Jesus and the LGBTQ

 

What? Some of you will say? What does this mean? Jesus never said anything about the LGBTQ (Quickly, before some of you say, it’s no longer LGBTQ, it’s _____. I know that, but it’s so hard to keep up with the other letters and even numbers that get included that I am just going to stick with the most familiar acronym for now).  Well, those of you who are my Facebook friends and who have read my blogs will know that I like to come up with titles that catch your attention. How else do you get people to read what you say? Unless you’re already famous as a writer.

 

Yes, reader, you are right when you said Jesus never said anything about the LGBTQ. How could he have? That set of letters, that acronym, did not exist in his time. All right, now I might be sounding a bit facetious. Others will say, but there were homosexuals in Jesus’ day and he never said anything about them. That is partly true. The word homosexual had not yet been invented either, so, again, Jesus could not have taught on that. But, you might protest, homosexual behavior was known. Indeed, that was. There is a famous statement on that in Leviticus and some of Paul’s writings are interpreted or translated as referring to homosexuals or their behavior. 

 

Indeed, many discussions have been held on these subjects and many sermons and lectures have dealt with it, not to mention all the ink spilled on it. Of course, nowadays you can google the internet and you will find enough material to keep you reading, enough Youtube videos, to keep you occupied for a lifetime. You will find a variety of approaches and conclusions in all of these. Some are based on traditional views still held by many Christians. Others delve into scripture to try to explain what the passages referred to might mean as opposed to what they are generally understood as saying when taken quite literally. The first party generally still believes all LGBTQ behavior is wrong, even ‘sinful’, essentially judging and condemning them all at once. The second group tries to explain how scripture can be understood in ways that can lead to different, more positive outcomes for the LGBTQ.

 

So, what did Jesus say? Jesus had a lot to say about The Law that his contemporaries, the Jews of Galilee, Judea and the Diaspora followed still. The key in understanding what Jesus’ view on the LGBTQ subject might have been, since he did not address it directly, would, I contend, lie in how he interpreted this Law. We know he often said, “The Law says, but I say to you,” or words to that effect. And what were his ultimate words on the Law? This is recorded in more than one place and sounded like this: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and your neighbor as yourself.” Period. That’s it.

 

How are we to understand this? Some call it the law of love. It has also been called the royal law, as we Believers acknowledge Christ Jesus as our king. If we understand what love is, or does, I think our attitude to the LGBTQ should be quite plain. We can find biblical material on love, especially in the writings of John (or the Johns, if you think all those John books were not written by the same guy), and that famous poetry of Paul’s from I Corinthians 13.

 

Let's just look a little at I Corinthians. The key section of this poem is numbered as verses 4-7: 

"Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. 

It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 

it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 

It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

 

It is not difficult to see that we have, as The Church, failed our LGBTQ type neighbors in many ways when we read that. Are we patient with them or do we jump to judge them and their lifestyle as being sinful, and therefore condemned, unless they repent. Are we really kind to them? In believing that we, who hold the traditional view, are right, have we been arrogant and perhaps even rude about that? We have certainly insisted on our own way, what we believe is right, in this regard. Have we rejoiced with them in the truth? Do we really know for sure that the pronouncements we make in this regard are the truth? We, as Christians, should know that for us, truth is more than a word. It is embodied in Jesus, the Word. If we believe that Jesus was the Son of God, one of the three elements of The Trinity, then we must also accept those passages that say that God is love as applying to Jesus. And what did we say a couple of paragraphs back? Jesus some of the practical part of the law which pertains to how we behave towards others, as loving our neighbors as ourselves. Surprise! This includes people of the LGBTQ type.

 

Many Christians believe they have made significant progress when they come to the point where they accept that there are individuals who fit into this LGBTQ category. However, many say that, although they may be born in which ever way they are expressing their gender, to fully act out their love as humans, they must refrain from the kinds of affection and intimate love that we believe we as heterosexual persons can enjoy. What kind of logic is that? 

 

I have just finished reading a book titled Misguided Love by   Denham. You might think that title refers to what LGBTQ individuals want to do in expressing their deepest and even sexual love for one another, that this is misguided. You would be wrong. The author goes to great lengths, from pre-Christian times to the present day, to show that it is The Church’s ‘love’ that has been misguided. 

 

I won’t go into details. You can read the book. The writer’s ultimate conclusion is that The Church, thinking over the ages that it was showing love in various ways, including torturing and burning homosexuals to save their souls – or the rest of The Church from this ‘evil’ has caused untold harm. It has certainly not been heeding Christ’s words about The Law of Love. Families and friendships are torn by the Church’s actions. Too many who have tried to be accepted in The Church and failed have committed suicide. Is it showing love when we drive people to that extreme?

 

In fact, the author also suggests that the current broader society’s homophobia and other ill-willed actions against the LGBTQ community stems from The Church’s teachings down through the ages. One might raise one’s eyebrows at that, but don’t forget, until the 19^th century, it was The Church that pretty much set the entire moral tone of western society. The Church’s teachings led to hatred of this segment of the population because it was believed they were contributing to the moral breakdown of society. They were seen as an evil blot that had to be removed. The Church, in effect, granted permission to those who fear and hate this group to commit hate crimes and worse against them. 

 

We also read in scripture, “perfect love casts out fear.” Why is there so much fear of this community? Their efforts to gain equal respect and rights as the rest of us are interpreted in fear as that they have an ‘agenda’ to destroy society. Schools that allow teaching about this area are accused of contributing to the breakdown of marriage, the family and society. The LGBTQ are trying to turn the rest of us into them. Really?!

 

There are people in this group in society who are committed Christians. You could not find fault with their faith story, their testimony; even their lifestyle might be equal to that of many of their fellow Christians. They are in committed relationships with one another, the nature and characteristics of which are no different than heterosexual’s marriages. Yet we deny them from fully expressing love.  We deny them complete personhood. 

 

We believe love does no harm. What harm are these Christian couples – and I don’t speak for non-Christians, ; we have no jurisdiction over them - doing to us? If their lives, including their love for one another, is every bit as exemplar as many of the rest of us, how and whom are they hurting? 

 

It’s time we stopped obeying old laws, biblical and societal, and obey The Law of Love taught by Christ. It’s time we repent of the harm we, not the LGBTQ, have done to society and to countless individuals and begin to move forward. We have a lot of reconciliation and reparation to do to. Let’s start on this journey and show the world what true and full, complete love is. We’ve done the opposite long enough.

Don't 'Dis' Me. I Am a Person. Full stop.

This is one of those mornings when I again woke up 'early' (5 am) and my awakening brain made me decide it was not, at least easily, going back to sleep. Ideas such as this title were percolating so what else to do after some 20 minutes of struggle but get up and put it to print.

To begin with, let me parse my title for this posting. Indeed, by the time I have done that, I will have well introduced the ground of what I want to convey with this document. 

an exercise in academia, as the title should suggest. Allow me to continue.

'Dis,' of course, is as the On-line Etymology Dictionary [https://www.etymonline.com/word/dis] elaborates: 

dis- 

(assimilated as dif- before -f-, to di- before most voiced consonants), word-forming element meaning 1. "lack of, not" (as in dishonest); 2. "do the opposite of" (as in disallow); 3. "apart, away" (as in discard), from Old French des- or directly from Latin dis- "apart, in a different direction, between," figuratively "not, un-," also "exceedingly, utterly," from PIE *dis- "apart, asunder" (source also of Old English te-, Old Saxon ti-, Old High German ze-, German zer-).

But then, as my heading indicates, there is now another definition of the same 3 letters:

dis (v.)

 [https:dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/full-stop] expresses that 2nd definition well: 

"used at the end of a sentence, usually when you are angry, to say you will not continue to discuss a subject" This is indeed the plea many persons who are 'dissed' make. 

OK, now that we have our terms sorted out, what was I going to say? I'll get to that yet, indirectly. It will be worth it. And if you are a boomer like me - my we are getting distracted aren't we (indeed, my wife often thinks I have ADHD, which is, according to some, another one of those 'dis'es - a 'disorder') - that phrase will take you back to 1967 and Eric Burdon of The Animals intoning in "San Franciscan Nights:" "Save up all your brand and fly trans love airways to San Francisco U.S.A., Then maybe you'll understand the song, it will be worth it..." LOL.

I want to write here about people, persons, who are too often disadvantaged, among other things, because they are categorized with not one but both of the 'dis'es I've defined.       Can we use autism for an example? This is a condition - see, I am already using a word that sets it apart from 'normal,' but which I would rather not do - that has been classified as a disorder, particularly by the medical profession, of which I am a member. 

You see, we human beings are the only animals who 'name' things. As some of you will quickly remember, that was a task given Adam by God, and popularized (distraction alert) in a Bob Dylan song "Man Gave Names to all the Animals" Indeed,  the 18th century Swedish biologist Carl Linnaeus, as we know, took this to a whole new level with his "formalization of the modern system of naming organisms called binomial nomenclature" [thanks, Wikipedia]. For the uninitiated, that refers to all those two-word Latin names for organisms, such as 'Homo sapiens' for us humans. 

As many of you will know, there is subgroup of persons with autism that have been eponymously referred to as having, as being diagnosed with, Asperger's Disorder. Now, most of these individuals have average, if not above average, intelligence. And they are aware of what is going on and speaking out about it. They say, 'We do not have a disorder. We are normal. We just do things differently.' Indeed, some of them 'do differently' so well, they never get diagnosed. The current mayor of Taipei, Taiwan,  city of 5 million, is a self-acknowledged 'Asperger's.' In another life, he is/was a surgeon and the lead, no less, of a trauma team! This has led some to prefer the label 'High-FunctioningAutism" [HFA], which is still a label! Others, as some of us who know them will understand, do not function that 'normally,' at least as most of us understand 'normal.' So, what does that all tell us? Can we accept these people as variants of normal, as some of them are asking of us?

As many have discussed, who defines normal, and how, anyway? Maybe that is another of those areas where we should, at least in some of these 'cases' - and there's another word used to describe the abnormal - leave the judgment to God (I'm serious) and follow the  pro-active Golden Rule of Jesus in our behavior towards (I almost said 'treatment of,' which would again quickly lead us into the realm of 'treating,' as in a disorder, which is not where I want to go)  them: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So often we narrow the meaning of judgment as used in the Bible to the moral and behavioral realm. Maybe we would be a lot better off if we left judgment in some other areas to God. Could perhaps save ourselves a lot of grief, and did not Jesus say he wanted us to leave our 'grief,' our burdens, with him?

Okay, finally, having gently (?) - and lengthily, I admit - introduced my main point with the example of autism, let me finally move one to what I really want to say here. Anyone guess? Especially those who know me and have read other of my blogs, especially the most-read one ever "A Nudge or a Slap."

I want to apply what I have said so far to how we relate to all those individuals in our world who, for now, are grouped into this huge, somewhat amorphous category, LGBTQ - and some even add other initials and punctuation now. It's a moving target, as we say. Unfortunately, for some, and this is not funny, they have been the fatally wounded target of many of the rest of us.  We have, if not killed them outright, driven too many to suicide. Merciful God, forgive us for what we have so wrongly 'done unto others.'

Homosexuality, represented now in that collection of letters by LG, for 'lesbian' and 'gay,' referring to females and males respectively, was, until 1973, a medical diagnosis, like autism. In that year, the American Psychiatric Association [APA], of which I was a dues-paying member for years when practicing, although not until some 20 years after that, decided to remove the label. In essence, they were saying, this is a variant of normal. Gradually, but too slowly for many - witnesses the homophobia still all too rampant in our world - we, more so in the so-called Western or 'developed' world, are coming to accept that.

So, without belabouring it further - here's my point - is it time to accept all of those other 'letters' as variants of normal? For those of you who judge them on a biblical basis - leave the judgment to God and remember what I wrote above about how to behave towards them? 

God appears to have given man the right to give names. However, if we want to continue in the biblical or theological realm, we know that the world is no longer the prefect world God created. I suggest this imperfection also applies to our naming of things.  

Names can have their benefits. One of the chief ones is that, once defined, others know more-or-less what we are talking about. This, believe it or not, is the reasoning behind many so-called diagnoses. As the APA's in-some-circles-much-maligned Diagnostic and Statistical Manual says, and I simplify, the 'diagnoses' here are, as many of us know all too well, fluid collections of descriptions, admittedly again, for something not considered 'normal.' These collections of signs and symptoms, as medicine refers to them, do not indicate anything about cause. We are not yet there in psychiatry, although great strides are being made in that direction. 

And we certainly don't know the cause(s) for LGBTQ etc. So why not just leave that issue to those who wish to pursue it and the rest of us get on with ceasing our 'dissing' and 'disordering' these individuals and treat them as persons? Like the rest of us? Stop the many 'ways' we 'name' them. Full stop.   

I could say more about what we can do to actualize the thrust of the last paragraph. However, enough for one 'chapter.' It's now 7:30, time to get on with other elements of my day for now.

Get to Know the Person

 This is a phrase one hears a form of in many contexts nowadays. If you have a fear of Muslims, someone will tell you to get to know them and you might find that there just like you. The same goes for people who have negative feelings about Blacks, Hispanics or Asians. And, the same is said in the context of discussing our attitudes towards individuals of the LGBTQ community.

There was a time, a while back, when my response to this idea would be ‘No.’ If you have a principle, a belief, does that not surpass everything? I have changed my mind on that. We just have to look at the history of the Judeo-Christian religious groups to see where that got them. Many in Palestine in Jesus' day were so sure of their beliefs and principles that they couldn't recognize God when he was standing right in front of them in person. Rather than let themselves to get to know the person Jesus and listen to his story, which might have risked their having to change their beliefs, they actually, as we know, ended up killing the person. Indeed, Jesus had predicted that in his stories.

Are some of us guilty of the same faulty line of thinking when it comes to our attitudes to the LGBTQ community? We cling to beliefs and principles that we have learned sometime in our lives. We stay away from these individuals rather than get to know them and listen to their stories. If we did, we might find that they are just like us. Indeed, when it comes to faith, we might find that some of them believe pretty much like we do and claim to have a good relationship with Jesus, just like some of those who don't want to get to know them claim. Would we believe that they are lying?

The gender issue is a big one in our Mennonite circles these days. Not that many years ago it was divorce and remarriage. That doesn't seem to be much of an issue for many of us now. Many of us have good friends who have divorced and remarried. We let them hold positions of authority in our congregations, whether it be on church council or teaching or even preaching from the pulpit! All of that has happened in our congregation.

So, what happened? Jesus really never said anything directly about gender, as we know. But he did talk negatively about divorce and remarriage [Mark 10:1-10]. So how come we don't seem to listen to something he said, but come across very strongly with our views on something he never talked about? Are we being hypocritical? I'll leave those thoughts with you.

On inclusion of the LGBTQ: A nudge or a slap?

November 11 I woke early with thoughts of the subject on my mind. After an hour, I got up, had breakfast and wrote the blog entry “We Are Being Rushed,” which some of you might have read [reflect-lulu-isle@blogspot.com]

. This morning it was an hour and a half of thoughts mostly on this topic before I got up, had breakfast, checked in with my email and Facebook and I'm now writing this.

To begin with, I want to bring our attention back again to the resolution that Mennonite Church Canada passed by a wide margin of the delegates at Assembly 2016, the biannual sessions of the Church, in Saskatoon:

A Resolution to the Mennonite Church Canada Delegate Assembly July 2016: Being a Faithful Church

AMMENDED Based on what the Task Force has heard in our discernment process concerning same-sex committed relationships, and in the spirit of the church speaking again, the General Board has approved for consideration at the 2016 Delegate Assembly, the following BFC task force recommendation: One of our foundations of unity has been the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective. We recommend that it continue to serve the church in the ways suggested in the Introduction of the Confession itself. We call upon our family of Christ to respectfully acknowledge that there are those among us (congregations and individuals) whose careful study of Scripture and prayerful journey of discernment lead them to a different understanding on committed same-sex relationships than is commonly understood by readings of Article 19 in our Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective. We recommend that we create space/leave room within our Body to test alternative understandings from that of the larger Body to see if they are a prophetic nudging of the Spirit of God. Since continued discernment will be required after Assembly 2016, we recommend that Mennonite Church Canada and Area Churches develop ways of to hear one another around the implementation of this recommendation. CARRIED

The first bullet here states that "One of our foundations of unity has been the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite perspective. We recommend that it continue to serve the church in the ways suggested in the Introduction of the Confession itself."

It seems to me that there are individuals, even leaders and pastors, in our churches who are now brandishing this document in the faces of those who approved the resolution in ways that are definitely not unifying. As some of you know, pastors/leaders of 11 of Mennonite Church British Columbia congregations shared a letter with the rest of the conference in which they generally expressed their disapproval of the above resolution. They say that we cannot adopt this resolution if we say that the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective is still to serve the church as such. They overlook the second sentence of the first clause of the resolution which points to the Introduction of the Confession which states that it is a guideline. In my opinion, they are instead making this document a standard, a law.

I believe that at least some of the individuals who put their names to this letter are genuinely sincere in their opposition to this resolution. They might also really cherish our Confession of Faith and want to uphold it as they understand it. If I want to be less than charitable, I could say that they, or at least some of the signatories, are just putting forth the confession as a smokescreen, an excuse to refuse to accept the resolution. Indeed, one of their suggested ways forward is to put a moratorium on further discussion of the subject!

Furthermore, Confessions of Faith have change over time. We all know that. However, being the type of document that they are, they cannot be changed easily and quickly when a new understanding develops in the church. A good deal of soul-searching, prayerful study and discernment needs to occur first. For example, rightly or wrongly, most of our congregations now accept divorced and even divorced and remarried individuals into membership, sometimes even leadership. The Confession has not yet been adapted to address this. The most that it says on page 74 is "4. Some in the church experience divorce… that make(s) marriage and family life burdensome or even impossible. Jesus affirmed the sanctity of marriage (Matt. 5:52) and pointed to hardness of the heart as the ultimate cause of divorce (Mark 10:4-9). Today's church needs to uphold the permanency of marriage and help couples in conflict move toward reconciliation. At the same time, the church, as a reconciliation and forgiving community, offers healing and new beginnings. The church is to bring strength and healing to individuals and families."

Unfortunately, the document does not say anything about homosexuality or all the other forms of sexual/gender diversity that the acronym LGBTQ encompasses. This is in spite of the fact that the issue had been on the floor of conferences in both the USA and Canada for a decade before this latest version of the confession came out.  It has taken special steps to endorse and support singles in our congregations, which is commendable. It defines, on page 72, "Christian marriage" as "a mutual relationship in Christ, a covenant made in the context of the church." This statement in itself says nothing about sexual identity or gender. It could apply to homosexuals. However, it is actually preceded by this qualifying statement: "We believe that God intends marriage to be a covenant between one man and one woman for life." Later, it goes on to say that “Marriage is meant for sexual intimacy, companionship, and the birth and nurture of children." All quite standard and what we would consider, up to this point, orthodox statements.

Now, according to Scripture, we know that God's good creation apparently only included male and female (Genesis 1:27). However, we know that creation has been spoiled by choices that were made way back in the beginning of time (Genesis 3). I would posit that God, in his redemptive mercy and goodness, besides offering us repentance and a way back to him through the work of Jesus Christ, has also been making accommodations to the human situation ever since. Divorce would appear to be one of those accommodations. Jesus clearly indicated his disapproval ( Matthew 5:31-32), but did not say we should not continue with divorce, if we humanly speaking can see no other way out. He only talked about it making people commit adultery, but we know even he forgive adulterers. Ergo, I think he also forgives divorcees.

Why can we not apply the same rationale to acceptance of LGBTQ individuals? I would put forward that God did not create all of these categories of human sexual/gender expression. However, we know that God is not opposed to diversity. Just look at creation, and even what he caused to happen at The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11: 1-9). My simple understanding of the origin of all of this sexual diversity is that it is a result of "sin’s" impact on our brains and bodies. We know that there are those in the animal kingdom who exhibit homosexual behavior. There are also those that reproduce sexually with themselves, hermaphroditically.

For many, one of these forms of sexual diversity other than heterosexual, is not something they choose. They are born with it. It is part of who they are. So how can we deny that? To be sure, there are those who, perhaps because of a life of misguided parenting or abuse, or other influences causing confusion about identity, choose or settle into one of these forms of diversity that most closely approximates how they see themselves.

Some of us will say, we can accept the individuals as fellow Christians, as members in our congregation, perhaps even in positions of leadership, as long as they do not practice non-heterosexual activities. To me, this has become a totally irrational and unacceptable position. How can we see, yes we can accept what you say about yourself, about who you are, over here, but not in this area? Is that acceptance or not? It can certainly create a lot of hardship and suffering for some of the individuals who try to comply with that.

Then, there are others who will continue to insist that these orientations are not right, let alone any related practice. We can only accept these individuals into our midst if they repent of this alleged sinfulness and live either celibate or heterosexual. I could go into my understanding of Scripture which does not support this view, but that is more than I wish to do in this document. That would be a treatise in itself.

I think many of those who take these latter two positions do so in part out of ignorance, perhaps not even knowing individuals who fit any of these descriptions, or never have listened to their stories. I have read and heard enough of these personal testimonies, including from my patience as his psychiatrist, even dealing with Christian homosexuals, transgender youth etc., to know that be really have nothing to fear of these people. To be sure, there have been those in Christian circles who have exploited the fact that some individuals under this umbrella engage in unhealthy and promiscuous sexual practices. Much of the behavior exhibited at their so-called Pride Parades only adds to this negative impression of these people. Some of them recognize that it does not help their cause and do not take part in these events. Some of this behavior, although this is not an excuse, arises as over-reaction to the suppression that our society places on these individuals. We all know how you sometimes have to exaggerate to make a point.

Those of us who wish to totally include these individuals in our fellowship might be making a mistake. I am humble enough to admit that. However, I know that God can forgive us when we err in good faith. We are accused of going beyond what Scripture says, as many who resist these directions believe they have it on the authority of The Bible that this is all wrong. In my view, this opinion places Scripture in an unacceptably high position. It runs the danger of making God have to obey the Bible in what he lets us do. Let me share with you some lessons from my understanding of Scripture in this regard.

In the first place, when it comes to Old Testament injunctions, we could be tempted to categorically say we can disregard those because we are no longer, as Christians, in the New Testament era, under the New Covenant, in the Kingdom of God, as Jesus presented it, under the authority of the Mosaic law. You may say, but Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. At the same time, we know that there are many instances of where he re-interpreted it in ways that the religious leaders of his day could not accept. Ultimately, as many of us understand it, the fulfillment of the law that he refers to meant that what he, in his death and resurrection, accomplished what the law was meant to do, but as the Apostle Paul so poignantly writes, especially in his letters to the Romans and Galatians, was unable to. We know that Jesus saw the law summarized in two phrases: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. Is that not enough for us to begin to see that we can accept these individuals and let the Spirit work with us and them within the church to see what they might need to do in their own lives, just as we have many corners in our rooms that we struggle with letting the Spirit into?

There are four further instances from Scripture that I could draw our attention to. One is where Jesus himself, as recorded in John's gospel, himself appears to support the idea that The Spirit, in its work with us, is not limited to what Scripture says. In chapter 16:12 we read, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come." Might acceptance of LGBTQ individuals be one of these "things that are to come?"

Then we have the story of Peter and the visions he had about uncleanness as recorded in The Acts of the Apostles, chapter 10. Having been brought up to be faithful to the law of Moses, he could not accept what The Spirit was telling him through these dreams to do. However, after three of these dreams, no longer able to sleep, I am sure his head was spinning when he gathered his companions and went off to Cornelius' place. In his mind, he was breaking the law by entering the home of a Gentile, much less eating with them and welcoming them into the kingdom. Is this not a clear example of The Spirit leading us beyond what the law said?

The next example comes from The Acts of the Apostles chapter 15. The new church was still struggling with what it meant to admit Gentiles to the Fellowship. Ultimately, after much discussion, and I am sure a lot of prayer, and listening, they wrote to the Gentiles (versus 28-29), "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and asked to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourself from these, you will do well. Farewell." Note, they did not say, our study of Scripture leads us to conclude this. In their mind, they probably felt that they were going out on the proverbial limb, but the experiences and circumstances that they were witness to lead them to believe that this was the direction of The Holy Spirit. There was no clear proscription against homosexual behavior here. Fornication can be understood as simply another word for adultery. However, we know that in the Bible it was also used to refer to incest, pornography and other unacceptable sexual acts of the time. We also know that when Paul, who is the only one in the New Testament to addresses the issue most directly, spoke of what we understand as homosexual behavior, he was referring to two practices common at the time. One was the custom of the elite males in Greek and Roman society to have for themselves what we would now it is sometimes refer unflattering way to as "boy toys." The other was a reference to homosexual practices in the idolatrous religions of the day, including in their temples. Be that as it may, my main point for pointing out this passage is my comments above about how the Holy Spirit worked with the new church.

Finally, we have reassuring words in The Apostle Paul's Letter to the Philippians, which our congregation has just completed hearing a series of messages on and studied in our home LIFE groups. I refer to Chapter 3, verse 15: "Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. Only let us hold fast to what we have obtained." When we walked with the Spirit, we don't always have rock-solid evidence for the rightness of the way we travel. We talk about stepping out in faith, as Peter did when he went to Cornelius's place. The rightness of that decision was approved when he saw them except the gospel and receive the Holy Spirit in front of his eyes. Likewise for us, when we keep in touch with the Spirit, prayerfully trying to be obedient and follow its leading as we continue our pilgrimages, this passage tells us that we, perhaps not even as individuals in our lifetime, but as a church, will be shown the error of our ways if we are wrong.

One closing comment. The third bullet of the resolution introduced near the beginning of this document states:

“We recommend that we create space/leave room within our Body to test alternative understandings from that of the larger Body to see if they are a prophetic nudging of the Spirit of God.” This past weekend, at an Indigenous Wisdom for the Church Conference put on by Hummingbird Ministries in Vancouver, I heard an indigenous pastor say, "Sometimes spirituality just slaps us across the mouth, and we have to decide whether to open our mouths and take it in or not." Indeed, we know some of our indigenous neighbours have long had a tradition among the elders of giving a special place of respect to the 'two-spirited' as they call them. They saw them as possibly having special gifts because of what they embodied. Maybe that is just another area where we could learn from our First Nations brothers and sisters. 

Perhaps, to say that "alternative understandings" could be "a prophetic nudging of the Spirit" is rather weak, perhaps politically correct; certainly an expression that would ruffle less feathers. Maybe the Spirit, after all this time and having heard the anguish of LGBTQ individuals and their families, is trying to slap us on the face, not just nudge us. After all, did our Lord not say he came to set the captives free (Lk. 4:18, quoting Isaiah 61)? Have we not been guilty of keeping the LGBTQ captive?