and his (disciple's) idea that women should remain silent in church (1Corinthians 14:33b-35)... and on and on.
We can disagree with Paul (and his disciples) - indeed, almost all of us do, at least some of the time. Some of us are just more honest about it.
In the case of Romans 1, I argue that we can disagree with Paul's examples without throwing out his whole argument.
Paul is at least as wordy as I am. It takes a while to get to his point. In this case, it takes three whole chapters... and that's just the beginning. It takes fifteen whole chapters to really get at what Paul is saying. So to focus exclusively on these few verses in chapter 1 is to miss the whole point.
Here's the short version of Paul's main argument in Romans:
A. Gentiles suck. They do all kinds of things that make no sense and violate our deepest sensibilities as Torah-reading, kosher-keeping Jews. They deserve judgment and condemnation (Chapter 1)
B. Jews suck, too. We (Paul was a Jew, after all) love to judge others (especially Gentiles) based on our laws... even though they never had those laws in the first place... and (more importantly) we aren't very good at keeping those laws either, which means we, too, deserve judgment and condemnation (Chapters 1-2).
C. So: we all suck. No one is righteous. No one deserves grace. But - thanks be to God! - that's what "grace" means: All fall short, but all are being saved by the grace of God in Jesus Christ (Chapter 3).
D. Thus: Get over yourselves. Stop judging each other. No one has a "right" to be here, but all have been "gathered in" by the grace of God. And nothing - nothing at all - can stand between God and those whom God has called and chosen (Chapter 8).
E. "Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God" (15.7).
Context matters. We don't have to agree with all of Paul's examples of Gentile "sin" in order to agree that Gentiles, Jews, and Klingons alike are all under the power of sin... and, therefore, we are all equally in need of God's grace - and equally called to welcome one another - since none of us "deserve" to be here in the first place.
So that's what the Bible says. That's all it says. If you want to make a purely negative argument from scripture, you're standing on really thin ice. Even appealing to Paul will require appealing to his understanding of "nature" - and that's a whole other bag. (Again, see Part 2).
The Bible can be helpful in a positive way in this and in all ethical deliberations - providing principles and structures for moral argument. And we'll get to that in Part 3. In the meantime, if all we're doing is cherry-picking scripture in order to cloak our prejudice in some kind of divine garment, we're fighting a losing battle. Not only do fewer and fewer people find scripture to be a meaningful source for reflection (which is sad to me, but true); but even those who take it seriously have to eventually admit that the biblical witness on this point barely even merits the term "shallow."
Two postscripts:
I. The Bible clearly assumes opposite-gender coupling (although not monogamy or consent, which might be troubling for some of us) as the normative expression of sexuality. There are three main reasons for this: procreation (continuation of the species), passing on faith (continuation of the promise), and transference of property (continuation of the family name and all the natural, manufactured, and human resources associated with it - including, of course, women, children, and slaves). Romantic, isn't it? Not at all. In Christian practice, the continuation of the promise is not dependent upon heterosexual marriage (like it or not, gay folks are having babies, and gay Christians are having them baptized...and besides, in Paul's time, having babies was frowned upon). And while some still argue from "procreation" (see Part 2), I'm hopeful that most of us have moved beyond the whole property thing. In other words: we're talking about a wholly different world, culture, and phenomenon.
II. There is very little "romance" or "love" involved in scripture when talking about coupling. (Try picking scripture for a wedding... it's almost never about marriage at all, and when it is, it's downright creepy.) Interestingly, the most tender and compassionate relationships in the Bible are between two women (Ruth and Naomi), two men (David and Jonathan), and a man and woman who aren't necessarily married (Song of Solomon). So there's that. Not defining, of course, but interesting nonetheless.
The question I pose is this: "What is actually, categorically wrong with two adults of the same gender (and/or sex) engaging in a physical expression of their love for one another within the boundaries of a committed relationship?"
My answer: Absolutely nothing. And I honestly have never heard a compelling reason to change my answer. Here's why (Part 1):
When arguing about (homo)sexuality...
1. ...the Bible doesn't really help...
1a. ...because it's full of crazy sex talk. Scratch the surface of scripture, and you'll find a whole host of commandments, stories, and models for sexual behavior that any 21st century Christian would find abhorrent. Polygamy, dowry, incest, rape, easy divorce, no divorce at all, handing women off from brother to brother (and all manner of other expressions of misogyny)... it's not good stuff. Folks who claim the inerrancy of scripture and a literal, fundamental reading of the Bible have to do cartwheels to explain why the stuff about same-gender sex is eternally binding, while all the other (much more abundant) stuff about sex just isn't. Interesting to watch, but not convincing.
1b. ...because this "issue" barely (or, even, never) comes up. There is only one place in scripture where both male-male and female-female sexual partnering gets even a mention. One. The rest of the "clobber passages" deal only with male-male sex. Now, having different rules for men and women was quite fashionable in biblical times, but I have trouble understanding how we could build a sexual ethic for today that baldly treats men and women differently. Nevertheless, let's talk about the Bible and dudes:
Leviticus 18:22 - straightforward enough: it's an abomination. And according to Leviticus 20:13, the punishment is death. (Welcome to Uganda.) Of course, everyone with a Bible and some time on her hands will point out that Leviticus (and Deuteronomy, and Exodus...) are full of such straightforward injunctions and punishments, and virtually no one takes most of the other ones at face value. Christians, in particular, have a different approach to "the law" altogether. Regardless, until everyone who uses these passages can also show me he avoids cotton-poly blends, bacon cheeseburgers, and mixed-use farming (to name only a few)... well...
Genesis 19 - Sodom and Gomorrah. The issue here is gang-raping visitors rather than showing the open hospitality that has always been the trademark of God's people. The visitors, btw, are angels (not dudes), which is why Jude 6-9 talks about the sin of Sodom as going after "strange flesh" (another passage about "unnatural lust" that inanely gets applied to this debate). If this story is about sexual ethics at all, it's meant to link the men of Sodom to the angels who came down and made weird monster babies (Nephilim) with the women of earth in the time of Noah, leading God to decide to send a flood so we could all just start over (Genesis 6). So there's that.
1Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1Timothy 1:10 - lost in translation. Corinthians uses the Greek word malakos ("soft") and both passages use the term arsenokoitos ("man-bed"). Trouble is, no one really knows what these words actually meant for Paul and his readers. The majority report is that this might be a reference to pederasty, a common practice in 1st century Greco-Roman culture in which older, wealthy men would "tutor" young boys and exploit them sexually as a symbol of privilege and honor. I believe we can all agree that this is morally wrong - then and now - not because of gender, but because of the nature of "consent." Nevertheless, this is clearly not the same thing as what my denomination clumsily calls "publicly-accountable, life-long, monogamous same-gender relationships" (PALMSGRs, if you can believe that).
That's it, folks. All the male-male sex talk you can find in scripture.
Now, on to Romans 1:24-32, the only place where the lesbians get some play:
To begin, let's be clear: It is very likely that Paul found sexual activity between people of the same gender (men or women) to be abhorrent and morally wrong. He was a Pharisee - and he knew his Bible. He also grew up in a Roman context where the sexual mores of his pagan neighbors were horrifying to his Jewish sensibilities. Of course, same-gender sexuality in Paul's day was most likely completely different from what my lgbtq neighbors are living today. Nevertheless, anyone who argues that Paul didn't really disapprove of same-gender sexual expression is reaching... too far... and: they don't have to.
Paul's argument relies on his understanding of "nature." They "exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural" and "degrading" passions (v. 26). Interestingly, he doesn't argue from scripture - but, rather, nature. (We'll take up "nature" more fully in Part 2.) And when he does, he groups a whole bunch of other "degrading" and "unnatural" offenses together with same-gender sex - like "envy...strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander...rebellious toward parents..."- you know, like middle school, the most unnatural environment in creation.
Intriguingly, Paul uses the "nature" argument elsewhere, too: In 1Corinthians, he argues that "nature teaches" that it is "degrading" for a man to wear his hair long (11.14). So unless you're ready to burn all the pictures of the long-haired Swedish Jesus that adorn nearly every Sunday School room in the U.S., then let's agree that Paul's understanding of what is "natural" and "unnatural" - "degrading" or "glorious" - might just be different from ours. And there is no good reason to assume that Paul's argument in Romans 1 is more "binding" than the one about hair in 1Corinthians 11; the language is identical.
Having had long hair myself, I disagree with Paul on this point. I also disagree with him about whether it is - or is not - "natural" (or "morally acceptable") for two men or two women to express their love for each other with their bodies... and his feelings about celibacy... and his (disciple's) idea that "wine" is the best treatment for an upset stomach (1Timothy 5:23)... and his (disciple's) idea that women should remain silent in church (1Corinthians 14:33b-35)... and on and on.
We can disagree with Paul (and his disciples) - indeed, almost all of us do, at least some of the time. Some of us are just more honest about it.
In the case of Romans 1, I argue that we can disagree with Paul's examples without throwing out his whole argument.
Paul is at least as wordy as I am. It takes a while to get to his point. In this case, it takes three whole chapters... and that's just the beginning. It takes fifteen whole chapters to really get at what Paul is saying. So to focus exclusively on these few verses in chapter 1 is to miss the whole point.
Here's the short version of Paul's main argument in Romans:
A. Gentiles suck. They do all kinds of things that make no sense and violate our deepest sensibilities as Torah-reading, kosher-keeping Jews. They deserve judgment and condemnation (Chapter 1)
B. Jews suck, too. We (Paul was a Jew, after all) love to judge others (especially Gentiles) based on our laws... even though they never had those laws in the first place... and (more importantly) we aren't very good at keeping those laws either, which means we, too, deserve judgment and condemnation (Chapters 1-2).
C. So: we all suck. No one is righteous. No one deserves grace. But - thanks be to God! - that's what "grace" means: All fall short, but all are being saved by the grace of God in Jesus Christ (Chapter 3).
D. Thus: Get over yourselves. Stop judging each other. No one has a "right" to be here, but all have been "gathered in" by the grace of God. And nothing - nothing at all - can stand between God and those whom God has called and chosen (Chapter 8).
E. "Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God" (15.7).
Context matters. We don't have to agree with all of Paul's examples of Gentile "sin" in order to agree that Gentiles, Jews, and Klingons alike are all under the power of sin... and, therefore, we are all equally in need of God's grace - and equally called to welcome one another - since none of us "deserve" to be here in the first place.
So that's what the Bible says. That's all it says. If you want to make a purely negative argument from scripture, you're standing on really thin ice. Even appealing to Paul will require appealing to his understanding of "nature" - and that's a whole other bag. (Again, see Part 2).
The Bible can be helpful in a positive way in this and in all ethical deliberations - providing principles and structures for moral argument. And we'll get to that in Part 3. In the meantime, if all we're doing is cherry-picking scripture in order to cloak our prejudice in some kind of divine garment, we're fighting a losing battle. Not only do fewer and fewer people find scripture to be a meaningful source for reflection (which is sad to me, but true); but even those who take it seriously have to eventually admit that the biblical witness on this point barely even merits the term "shallow."
Two postscripts:
I. The Bible clearly assumes opposite-gender coupling (although not monogamy or consent, which might be troubling for some of us) as the normative expression of sexuality. There are three main reasons for this: procreation (continuation of the species), passing on faith (continuation of the promise), and transference of property (continuation of the family name and all the natural, manufactured, and human resources associated with it - including, of course, women, children, and slaves). Romantic, isn't it? Not at all. In Christian practice, the continuation of the promise is not dependent upon heterosexual marriage (like it or not, gay folks are having babies, and gay Christians are having them baptized...and besides, in Paul's time, having babies was frowned upon). And while some still argue from "procreation" (see Part 2), I'm hopeful that most of us have moved beyond the whole property thing. In other words: we're talking about a wholly different world, culture, and phenomenon.
II. There is very little "romance" or "love" involved in scripture when talking about coupling. (Try picking scripture for a wedding... it's almost never about marriage at all, and when it is, it's downright creepy.) Interestingly, the most tender and compassionate relationships in the Bible are between two women (Ruth and Naomi), two men (David and Jonathan), and a man and woman who aren't necessarily married (Song of Solomon). So there's that. Not defining, of course, but interesting nonetheless.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
The freedom to be ignorant: What's "really" going on in the Phil Robertson debacle
Every few weeks or so, folks get all riled up because someone, whose fame and legitimacy often elude me, makes some asinine statement... and folks who disagree call for a retraction or boycott... and networks and publicists scramble for a response... and sometimes people get fired, or suspended, or shamed...
and in the meantime, those networks, publicists, magazines, and "celebrities" end up getting all kinds of free press and attention for something that was absurd to say in the first place.
At that point, many of us wish it would just be over and done with, while we wait for the next guy to have a Neanderthal-Freudian slip.
But then, some other folks usually end up talking about "free speech." Even if they claim not to agree with whatever was said, and even if they claim to be horrified that anyone actually still thinks that way, they are apparently even more horrified that public outrage would lead to this poor guy being "censored" by the same machine that manufactured him in the first place.
The argument proceeds that while no one in their right mind (except, perhaps, in the quiet [and often not-so-quiet] thoughts of at least 30 or 40% of the nation) should say such things out loud, they most definitely have a right to say them. If anyone attempts to silence them, it is an affront to their civil liberties, constitutional rights, and indeed the very fabric of our democratic society.
Except, of course, it's not. In any way. A violation of "free speech."
One has every right to say the most insanely offensive things that come to mind, in any public forum. This is plainly obvious, as Phil Robertson is not in prison - nor will he be, unless he breaks an actual law. He was "censored," but not by any legal entity. Rather, he was "censored" by the corporate executives who grant him the privilege of having a lucrative stage from which to project himself, his family, and his views. When celebrities say stupid things, the corporate mechanisms that handle them have to make decisions about how to position themselves in order to maximize profit.
Since we are living in a culture where people are (slowly) becoming less prone to say out loud the kinds of things Phil said to GQ, and more prone to think that those thoughts are best kept to one's self, A&E decided that it was in their best corporate interest to put Phil in a time out for a while. I'm sure he'll be just fine. Indeed, my guess is that after the Twitterverse has moved on to some other bizarre display of (in)humanity, Phil, the rest of the Ducks, and A&E will have made even more money than before.
We do live in a country where, thankfully, one is free to say (almost) anything one wants, no matter how awful or ignorant. The rare exceptions are when one's speech puts others in immanent danger (certain kinds of violence-inducing hate speech, or the proverbial yelling "fire!" in public when there is no fire).
We also live in a country where money talks. Whatever makes the most money for those who (usually) already have a bunch of it - this is the real "rule" by which we live.
So people on all sides of any issue can say whatever they want, and they'll never be censored by any state entity. But if what they say ends up losing money for the corporations they belong to, then their bosses will surely react to position themselves to lose as little as possible - and maybe even make some profit in the end.
This is why you can legally hang a Confederate flag or a sexually-explicit Robert Maplethorpe print in your cubical at work. But if your customer base finds those "expressions" offensive, you will probably lose your job. Choices have consequences.
But you won't go to jail. Because we believe in "free speech."
"Free speech," however, does not mean that anyone has to like what you have to say. And it certainly doesn't mean you are entitled to a privately-funded but very public platform from which to project it. Get a megaphone and spew bigoted nonsense from a soap box in Central Park; no one will stop you.
I wonder if what's really going on with the Phil Robertson debacle is a slowly growing awareness among some corners of this country that comparing homosexuality to bestiality is losing its effectiveness as an "argument" about sexual ethics. Because it's gross and offensive.
Lots of people still make that connection in their minds, but saying it out loud is slowly becoming "inappropriate" in polite company. Eventually, it will be similar to white folks saying the "n" word in public (ask Paula Deen about that one). It's still "legal" to say the "n" word, but if you want to keep your job or your friends, in an growing segment of our country, it's not a good idea. (Not to mention: it's just plain wrong.)
Which means that folks who don't like gay people will find themselves needing more thoughtful (?) ways of making their feelings known in the public sphere. They can still cling to the old "bestiality" line (or any other reductive and dehumanizing argument about people's private parts and lives...), but more and more, folks are finding this argument impolite, insensitive, and wrong.
This is not the creeping spectre of a Big Brother State invading your private thoughts and silencing your "free speech." That won't happen. What will happen (I pray) is that slowly but surely these beliefs about other people's relationships will be dismissed by an evolving public as irrational and offensive. Because they are.
(Kinda like how folks used to argue about how people of African descent were categorically different and lesser beings than people of European descent... like maybe only 3/5ths of a "real" person. Remember when you could make that argument in public without almost everyone around you thinking you were a crazy racist? Me neither. That's called "progress.")
Which means our friends who don't like gay people are faced with a choice:
a) keep on saying irrational and offensive things about other human beings, in public, and face increasingly uncomfortable consequences - imposed not by the state, but by the market and the human community;
b) evolve their thinking about the issue to a new way of regarding other human beings who happen to live and love differently; or
c) hold on to these beliefs, but come up with a more reasonable and less offensive argument than "gay people are just like folks who rape goats."
What I think might be terrifying for folks who (maybe secretly) agree with Phil is that, when push comes to shove, every single argument about how people who love people of the same gender are somehow categorically subhuman eventually falls completely apart. They keep trying - but it's not working. And no one likes to feel ignorant, even if that's precisely what they are.
(That's not to say that all arguments in opposition to same gender relationships are rightly called "ignorant." Some are better than others, although I honestly have never heard one that can withstand intense, reasonable scrutiny [I invite any and all contributions to my moral education.]. I do, however, firmly believe that connecting same-gender expression to bestiality is a fundamental confusion of basic categories. It's sloppy reasoning which fails utterly to take into account matters of consent, power, relationship, justice, mutuality... Some folks might want to argue that bestiality is morally acceptable [and I absolutely am not one of those people], but then we would be talking about a completely different category of relationship - a wholly different issue. To confuse the two is, in my humble opinion, worthy to be called "ignorant.")
Have no fear: you will always have the "right" to be publicly ignorant, mean, and/or offensive. But while there will never be legal consequences for that, there will be consequences. Usually financial. Often social.
But hey - I just saw Paula Deen eating a stick of butter and chatting it up with her son on cable TV, so, chances are, Father Duck will be just fine.
* Note: this post has been edited to explain my use of the term "ignorant," which some may consider to be offensive.
and in the meantime, those networks, publicists, magazines, and "celebrities" end up getting all kinds of free press and attention for something that was absurd to say in the first place.
At that point, many of us wish it would just be over and done with, while we wait for the next guy to have a Neanderthal-Freudian slip.
But then, some other folks usually end up talking about "free speech." Even if they claim not to agree with whatever was said, and even if they claim to be horrified that anyone actually still thinks that way, they are apparently even more horrified that public outrage would lead to this poor guy being "censored" by the same machine that manufactured him in the first place.
The argument proceeds that while no one in their right mind (except, perhaps, in the quiet [and often not-so-quiet] thoughts of at least 30 or 40% of the nation) should say such things out loud, they most definitely have a right to say them. If anyone attempts to silence them, it is an affront to their civil liberties, constitutional rights, and indeed the very fabric of our democratic society.
Except, of course, it's not. In any way. A violation of "free speech."
One has every right to say the most insanely offensive things that come to mind, in any public forum. This is plainly obvious, as Phil Robertson is not in prison - nor will he be, unless he breaks an actual law. He was "censored," but not by any legal entity. Rather, he was "censored" by the corporate executives who grant him the privilege of having a lucrative stage from which to project himself, his family, and his views. When celebrities say stupid things, the corporate mechanisms that handle them have to make decisions about how to position themselves in order to maximize profit.
Since we are living in a culture where people are (slowly) becoming less prone to say out loud the kinds of things Phil said to GQ, and more prone to think that those thoughts are best kept to one's self, A&E decided that it was in their best corporate interest to put Phil in a time out for a while. I'm sure he'll be just fine. Indeed, my guess is that after the Twitterverse has moved on to some other bizarre display of (in)humanity, Phil, the rest of the Ducks, and A&E will have made even more money than before.
We do live in a country where, thankfully, one is free to say (almost) anything one wants, no matter how awful or ignorant. The rare exceptions are when one's speech puts others in immanent danger (certain kinds of violence-inducing hate speech, or the proverbial yelling "fire!" in public when there is no fire).
We also live in a country where money talks. Whatever makes the most money for those who (usually) already have a bunch of it - this is the real "rule" by which we live.
So people on all sides of any issue can say whatever they want, and they'll never be censored by any state entity. But if what they say ends up losing money for the corporations they belong to, then their bosses will surely react to position themselves to lose as little as possible - and maybe even make some profit in the end.
This is why you can legally hang a Confederate flag or a sexually-explicit Robert Maplethorpe print in your cubical at work. But if your customer base finds those "expressions" offensive, you will probably lose your job. Choices have consequences.
But you won't go to jail. Because we believe in "free speech."
"Free speech," however, does not mean that anyone has to like what you have to say. And it certainly doesn't mean you are entitled to a privately-funded but very public platform from which to project it. Get a megaphone and spew bigoted nonsense from a soap box in Central Park; no one will stop you.
I wonder if what's really going on with the Phil Robertson debacle is a slowly growing awareness among some corners of this country that comparing homosexuality to bestiality is losing its effectiveness as an "argument" about sexual ethics. Because it's gross and offensive.
Lots of people still make that connection in their minds, but saying it out loud is slowly becoming "inappropriate" in polite company. Eventually, it will be similar to white folks saying the "n" word in public (ask Paula Deen about that one). It's still "legal" to say the "n" word, but if you want to keep your job or your friends, in an growing segment of our country, it's not a good idea. (Not to mention: it's just plain wrong.)
Which means that folks who don't like gay people will find themselves needing more thoughtful (?) ways of making their feelings known in the public sphere. They can still cling to the old "bestiality" line (or any other reductive and dehumanizing argument about people's private parts and lives...), but more and more, folks are finding this argument impolite, insensitive, and wrong.
This is not the creeping spectre of a Big Brother State invading your private thoughts and silencing your "free speech." That won't happen. What will happen (I pray) is that slowly but surely these beliefs about other people's relationships will be dismissed by an evolving public as irrational and offensive. Because they are.
(Kinda like how folks used to argue about how people of African descent were categorically different and lesser beings than people of European descent... like maybe only 3/5ths of a "real" person. Remember when you could make that argument in public without almost everyone around you thinking you were a crazy racist? Me neither. That's called "progress.")
Which means our friends who don't like gay people are faced with a choice:
a) keep on saying irrational and offensive things about other human beings, in public, and face increasingly uncomfortable consequences - imposed not by the state, but by the market and the human community;
b) evolve their thinking about the issue to a new way of regarding other human beings who happen to live and love differently; or
c) hold on to these beliefs, but come up with a more reasonable and less offensive argument than "gay people are just like folks who rape goats."
What I think might be terrifying for folks who (maybe secretly) agree with Phil is that, when push comes to shove, every single argument about how people who love people of the same gender are somehow categorically subhuman eventually falls completely apart. They keep trying - but it's not working. And no one likes to feel ignorant, even if that's precisely what they are.
(That's not to say that all arguments in opposition to same gender relationships are rightly called "ignorant." Some are better than others, although I honestly have never heard one that can withstand intense, reasonable scrutiny [I invite any and all contributions to my moral education.]. I do, however, firmly believe that connecting same-gender expression to bestiality is a fundamental confusion of basic categories. It's sloppy reasoning which fails utterly to take into account matters of consent, power, relationship, justice, mutuality... Some folks might want to argue that bestiality is morally acceptable [and I absolutely am not one of those people], but then we would be talking about a completely different category of relationship - a wholly different issue. To confuse the two is, in my humble opinion, worthy to be called "ignorant.")
Have no fear: you will always have the "right" to be publicly ignorant, mean, and/or offensive. But while there will never be legal consequences for that, there will be consequences. Usually financial. Often social.
But hey - I just saw Paula Deen eating a stick of butter and chatting it up with her son on cable TV, so, chances are, Father Duck will be just fine.
* Note: this post has been edited to explain my use of the term "ignorant," which some may consider to be offensive.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
"Let the Little Children Come...": On Children and Holy Communion
In the last
few weeks, some folks in the parish I serve (for a grand total of 8 weeks now!) have asked about my suggestion that we invite children
of any age to participate in Holy Communion. This has always been my tradition and invitation when entering into a new call - one I am very up front about during the interview process. I find that with a little "wondering aloud together," any potential discord is easily negotiated. So this is where I start:
What message are we conveying with the choices
we make around the distribution of the Meal? What signals – intentional or not
– are we sending with the choices we make about the Eucharist? If and/or when
we exclude people from the Meal (even for good reason), how is that message
received by those who are excluded?
I believe children understand fully
what it means to be left out. They inhabit a world in which they are presumed
to be insignificant or incapable all the
time. Clearly there are good reasons for this – I shudder at the thought of
my daughter driving a car even at 16, let alone now, at the age of 4 (kyrie eleison!).
But it’s worth wondering: Is there
a compelling reason to keep her – or any child who is able to chew and
swallow – from receiving Holy Communion? If there is a compelling reason
to exclude children from the Meal, can that reason be explained to them in a
way they can understand? They understand being left out. It is very hard
to explain to them why they are being
left out, even if there are good reasons. That’s why I prefer to invite all
people, regardless of age or faith tradition, to participate in this Meal. It
avoids leaving anyone – especially children – feeling as if they don’t belong. I can tell dozens of stories from my own life and those of colleagues about how children respond to being welcomed to the Table - or not. Some are funny, some infuriating, some heartbreaking. There is power in this Meal - and the power to withhold it should be exercised with serious and solemn caution.
That said, there are some common questions left to be pondered:
“How
can they understand what’s going on?” They can’t. Frankly, neither can
I. I have yet to meet anyone who can tell me how bread and wine can contain
the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ and are effective means of forgiving sin
and sustaining abundant and eternal life (least of all Martin Luther). Children do, however,
understand eating and drinking. They know what it means to be hungry,
the joyful ritual of a family meal, the gift of being fed.
The argument about “understanding”
(often made from Paul’s comments about “discerning the Body” in 1Corinthians 11:29)
has been used to exclude people with cognitive impairments (e.g., Down’s
Syndrome), as well as people who aren’t “our kind” of Christian (our friends in the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods want everyone at the table to share the same doctrine) – and, of course,
children. Interestingly, the text from 1 Corinthians, in context, is actually a
firm judgment by Paul against those who would dare to eat and drink too much
in front of others who are left hungry and thirsty. Kids get hunger and
thirst. They’re happy to be fed; they’re confused when they’re not.
But if we were to set the bar at cognitive capacity to understand the mechanics of the mystery of this Meal, then we're probably setting the bar impossibly high.
“What about First Communion?” I adore
the annual ritual of formally welcoming children to the Table. Kids dress up;
grandparents come to worship; the community rejoices that a new generation will
hold onto the gifts and promises of Christ received at this Table. We choke down incomprehensibly hard chunks of bread baked by their own little hands with gracious and grateful smiles on our faces. I love the opportunity to continue these traditions, even if some of them might be a bit overdone (just sayin': the miniature brides' dresses kind of creep me out).
I liken it to “Confirmation”:
Confirmation is a ritual that celebrates that young Christians have completed a
period of age-appropriate exploration of the gift of Holy Baptism and have decided to claim
that gift for themselves in the presence of others.
“First” Communion is a ritual that
celebrates that young Christians have completed a period of age-appropriate exploration of the gift of Holy Communion and have decided to claim that gift for themselves in
the presence of others.
In our tradition, we do not wait
until a child is 14 years old before bathing her in the waters of Baptism. I wonder
why we would make him wait before allowing God to feed him with the Bread of
Heaven as well.
Catechesis (teaching the faith) is a life-long process, and is often more effective when presented after participation in the mysteries of the faith - not necessarily before.
Of course, if folks prefer to have
their child(ren) wait until later to receive Holy Communion, that is a choice I
fully respect. Likewise, I assume we can respect the choice of other parents to
have their child(ren) participate in this Meal at an earlier age.
“What does the Bible
say?” Not much. Various traditions have evolved since the beginning of
the church, but the scriptures are not very helpful in settling questions about
these things. It’s not clear that any
of the disciples were baptized – ever! – let alone prior to sharing in the Lord’s Supper. It’s not clear whether Judas
left the table before or after Jesus broke the bread, leaving open the question
of “unrepentant” sinners at the Table. Paul gave us the language for the Words
of Institution in First Corinthians, but he offers little advice about who
should be invited and when. Matthew’s gospel and Luke’s book of Acts differ on
the “Name(s)” we should use to baptize... We could go on and on.
What we hold onto is this: Jesus
said, “Go and baptize.” So, we baptize. Jesus said, “Eat and drink in
remembrance of me.” So, we eat and drink. In the absence of biblical clarity,
we’ve been wondering aloud together for a long time as we craft traditions that resonate
with the core principles of our faith.
One of
those principles may be found by watching how Jesus regarded sinners, lepers,
people with disabilities, tax collectors, and children: He welcomed them. Fed
them. Healed them. Cared for them.
So, I suggest that we do, too.
“Let the little children come to
me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven
belongs” (Matthew 19:14).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)