My mom was raised Catholic, and did all the things I would perceive as what good Catholic girls would do - mass, Catholic school, confession, Eucharist, repeat. On the other hand, my dad was raised in a spirit-filled, charismatic, God-fearing Pentecostal church. You might ask how they became "equally yoked"- they decided that the middle would be to attend a Baptist church. It was that Baptist church that I was baptized and had all my questions answered about heaven, hell, and whether God was cheering for the Cowboys.
Naturally, my parents deviated from the Baptist church and went back to their comfort zones. Their comfort zones ranged from taking me to be christened to attending charismatic "every one come to the altar" revivals. As a young kid and teenager, I saw these times outside of my comfort zone to ask uncomfortable questions; the more controversial the better, even if I was just playing devil's advocate. These questions were one such as, "Why is that woman speaking in tongues when women can't speak in church?"or "So I can only be saved and understand God if I read KJV?" While those questions I asked were only meant to poke at nerves (and sometimes resulted in me being brought up in a following sermon as a child with devilish doubts), I sometimes asked questions to see if there are differing answers between denominations. The most common question that I asked was "Can I be unsaved?" While other times I brought up questions that seemed to me to have common knowledge (and sometimes rather awkward) answers among churches such as "Is not waiting until marriage an unforgivable sin?" or "Since my cousin does not like girls, is he going to hell?"
The aforementioned "common knowledge" questions were close-ended, and every time growing up I received the same close-ended answer to the respective question. As a result, the answers became my beliefs which shape who I am.
Fast forward to almost a decade later, the answers to those questions are no longer answers at all - they are more questions, and they are open-ended. The responses come from new friends, pastors, mentors, and readings in my life that have challenged me. Most of the time, I am suggested readings from my friends and mentors over areas I still question. Some of these questions are now more relevant in my life and/or in society; particularly homosexuality.
I have heard the most negative attitudes and reactions from Christians to people of the LGBT (lesbian,gay, bisexual, transgender) community. So, it made me ask a trap of a question: Is homosexuality a sin?
It's a close-ended question that if given a close-ended answer, makes a declaration on a group of people that are too varied. Additionally, it puts the complicated matter of human sexuality into black-and-white terms. As a result, I was afraid to answer the question for fear of looking like a ultra-conservative bigot to one group of friends, and to the others a God-less liberal.
Luckily, I was suggested to read a book titled "Love is an an Orientation" by Andrew Marin. As the headline of the book declares (and the title of this blog post), it elevates the conversation between the gay community and Christians.
Andrew Marin, a former "Bible-thumping homophobe", does not answer the question in black-and-white, but takes the reader to the uncomfortable gray area where the most production can happen.He does not give you the "answers," but sets the reader free from the close-ended questions that weren't getting us anywhere. His testimony of the challenges he faced when his friends "came out" to his journey of founding The Marin Foundation, an organization that's purpose it to bring evangelicals and the LGBT community together, proves that a productive conversation is indeed possible.
"Love is an Orientation" goes over all the common misconceptions conservative Christians apply to the LGBT community (for example, most gay people were sexually abused), theologies of Gay-affirming and conservative churches, and why the fight over gay marriage misses the point. This does not mean that he is saying gay marriage is not an important matter as a social and political issue, but that the politically active should have what the politically active thinks it should have. "Christians should think in God's kingdom-encapsulated terms, not human terms," Marin writes. "The political world mean too much to Christianity, and people mean too little."
But let's get to the main point. I think there are two areas that are key thoughts in the book - what the LGBT community wants from God, and how Christians should view the LGBT community.
Regarding the first area, Marin writes, ". . .all the GLBT community wants from God is a) to have the same intimate relationship with God that evangelicals claim to have; and b) to safely enter into a journey toward an inner reconciliation of who they are sexually, spiritually, and socially."
As a Christian, when is the last time you have helped a member of the LGBT community come closer to God? Perhaps you did so by telling them how to live by your Christian ideals.
A friend of mine who lives in a very conservative part of Arkansas told me a story of when he went to eat in a restaurant with a couple friends. He ordered his food, but he said that the male waiter was a little too friendly. How he was too friendly I'll never know, but my friend was getting a vibe that as a straight man, a gay man was making advances on him. Whether it was the case, I do not know, but I do know how he handled himself. First, he responded to the "thanks!" written on the receipt by writing on the back of it saying, "YOU ARE DISGUSTING AND GOING TO HELL FOR HITTING ON ME." Additionally, he told the manager that he would never come to eat in the restaurant again.
When asked, this was his way of "setting the sinner (gay man) straight." My friend saw this as a Christ-like way of getting this man, who may or may not have been gay, to grow closer to God. Would this have been the way Jesus would have responded?
Some Christians, such as my friend, use one of the most overused Christian clichés when responding to the LGBT community - "Hate the sin, not the sinner." Therefore, my friend states that he was responding to the sin and not to the sinner. Regardless, Marin says how we must avoid such clichés. Most members of the LGBT community see their sexuality as a constant - something they cannot change. When you use the aforementioned phrase, you state that they are in a perpetual state of sin. Is that possible?
I think I good example Marin could have used in this situation would have the Supreme Court's reasoning on why not to use the phrase "illegal immigrant" in its opinion on the Arizona immigration case. The justices' reasoning was that when you label someone an "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" or just plain "illegal," you are effectively saying the individual, as opposed to the actions the person has taken, is unlawful. The terms imply the very existence of an unauthorized migrant in America is criminal. In this country, there is still a presumption of innocence that requires a jury to convict someone of a crime. If you don't pay your taxes, are you an illegal? What if you get a speeding ticket? A murder conviction? No. You're still not an illegal. Even alleged terrorists and child molesters aren't labeled illegals.
For a change of pace, we understand that the bible states that we are all sinners. We sin. We get it. But when the phrase "hate the sin, not the sinner" is used, just like in the illegal immigrant case, the person implies that the very existence of this LGBT person is sinful. How would you feel if someone used language implied that your very existence is sinful?
Also going off the "illegal immigrant" example, there is a presumption of innocence that requires a jury to convict/judge someone of a crime. Who is the judge when it comes to sin? Marin uses a quote from Billy Graham to answer that question - "It is the Holy Spirit's job to convict, God's job to judge, and my job to love."
Marin continues later by saying that most Christians judge one's life according to sex. However, Marin proposes an ideal that is not based on sex, but rather on love. This ideal communicates God's acceptance, validation, affirmation, and unconditional love in meeting people as they are, where they are. Some critics might think this ideal is the same as a blanket acceptance of the gay identity. Others might think this ideal is the same as celibacy, just renamed to try to make it more accessible. But this ideal of God's love is rooted in none of these mentioned. It's an ideal focused on an identity in Christ rather than behavior - straight, gay, or celibate - as the judge of one's acceptability.
Marin ends by proposing we not ask close-ended questions but engage in open-ended conversations in
order to understand one another's stories and draw closer to God.
Marin notes in "Love is an Orientation" that Jesus almost never answered a close-ended question with a close-ended answer - "Yet only once during his three year public ministry, prior to his arrest and trail, did Jesus answer a closed-ended question with a closed-ended answer." Matthew 21:16 includes the question and answer.
So why should we, Christians, answer the question of "Is homosexuality a sin?" with a closed-ended answer? How would Jesus respond if we asked him that question? Would an answer to the question make you more like him or just satisfy your curiosity?
It's sometimes frustrating that He did not give a direct answer. After reading Marin's book, I realized that the question did not really matter because Jesus has already given the answer - "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you." John 15:12
p.s. If you don't feel like you should read "Love is an Orienation," I recommend it.
