I have waited all quarter for the promised discussion of sexuality in my ethics class, and today, the final day of the quarter, it arrived. Maybe it was simply the fact that the class takes place at 8 am, or perhaps it was because I really should have taken the extra time to make a latte this morning, but despite all my anticipation, I simply was not ready. The professor, widely recognized as one of the most radical and liberal at my school, did an admirable job of at least trying to present a fair perspective. She served communion before launching into the subject, and then gracefully pointed out how the point of communion is that we all do it together. Then she made a point of mentioning in several different ways how she has friends who are lesbian, and how she will eat and drink with them. That was it. That was the radical piece. She is willing to eat and drink with them.
Dramatic pause.
Perhaps I have been spoiled by the breathtaking beauty of the past few weeks, but as she announced her radical approach to dealing with homosexuality, I was hardly grateful.
As the class discussion continued, I felt even less so.
My fellow student’s questions all seemed to center around one particular point: sure, eating and drinking with them is all well and good, but… gasp… what do we do if they aren’t struggling? How, then, can we welcome them into our churches if they have made peace with this; with themselves and with their God?
I should have had that latte, because if I had, I might have raised my hand and said something like this, to the 80 or so theology students who wanted to know how they might wrestle with my sexuality if, God forbid, I am not:
I have made peace. I love my Lord, and I am certain that my Lord loves me… all the more certain because of the overwhelming grace that has been poured out into my life these past few weeks as I have finally begun to make important steps towards greater honesty and authenticity. I am dating someone who loves the Lord as well, and it is beautiful. It is not hidden or dark or sinful or ugly. It is fun and giggly… spontaneous laughter and spontaneous prayer.
And if you cannot reconcile yourself to the idea that finally, if only for a moment, I am not struggling with myself or with this relationship, or with my God, then appease yourself with this knowledge: it will be a long time, a very long time, before I have finished my struggle with this church and with this institution; because I am not backing out and I am not leaving. I am staying at your table. Keep looking, you’ll find me here.
And to answer your question, as to what you will do about those who are not struggling, I don’t know what you will do. That is up for you to decide. But what I am doing is praising God.
(Not So) Straight from the Seminary 
23 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 29, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Meilee
Beautiful writing! I hope you find your voice in class soon; your peers deserve to hear it. You’re welcome at my table, struggles or not. :o)
November 29, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Drew
The more I read through anecdotes such as this the more that I am convinced that there is reflection of cultural anxiety here. But it is complex sort of reflection that is outward and projected onto God.
What I mean here is that one’s own anxiety over sexuality and what is accepted as normative is reflexively projected into the very being of God. That is to say, one’s own anxiety of whom we can accept at the table of the Lord creates the image of God who has limitations to whom God can accept at God’s very own table! God becomes a reflection of ourselves to legitimate our own practices. This was true of how women and persons of color were treated all in the name of God as well. This image of God is then driven back down to legitimate the anxiety that originated and projected it in the first place. And this circular dysfunction is assumed to be normative and ratified as a law of God and any interpretations of Scripture and reality must conform to that structure.
This is what I see happening with your classmates and unfortunately your professor did nothing to challenge the assumptions here on rational grounds alone which is where the battle lines need to be drawn. Overly caring about inclusivity for all seems to ironically justify continued exclusionary practices and beliefs when it comes to homosexuals in the church. What I mean here is that by being inclusive of beliefs and practices that fundamentally exclude those of different sexual identities (e.g. the so-called welcome but not affirm argument as the softest form of discrimination), inclusion of all at the table of God becomes hypocritical. This is irrational and needs to be challenged in terms of its ethical improbability. Your professor needed to do that as an intellectual and needed not avoid the issues that offend those who ratify the norm and those who challenge it.
But on rational principles alone, the language to challenge the assumptions, which I have just characterized as making a dysfunctional religious practice normative, must be sharper and incisive to challenge what normative is and how a culture’s sense of what is normative forms a medium through which God is delimited.
November 29, 2007 at 5:44 pm
J
Well, without getting all huffy about it. . .wasn’t her approach the same as Jesus’? He ate and drank with everybody. Less is more. Perhaps your expectations were too high. . . .
November 29, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Casey
J… yes, Jesus ate and drank with everybody, which is a good thing… but I think perhaps your missing an important assumption inherent in that statement. It goes something like this. “I’ll eat and drink with gays and lesbians, and doing so is me showing them grace, giving them something they don’t deserve because, of course, being a gay person who isn’t struggling is being sinful… but Jesus ate and drank with people who were defined by their sin, too – corrupt tax collectors, prostitutes, etc. – so I guess I’ll do the same. Gayness is morally equivalent to prostitution, after all. By lowering myself to eat with them, I’m being Christ-like.”
Problem with that is, being gay, being in a same-sex relationship, is NOT morally equivalent to being a corrupt tax-collector. There is nothing inherently sinful about being gay – and as should be clear from D’s beautifully written entry above, such relationships can even draw us closer to our beloved Lord – so when somebody acts as though deigning to eat and drink with us is an act of grace, they are misinterpreting the situation, and frankly, being offensively condescending. Much like your last statement, which implies that expecting to be treated like a full equal in Christ is setting the bar unreasonably high. Of course, I’ll still eat and drink with you, even if you are sometimes intolerably arrogant and your tone viciously inhospitable – God offers forgiveness even to Sodomites, if they choose to repent. See Ezekiel 16:49-50. (Sorry if that stung – just wanted to give you a sense of what it felt like.)
Note: I am not claiming that I am not a sinner – not by a long shot. I am simply saying that it is very important that Christians take care not to call good, evil, and evil, good. Being casual about that leads to real spiritual damage and abuse… and too often, people walking away from God. For anybody who takes the great Commission seriously, who truly wants to see more people come into relationship with Jesus, that is no laughing matter.
D – just wanted to reiterate that your statement above is beautiful, and does my heart well to read. You really are courageous, and I am so happy for you. Stay strong, and keep praying.
November 29, 2007 at 9:56 pm
J
Well, no it didn’t sting, because I expected somebody to come back with an answer similar to yours. . .all defensive. . .
I thought the expectations were perhaps too high with regard to the prof’s answer/response to the subject matter, period. No way was she going to go anywhere near where you wanted her to. Nor will she ever, do ya think, and keep her job?
November 30, 2007 at 2:49 am
Ms Dimmesdale
Casey,
I’m a little distracted, so this will not be well-developed. Please feel free to ask me to clarify anything I have or have not said.
“‘By lowering myself to eat with them, I’m being Christ-like.’”
“Problem with that is, being gay, being in a same-sex relationship, is NOT morally equivalent to being a corrupt tax-collector. There is nothing inherently sinful about being gay – and as should be clear from D’s beautifully written entry above, such relationships can even draw us closer to our beloved Lord – so when somebody acts as though deigning to eat and drink with us is an act of grace, they are misinterpreting the situation, and frankly, being offensively condescending.”
But it’s not condescending to think that I am an inherently better person than a corrupt official or any other class of sinner?
When we deign ourselves to eat/relate with any person because it is “an act of grace,” we are missing the point entirely. If I chose to eat with the most vicious Serbian fighters from the Srebrenica attack or with the rapists of my friends, it is not my act of grace as if I am any better than the person with whom I am sharing a meal.
In my life, I may never commit outright acts of genocide (my complicity in the US economy and domestic/foreign policy certainly doesn’t remove all culpability), but is that because I’m better than those people who do? No. I just wasn’t born into that situation. Why am I not a Muslim? Indeed, I have the opportunity to convert, but being born to the privileged class in the U.S. greatly diminishes that statistical likelihood. Would I sell my body for money? I don’t know. I’ve never been in a situation where that has seemed to be my best option. Would I kill or gain money through deceptive/destructive means? Well, I already contribute to a society and system that oppress others in search for more capital.
I’m not saying there isn’t a difference between a rapist and the one who is raped. There is. But to assume that one would have been a better person in the same situation(s) as that other with whom one is eating… that’s a bit arrogant, and certainly not gracious.
Jesus ate with the elite (the religious oppressors) and with the marginalized. I haven’t gotten the sense that he “lowered” his humanity for either.
So in my mind, the problem isn’t that people confuse nonheteronormativity with sin. The issue is that people draw lines of exclusion in the first place.
It is not my Table; it is not my Church. I eat and drink with another because it’s not mine to give; grace is being extended to me, as well.
November 30, 2007 at 6:32 am
Casey
Ms. Dimmesdale- when I wrote the sentence, “By lowering myself to eat with them, I’m being Christ-like” I wasn’t stating my own opinion – I was stating what I believe to be the mostly unconscious thought process of somebody who claims to be radically inclusive by eating with a homosexual. I may be incorrect in that evaluation, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out any other reason for the ever-present “some of my friends are gay,” as though that excused a person for being senselessly cruel. It’s poor theology, absolutely – but it’s also very human, and from what I’ve found, very common. As Drew wrote above, there’s something about our conceptions of the outer limits of God’s table that in itself reinscribes the hierarchy of sinners – a hierarchy that simply does not exist, as all are equally in need of grace.
You are absolutely correct that there is nothing about me, as a whole, that is morally superior to a corrupt tax collector – we are both broken, fallen beings. There is, however, a significant moral difference between the act of being in a same-sex relationship, and the act of extortion – the former is, assuming it is a healthy relationship, morally superior to the latter, in that at the very least it is morally neutral as opposed to morally wrong. Saying that the two are equivalent because the people who perform them are themselves, as people, equally sinful, is incorrect, unjust, and deeply harmful. To put that error into the mouth of God is to make a self-evident liar or fool out of the man who called himself the Truth. Forcing people to try to repent of blameless behavior is, at the very least, a waste of time that can better be spent praising God for all that he has given us. That’s all I’m concerned about here.
November 30, 2007 at 10:23 am
J
Scripturally, Casey, how are you saying gays are being asked to repent of blameless behavior? We all know where scripture says it is not blameless, where does scripture say it is blameless?
November 30, 2007 at 10:47 am
Drew
J – This depends on your hermeneutic with the six or so passages that you are referencing. Are you tasking into account he context of homoeroticism in which these texts were written and the audiences to which they were directed? Clearly they do not condemn monogamous and mutually supportive relationships where one is committed to another right? Or would you rather take each text to have as timeless a character as the being of God? If you apply this kind of hermeneutic to these texts, why would it not apply to those texts that are clearly supportive of the lesser status of women or the justification of slavery? Even in these texts (such as Sondom and Gomorrah or Gibeah) seem clearly to suggest that offering your daughter or concubine is an acceptable response to violent homoeroticism directed at your son right?
This is not a question of which texts have to do with homosexuality and how they either support or not support same gender eroticism, but a question of how we generally make hermeneutical judgments with certain texts, but seem not to make the same sorts of judgments with other texts and finally how such judgments are rationally justified.
The very phrasing of your questions above demand a justification of method before even continuing with any sort of “proof-texting” regarding the issue here.
Jesus clearly said to offer the other cheek in response to violence towards oneself. If I was holding baseball bat and a man broke into my house to kidnap my son, does this mean that I should offer my son and let the invader get away with it? Or is it OK if I clobber the guy to protect my very lifeblood? It seems that unless I get a clear sense of what the context of the statement was, I have no clear understanding of the direction that it may or may not give me in such a situation. In fact, it may say nothing of it at all. So even with a text as a guide I might have to make an extra textual judgment of how I ought to behave in such a situation. In fact, that is what we do in practices and those who think they do not are quite delusional and unwilling to admit their own thought processes behind the matter.
We all have to make judgment here and the texts themselves are clearly not the end of our legislative ethical decision processes either corporately or individually. To say that they can act this way is to delude oneself into imagining an absolute objectivity that does not exist when persons appropriate any knowledge whatsoever. I am not condoning relativism due to its equally improbable ends, but context is crucial in any ethical proposition and justification here – the use of texts to legitimate action notwithstanding.
November 30, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Casey
J, I can say gays are being asked to repent of blameless behavior because I have searched the scriptures, and scholarship about those scriptures; I have prayed to God for insight, after praying to God for years that He would change my orientation only to hear that He made me and wants me as I am; I have observed the fruits of the different paths that people with a same-sex sexual orientation have taken, and discovered that the ones who take the path you seem to be advocating (denial of their orientation, either by marrying somebody of the opposite sex or trying lifelong celibacy) rarely seem to bear any good fruit, mostly being obsessed with their task of being ex-gay, while people who are comfortable in themselves, and supported by loving partners, seem to be able to do a lot to bring a little of God’s Kingdom into this world, through service, through raising children abandoned by others, through simply being good neighbors who can focus on something outside of themselves. It is clear to me which of these is a better witness to a gracious and loving God, to the Jesus I know now, rather than the distant Tyrant I feared when I believed, as one of those passages you obliquely referenced implies when casually thrown about, that “God gave me up.” The traditional human interpretation of those passages has caused so much harm, so much hateful division, so many to turn away from the God they loved, that I think it’s justified to say that those interpretations are suspect, because they go against the deeper principles and purposes of scripture – the command to love neighbor and God, and be reconciled to both. There is something very wrong when your interpretation of scripture causes Christian parents to throw their children out onto the street, where in order to survive they become prostitutes, selling themselves to upstanding Christian husbands and fathers who cannot accept their orientation and cannot resist the temptation to act on it in pathological ways.
However, you asked for my justification from scripture for the blamelessness of healthily expressed homosexuality, so I’ll give you some sources you can read, detailed, clear exegeses of the word of God, since you seem an open-minded sort willing to test your interpretations. Given the above discussion of why the traditional interpretation is suspect, I ask that you read these asking yourself, and God, the question – “if there are two equally likely meanings of a passage, which should I choose? The one that condemns gay people to a long, empty and fruitless life, or the one that offers gay people hope to live as well and as fully as I can? What is more fair?” Because while yes, the world is not fair, nor just – God is – and it is his commands we are speaking of here.
http://inclusiveorthodoxy.com/ – where it says “bible and homosexuality”
http://royclements.co.uk/essays08.htm – any of Roy Clements’ articles are excellent, but this is a good start. As credentials, the man was a good friend of, and considered to be an equal theological authority to, John Stott in England until he was outed and ostracized in the late 1990s. It’s really a pity, because his writings about Jesus and the Church really are outstanding.
There are also several books which are excellent, and I can dig up a long list if you like, but these are a good start. Enjoy, and talk to you later.
November 30, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Phil
The following statement, I deem to be true:
(Casey)
“There is, however, a significant moral difference between the act of being in a same-sex relationship, and the act of extortion – the former is, assuming it is a healthy relationship, morally superior to the latter, in that at the very least it is morally neutral as opposed to morally wrong. Saying that the two are equivalent because the people who perform them are themselves, as people, equally sinful, is incorrect, unjust, and deeply harmful.”
As is this one:
(Ms. Dimmesdale)
“It is not my Table; it is not my Church. I eat and drink with another because it’s not mine to give; grace is being extended to me, as well.”
“D” I am so happy for you despite the fact that this class and this professor were not all you had hoped for. The “good” news is that you will have many more opportunities to share your “special” perspective in the future…hopefully those encounters will be more fruitful. I wish you the very best in your new relationship!
~ Phil
December 1, 2007 at 3:45 pm
J
To Drew, “can” the ‘do I clobber the guy who is going to hurt my (fill in the blank)’ argument. And. . .huh? Speak English, clearly, please. . .
To Casey, you give me food and references for thought. Will get back to you.
To D, so why are you in a conservative seminary, again. . .?
December 1, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Casey
J, I know this is D’s to answer… but I’m an advocate, so getting in the way is what I do, and D can smack me around for it later if she likes. *grins* She is in a conservative seminary because she belongs there. She has a right to be there. She brings a lot to the table in a lot of ways, and frankly, they are lucky to have her. And finally, she is there because God wants her there right now. There are many who ask me, “so, why are you a Christian, again…?” or “why are you a Republican, again…?” to which I can only answer, I am because I am, because there are principles in which I believe and I would not be myself if I renounced them, and nobody has the right to take that away from me. Just because a thing is hard or awkward does not mean it isn’t right. In fact, that’s often an indication of exactly the opposite.
Though really, in law school they teach you to let the client’s words speak for themselves when you can – and this is an ideal situation to do so. D wrote that “it will be a long time, a very long time, before I have finished my struggle with this church and with this institution; because I am not backing out and I am not leaving. I am staying at your table. Keep looking, you’ll find me here.” And that is a great thing.
The Church, Christ’s Body on earth, has been hurt and bleeding for a long time, weakened by those who leave it, less than it could be because many of His children do not feel safe breaking bread with others of the Body. When the only people around us look like us, we tend to believe that God looks like us as well – and thus we make Him small. When the only people around us agree with us, our minds grow lazy and flaws in our beliefs are never rooted out… lies take root, and bear bitter fruit.
D is at that seminary, and staying, so that should anybody ever look for her, look for that unique reflection of the Divine which made her in its image, they can see it… those who have eyes to see, let them see. She is there to present a different side, and yes, create a little trouble, so that as a family, the bit of the body of God at that seminary can struggle through disagreement in a divine unity, and come out stronger and more loving for it on the other side – and the world can see how a blessed community really deals with controversy. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear that… and praise God for it.
December 1, 2007 at 5:52 pm
D
Casey, well spoken… I could definitely not have articulated all of that myself… especially not with the five papers I have to write between now and next friday…. thanks
December 1, 2007 at 6:14 pm
J
D-hang in there, but I don’t like it when people jump in and speak for others. You are trying to find your voice, remember. Take your time. Sit up straight so your back doesn’t start hurting!
Oh, and I tend to not listen very hard when people speak for others, either. Are you in law, Casey? Startin’ to sound like it. .
December 1, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Casey
*laughs* Clearly, J, you aren’t listening very well at all. Was the accusation of being in law supposed to insult me? *rolls eyes* Oh well, that’s not my problem.
And D, I feel ya – I’ve got 40 pages or so to write in the next few weeks, between two final exams. Besides, you make it easy – after all, I did just quote you for much of it. Good luck, and let me know if you could use somebody to work with… my human rights law final is threatening to kick my ass these days. *grins* Take care.
December 1, 2007 at 7:21 pm
D
J, V, whichever you are… I spoke for myself through my post. that is what i have to say. When I have more to say, I will write another post. What Casey said about why I am here did come from my own words… from the conversations we have had about it, or things that I have written about it. Thank you for your concern, but I am doing just fine finding my words. This site, in fact, is filled with thousands of my words. My life is filled with people who listen carefully to my voice, and for that I am overwhelmingly grateful.
As for your questions, however, I do not feel it is beneficial for either you or I to engage in personal debates or discussions on this page, and I personally will be choosing not be participate in it. If the others want to, that is absolutely their prerogative.
December 2, 2007 at 10:47 pm
J
Hey! you’re the one who brought up law school!
December 3, 2007 at 2:22 am
Casey
J, V, whoever you are – I brought up law school because I am a student at law school, and I say that proudly. I just found it very funny that you seem to think of it as an insult. I am an advocate, and I think that’s a good thing. I know something about laws and legal systems, which I think is dang useful in a society governed by laws – thankfully governed by laws, because if it wasn’t, it would be ruled by brute force.
But y’know what? I think I’m gonna take a page out of D’s book, and not bother with you much anymore. You clearly don’t pay attention when people address you, you adamantly refuse to give as much back in the conversation, limiting your statements to aggressive one-liners that tell us nothing about yourself, and frankly, I find your deceptive anonymity annoying. Unlike most of the people who post here anonymously, you have nothing to lose if your identity is revealed… and yet, you choose to hide behind not one, but two false names. That reeks of cowardice.
So yes, until you decide to give a little more of yourself to this forum, I think my time is better spent in other ways… like learning how to free children trapped in sexual slavery – something I hope to use my legal education to do this summer. Think about that, next time you try to use knowledge of the law as an insult, JV. Good bye and God bless.
December 3, 2007 at 5:56 am
of light
Thank you for your beautiful insights, D. I am sorry to have missed the group today, but am always glad to read your musings…. they always end in hope.
It’s a beautiful world. And I am so happy and thankful to God for knowing and loving who I am.
You always articulate it so well. So thank you.
December 3, 2007 at 11:02 am
B
wow, I have been missing some interesting stuff….
December 3, 2007 at 4:23 pm
A
You and me both, B. Ha!
December 3, 2007 at 6:48 pm
J
Wow! lots of stuff here. I’m feeling. . .
First, Casey, I NEVER intended to hurt your feelings or insult you by asking about the law school!
You mentioned law school, and I thought your thought processes sounded like a lawyer talking/writing. If anything I intended to imply your education must be paying off, you sounded sort of like a lawyer! (It was a quip. Somebody here, please have a sense of humor!)
You want to know more about me? Well, unfortunately, I don’t have time at the moment, but I am an encouragerer at heart, and do not intentionally insult people. If I have unintentionally insulted any of you, I am sorry. Please accept my apology.
You do not know anything about my anonymity, by the way, do not make assumptions for which you have no facts.