(no subject)
Jun. 14th, 2005 03:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentia'Hell is full of good intenions or desires.' -- Bernard of Clairvaux, Apothegm
Think of it as the way in which homophobia hurts ministers and priests.
No matter how good your intentions are or how pure and loving your heart, if you quote from the Bible about the wrongness of homosexuality, you are, whether you intend so or not, contributing to the environment of fear under which queer people live.
Here's what it looks like from my perspective. Every day, I restrict and restrain my gender expression in myriad ways, big and small, because I am afraid. I'm afraid I might lose my job, and I'm afraid I will be violently victimized. I'm afraid I'll be laughed at and won't be able to do business. On several occasions I've witnessed verbal harrassment by Christians, and every time I read something like this or this or this, that fear is intensified.
So, if you are someone who supports the idea that it is sinful to be queer, I am automatically afraid of you. It's not relevent whether or not you do anything to encourage that fear or even if you try to reassure me -- that fear is still there. I cannot afford to distinguish you from the people who picket schools and funerals, because you might turn out to be the oddball whacko who thinks God told you to stab me.
I am not telling you to ignore God's word. I am asking you to consider that there exists an ethical dilemma not easily solved by appeal to moral absolutes. If you want to be a bridge to Christ for people who been expelled from homes, families, churches, and jobs, you will not accomplish that by contributing to our fear.
Here's a thought on this. The key to solving the dilemma was given by Jesus in what he said were the two greatest commandments, and in the litmus test of good fruit vs. bad fruit. What action will uphold your love for all people, and bear good fruit?
Meditate on this:
[Luke 18:9] To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable:
[10] "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
[11] The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.
[12] I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
[13] But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
[14] I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
The counsel of Jesus here is that one cannot gain assurance of righteousness in God's eyes by clinging to the letter of moral law. It seems like a sure-fire way to stay righteous, but if it results in bad fruits, then "the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brings death" (Romans 7:10)
In the episode of the accused adulteress (John 8:1-11), Jesus again stood against those who clung to the letter of the moral code to prove their righteousness at the cost of another. If Jesus were a moral absolutist, he would have had no choice but to agree with the woman's accusers. On the issue at hand, the Law of Moses is clear. However, his response -- to point out the men's hypocrisy -- was counter to the letter of the moral law, but still represents a satisfactory resolution to the moral dilemma based on the two greatest commandment and the good/bad fruit litmus test. I like to think that Jesus also did so because he knew that from the dawn of history, women have been persecuted for their sexuality and have lived in fear of being publically punished or executed for having sex. From his perspective, protecting her gave the best hope of reaching her soul and assuaging her fears.
But if the idea of supporting efforts against homophobia makes you worried that we don't know the Bible says homosexuality is bad, don't worry. It's safe to say we've all heard.
Think of it as the way in which homophobia hurts ministers and priests.
No matter how good your intentions are or how pure and loving your heart, if you quote from the Bible about the wrongness of homosexuality, you are, whether you intend so or not, contributing to the environment of fear under which queer people live.
Here's what it looks like from my perspective. Every day, I restrict and restrain my gender expression in myriad ways, big and small, because I am afraid. I'm afraid I might lose my job, and I'm afraid I will be violently victimized. I'm afraid I'll be laughed at and won't be able to do business. On several occasions I've witnessed verbal harrassment by Christians, and every time I read something like this or this or this, that fear is intensified.
So, if you are someone who supports the idea that it is sinful to be queer, I am automatically afraid of you. It's not relevent whether or not you do anything to encourage that fear or even if you try to reassure me -- that fear is still there. I cannot afford to distinguish you from the people who picket schools and funerals, because you might turn out to be the oddball whacko who thinks God told you to stab me.
I am not telling you to ignore God's word. I am asking you to consider that there exists an ethical dilemma not easily solved by appeal to moral absolutes. If you want to be a bridge to Christ for people who been expelled from homes, families, churches, and jobs, you will not accomplish that by contributing to our fear.
Here's a thought on this. The key to solving the dilemma was given by Jesus in what he said were the two greatest commandments, and in the litmus test of good fruit vs. bad fruit. What action will uphold your love for all people, and bear good fruit?
Meditate on this:
[Luke 18:9] To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable:
[10] "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
[11] The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.
[12] I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
[13] But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
[14] I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
The counsel of Jesus here is that one cannot gain assurance of righteousness in God's eyes by clinging to the letter of moral law. It seems like a sure-fire way to stay righteous, but if it results in bad fruits, then "the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brings death" (Romans 7:10)
In the episode of the accused adulteress (John 8:1-11), Jesus again stood against those who clung to the letter of the moral code to prove their righteousness at the cost of another. If Jesus were a moral absolutist, he would have had no choice but to agree with the woman's accusers. On the issue at hand, the Law of Moses is clear. However, his response -- to point out the men's hypocrisy -- was counter to the letter of the moral law, but still represents a satisfactory resolution to the moral dilemma based on the two greatest commandment and the good/bad fruit litmus test. I like to think that Jesus also did so because he knew that from the dawn of history, women have been persecuted for their sexuality and have lived in fear of being publically punished or executed for having sex. From his perspective, protecting her gave the best hope of reaching her soul and assuaging her fears.
But if the idea of supporting efforts against homophobia makes you worried that we don't know the Bible says homosexuality is bad, don't worry. It's safe to say we've all heard.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 06:41 am (UTC)Well, take it from me - it's oppressive. It creates environments where people with my position feel very unsafe.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 11:45 am (UTC)If I am prejudiced, I want to overcome it.
Would you mind telling me about a time or two when you've felt threatened or unsafe?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 12:27 pm (UTC)But, if I comment in an arena - particularly your own journal - where I am likely to be in a minority then the replies can be very oppresive.
I'm not really sure, now, how to dredge through comments that I've made in the past looking for examples. I do remember a while ago going through the experience, while commenting on your journal, of basically getting told by everyone how evil and rightwing I was.
d
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 12:57 pm (UTC)Have you had any experiences of feeling physically intimidated by gay or lesbian or transgendered activists in your presence? Or have you been in a situation around groups of GLBT people where you felt you had to keep from expressing your beliefs out of fear? That's more the kind of thing I meant.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 01:11 pm (UTC)but this point is this: If I had then I wouldn't brand everyone with the same label.
That's my issue. You won't allow there to be someone like myself who disagrees with you but refuses to be associated with violence.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 01:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-17 05:07 am (UTC)I'm saying that you have a responsibility not to perpetuate that kind of feeling and impression on others.