October 12, 1997
Rev. Eugene Nelson, Jr.
The Community Church of Sebastopol
Luke 14:7-24; Galatians 3:23-29
I begin this morning with a word of confession, namely that I have resisted preaching this sermon. I suppose I've resisted it for at least a couple of reasons. First of all, this whole issue of the relationship of the Christian church and homosexuals is extremely controversial – indeed one of the most divisive issues facing the Christian church today. For many of us both inside and outside the church, the lines have been so rigidly drawn that there is actually no room for discussion. I am not a fan of controversy in the church. I like things to go smoothly. I like us all to get along with each other. So it has been easier for me simply to avoid this topic.
I suppose I have also avoided this issue because of my own doubts and uncertainties. As a heterosexual male, I struggle to understand homosexuality. Homosexuality seems so unnatural for me that it has made it difficult for me to comprehend how it could be so natural for someone else. I fear that I have not been beyond my own feelings of prejudice fear, maybe even feelings of superiority.
Yet, in spite of all my doubts and uncertainties, I am about to preach a sermon in support of an open and affirming stance within the church – our church – toward homosexuals. Why?
First of all, I do so because my study of scripture and of the life and ministry of Jesus leave me no alternative. I know that's ironic because scripture has been used for generations as an excuse for persecuting, marginalizing, even murdering homosexuals. Today I'm going to suggest that that same scripture in fact calls us to a position of understanding, tolerance, compassion, yes, even welcome.
The central image I want to use today is the text from Luke – the parable of the great banquet. Fred Craddock, great story teller, tells about a church he knew. It was the status church in town – First Church downtown. Everybody who was anybody went to that church. Now this church was aware of its status and it liked its status, and so it was only open to certain people. It wasn't fond of children running around, certainly you had best have a good income to be a part of that church and needless to say, no one of color was welcome to participate. They were very conscious of their status and very careful about who was a part of it. As you might imagine since a church like that doesn't bring in a lot of new people, the members grew old together. Craddock says he found out that the church had finally just gone out of business. It ran out of people. He went back to that town and the church building was still there, but now it was a restaurant. Craddock says there is now a salad bar right where the communion table used to be. He says, "I guess now everyone is welcome to eat at the table." That is the point of Jesus' parable - everyone is welcome at the table of God. What does the master say to the servants? "Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled." Bring in whomever you can find. The table is open to all.
New testament scholar, John Dominic Crossan, believes that this text is absolutely crucial to understanding the radical nature of Jesus' ministry. In his words, "If one actually brought in anyone off the street, one could, in such a situation, have classes, sexes, and ranks all mixed up together. Anyone could be reclining at table next to anyone else, female next to male, free next to slave socially high next to socially low, ritually pure next to ritually impure."
Now hearing this from our perspective in the 1990's we might say so what? But we don't live in first century Israel, where lines between pure and impure, clean and unclean, were rigidly drawn. There were boundaries one just did not cross. And nowhere were these boundaries more strictly enforced than around the dinner table. Certain foods were unclean; certain people were unclean. You only ate your kind of food with your kind of people.
Then along comes Jesus. And what is one of the most damning accusations hurled against him? "This man eats with sinners! He will break bread with anybody!" At his table there is no distinction; there is no discrimination, and so, insists Jesus, the same will be true in the Kingdom of God.
This radical inclusiveness is at the very heart of Jesus' preaching and teaching. It finds eloquent expression in the words of Paul written to the Galatians: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." It is one of the bedrock principles of the Christian faith. There is no escaping it. All are welcome at the table.
Okay Gene, that sounds fine. We see where you're going with this one, but what do we do about the Biblical references, negative references, concerning homosexuals? With all that is written about the Bible and homosexuals, one might think that homosexuals are condemned on every Biblical page. In fact, it is hardly dealt with at all in the Bible. Jesus never mentions it – never! There are in fact six Biblical references to homosexuality or homosexual behavior and some of those are a little iffy, but for the sake of argument, let's say there are six. Not exactly an all-consuming interest of the Biblical writers. Time does not allow me to look at all of these, but let's take a look at those referred to most often – the Holiness code references in Leviticus 18 and 22 and Paul's reference in Romans I.
Leviticus 18: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 20: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death..." The words are clear; their context and application less so.
What we have in Leviticus are rules designed for a particular purpose in a particular setting. These are laws for people who are returning from exile, in this case their exile in Babylon. They come back to Israel and what do they find? People have intermarried, other gods are worshiped, they are now foreigners in their own land. So ritual purity becomes all-important. The people had to maintain their identity at all costs. Nothing foreign could be allowed in. Thus in Leviticus, cattle could not be inbred, fields could not be sown with two kinds of seeds, garments could not be worn that were from two different kinds of cloth, so your winter wool blends, forget them, they're out! Read Leviticus. It is incredibly restrictive. This holiness code was seen as the way for the people of Israel to maintain their distinctive identity. You might say to its credit – it worked. It helped save the people.
And what of some of the pagan or Gentile practices so feared in Leviticus? All of them are an abomination. The eating of pork is an abomination. A man lying with a male is an abomination – an abomination because Gentiles do this, making such acts ritually impure for Israelites.
So it seems to me that the Levitical condemnation of homosexual activity does not arise so much from moral concerns as from a concern for ritual purity.
So the question for us becomes, are we going to base our stand on homosexuality on this ancient, exclusive purity code with its endless prohibitions and punishments designed to maintain the ritual purity of a struggling, frontier people? We are also left with the issue of whether we are going to pick and choose, ignoring most of the Levitical holiness code – for example, children who curse their parents are to be put to death. (Now I know that's tempting sometimes!) It's there in the Levitical code. Are we going to ignore some of it while using two verses of it to justify our condemnation of and discrimination against homosexuals?
Quickly to Paul in Romans 1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men..."
It's first important for us to remember that Romans I is not about homosexuality. Paul is writing about the fallen nature of humankind. One of his favorite topics. Both Gentile and Jew have turned away from the truth of God. They do not honor God. Basically they have become worshipers of themselves. As a result they have given in to impurity and lust and things that dishonor body and self. In the words of Peter Gomes of Harvard University, "Paul is speaking here of passions out of control that become an end in and of themselves, that are in fact idolatrous...an excess to be condemned with all other excesses."
In Paul's words, "natural relations are exchanged for unnatural." Natural for Paul is what is customary, what is accepted, what is known. Interestingly, he is referring to heterosexual people who perform homosexual acts. Paul is not talking about homosexuals, he is not talking about committed relationships here. He is talking about lust and avarice and perhaps thinking of cultic prostitution, even sexual exploitation, where the strong take advantage of the weak, things we still rightly criticize today, whether expressed by homosexuals or heterosexuals.
So where does this leave us? First, as I said, homosexuality is simply not a significant Biblical theme. Secondly, if we take the Bible seriously enough to read it carefully, understand it on its own terms, consider the historical context of its words, we simply find no Biblical basis for the persecution of homosexuals or for the condemnation and exclusion of them in our own time.
So I believe we are back to the Biblical point with which I began...namely the call of Jesus – and Paul – to a radical acceptance, a radical inclusiveness, that transcends religious or social or sexual barriers. And when it comes to choosing between the spirit of Jesus or specific words on a Biblical page, I'm going to choose Jesus every time.
But let's get more personal. On the Board of Trustees of Pacific School of Religion is a gay man whose family owns a winery in Alexander Valley. He is deeply involved in the winery. He is deeply involved in his church and in the seminary. He brings extraordinary gifts of insight, humor and financial expertise to our board. He is in a committed relationship with a longtime partner. Any community in which they have been involved has benefited greatly from their talent and their generosity. They are committed Christians, believers, who take Jesus and their call to serve others and their world very seriously. Knowing them as I do, I could never call them or their relationship an abomination.
Closer to home still, I remember Ray Penoyer, an openly gay man who came to me, and asked permission to participate in the life of our church. He asked permission! He was a believer. He told me he wanted, he needed to worship in a community of faith. He wanted to sing in the choir. But he wasn't sure he was welcome. He did join our church. He became active in our life, joyfully and generously gave of himself and his talents and when HIV became full blown AIDS in his body, many of us walked that last journey with him. Along the way, many of us were forever changed. An abomination? Condemned by God? This man shared God's grace wherever he went.
I think of Ray, sitting in my office, asking for permission to join our church, whenever I hear the question, which is a sincere question...why must we publicly state we are open and affirming of gays and lesbians fully participating in our church?
Over the centuries, the church has used its own Bible to justify the persecution and killing of homosexuals. The term "faggot" comes from the small sticks of wood, the faggots, that were used to start fires that burned homosexuals to death. And if you could see some of the hate-filled literature that I receive from so-called Christian organizations, you would understand why gays and lesbians are a bit leery of the Christian church. The message they have heard from Christians is that they are sick and sinful. They have heard that they are damned, that they have no place in the household of God. It seems that the only way we can overcome this it to make a specific and positive statement of welcome.
The First Congregational Church, UCC, of Fresno says it like this: "We strive to answer the call of Christ by extending his love, compassion and acceptance to everyone. In this spirit, we open our family of faith to people of every religious background, sexual orientation, family composition, physical and mental ability, race, age and gender." This is the very heart of their open and affirming statement.
It would be my hope that as we continue to talk and study and pray together, we will be able to make a similar kind of statement that all the world can hear.
Now I'm no dreamy-eyed liberal in this matter. The acceptance, regard and welcome I think homosexuals are entitled to is not without limits. As I suggested in my sermon two weeks ago, promiscuity and idolatry by gays and lesbians is no more acceptable than it is for heterosexuals. We in the church must continue to emphasize a Christian sexual ethic that is relational, that emphasizes trust, commitment, respect for the other, and a desire to know and be known by another. It mandates against selfish sex, casual sex, impersonal sex, cruel sex, or any sex in which there is no sense of full responsibility and mutual care and concern. There will be no double standard here. Such an ethic is appropriate for any sexual orientation.
As I said in the beginning, I know that many of us will continue to be uncomfortable with this whole subject and for many of us it's a discomfort that goes far beyond reason to what seems to be almost an instinctual gut level. For many of us it will always seem unnatural. And yet, it is also clear to me, after much reading and thinking and discussion that for some it is the only form their sexuality can take. As alien as it may seem to us, that aliennness, that difference, can be no excuse for condemnation, persecution or in the life of the church, exclusion.
It has been said that a mind once stretched by a new idea can never return to its former shape. So together let us listen, learn, read, talk, and pray – none of this is easy. But let's stay with it together until with Paul we can finally say, "all of you – all of you – are one in Jesus Christ."