Week 6—Let the Last Word Be Love

The Center of It All

       The Center of It All

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you... I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another. – John 15:12, 17, NRSVue

       Love is at the center of the gospel. When we withhold love, withhold acceptance, there is a hole in our gospel. The message becomes incomprehensible nonsense if we add asterisks, exceptions, qualifications that keep some people out. Inclusion intuitively fits our picture of Jesus as loving, and embracing the full diversity of humanity. It fits the gospel record, in which Jesus is always busting through the boundaries, opening the doors wider, challenging us to love deeper.

       Affirming and inclusive theology is a consistent theology, a theology centered in love. When we feel bound to a theology that doesn't make sense of our knowledge or experience of the world, we experience cognitive dissonance. This tends to distance us from God as unknowable. It tends to separate our heart from our head.

       But when we adopt a consistent theology—one that makes sense of our experience of both God and our world—our faith becomes real and invigorating. You can see your faith lived out in real life, in ways that matter.

The Widening of God’s Mercy

       As we come to the end of our study, we explore three chapters (7, 12, and 14) from the Hays’ book, not sequential but all focused around the same great and powerful message from intertwined Old and New Testament passages. We begin with a bit of framing from ch. 12 and 14, then bring in the Hays bit by bit as we go along.

       In ch. 14, Richard Hays writes, “Is it possible for human beings to block God’s gracious action by insisting on the strict application of God’s own biblical commandments? Or, to turn the question around, are there times when God’s Spirit breaks down conscientious human resistance by doing something new and that revises previously given laws and judgments?”

       In the book of Acts we begin to see this widening of God’s mercy in all sorts of unexpected places. Peter receives a vision of God giving him all sorts of “unclean” foods. God tells him to eat, which leads to him converting Cornelius, a gentile. He says, “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.” Notice he doesn’t say “anything” (i.e. food), but rather anyone.

       Hays points out that in the chapters that follow. Luke uses the same Greek word “koluo” or block, hinder, prevent three times in very similar ways to emphasize that this widening is from God. The triple repetition of the rhetorical question “who was I that I could block/hinder God?” shows this is important. One of those instances is in the story we will focus on today. Hays writes:

       “Throughout the first 15 chapters of Acts, we see the Spirit at work, bearing witness to the resurrection of Jesus and transforming the minds of the church’s leaders, especially Peter and Paul. The Holy Spirit was leading them to ‘read backwards,’ deepening and reshaping their understanding of scripture and tradition. As Acts tells the story, the Spirit was shaping a new community: expanding the church’s understanding of the wideness of God’s grace and opening the early leaders up to embrace gentiles, whom they previously would have shunned.”

A Clobber-less Story of Only Love

       We have spent the last six weeks focusing on “clobber verses,” because those are usually the barriers to the inclusive, loving theology we are intuitively drawn to. But as we come now to the end of our workshop, we turn instead to a very clobber-less passage that is purely and completely about love. Only love. It is the story of a not-so-chance encounter between the apostle Philip and an Ethiopian eunuch, recorded in Acts 8:26-39.

       I love this story. I love the way the Spirit leads the way, so clear in big, bold letters. I love that this story of love and inclusion is directed by God's own self.

       I also love Philip's stance. He may have been miraculously led to this wilderness road, but he doesn't come in hot with his own agenda and prepared evangelistic script. Instead, he lets the Ethiopian eunuch take the lead. Everything that follows—this wonderful, grace-filled conversation—is directed and led by the eunuch and his questions, his concerns.

       Long before Philip shows up on the scene, the eunuch is reading a messianic prophesy from the book of Isaiah.  And so when Philip shows up, the eunuch’s first two questions are: How will I know unless someone guides me? Who is this man?

       The world can only know the Jesus we share with them. We call that “evangelism” from the Greek word evangel or “good news.” And the news of Jesus that Philip shares is definitely Good News. And yet, for most LGBTQ folks, the news that they hear from the Christian church is Bad News. It is the Bad News of shame, of exclusion, of having to hide their true selves. 

       If you believe, as I do, that the center of the gospel is love, if you believe that Jesus is opening the door wider and truly welcoming in ALL people without asterisks, exclusions or exceptions, that is Good News. But no one will know that unless we show them.  There are voices out there—loud voices—proclaiming a gospel of Bad News. I believe that if we have been transformed by the Good News of a gospel centered around love, then we need to be sure that voice is heard as loudly and clearly as those who are proclaiming a false gospel of hate.

What will prevent me?

       The Ethiopian eunuch's third question is particularly apt. As the chariot carrying him and Philip draws near a small body of water, the eunuch raises the question of baptism—the sign and symbol of God's grace and love, but also of inclusion in the Christian church. And so the eunuch asks: What will prevent me?

       It's a good question.

       The Ethiopian was an outsider— different from Philip in several ways: First, of all, while Philip is an ordinary working-class Jew, the man in the chariot is wealthy, privileged, and in a position of influence—the treasurer for the Queen. The other obvious barrier is that by reaching out to an Ethiopian, Philip is crossing ethnic and cultural boundaries. This story marks the beginning of the evangelization of gentiles, non-Jews, and the beginning of the Ethiopian church, which is why this story is beloved among that community.

       But it's not just Ethiopians who see this story as the beginning of their story.

       As a eunuch this man was an outsider in a much more significant way. A eunuch was a slave or servant who had been castrated before puberty. They were destined for positions of trust, particularly around women. It was a way to get trusted and non-threatening help in positions of power.

       Yet, while eunuchs were often given a position of trust and responsibility in many places in the middle east, they were viewed by Jews with suspicion, if not outright disgust. So eunuchs existed as “sexual outsiders”—much like transgender folks in our culture.

       This eunuch was on the road to Gaza—he was returning from Jerusalem. The text says he'd gone there to worship, but quite probably, when he got there, he was turned away. Deut. 32:1 states clearly that eunuchs—those who have been castrated—shall not be admitted to the Temple. That harsh rejection is repeated in Lev. 21:20. They are, both literally and figuratively “cut off.”

       In the ancient world, reproducing and carrying on your legacy was considered of prime importance—as we see in stories from Abraham onward. Because they were infertile, eunuchs were considered “cursed”—as we see in 2 Kings 20:18 and Is. 39:7.

       Because the man in the chariot is a eunuch—a “sexual outsider”—this text has become significant among many people who traditionally have felt like “outsiders” in the Christian Church, especially those in the LGBTQ+ community. It gives them hope that they, too, can be invited in. It is considered the birth of the queer church.

       It's interesting that the eunuch is reading a text from Isaiah that points to the coming Savior. The image of Jesus as a suffering servant is particularly powerful here, because this eunuch also knew what it was to be a servant, and to suffer.

       In his book Transforming, Austen Hartke writes: “The eunuch too had experienced humiliation, specifically in the form of castration, and possibly also in the form of slavery. He had been denied justice as someone whom God invited to worship in the temple, but who was nevertheless barred by human gatekeepers… the eunuch was not asking these questions because he had a vague interest. The eunuch was poring over Scripture and teasing out answers because he had to in order to survive as a gender-nonconforming, racially marginalized, royally subjugated person outside the bounds of the faith he sought to join.”

       Isaiah is speaking to a people who have been exiled to a foreign land—to Babylon. As Isaiah's prophesy continues, a few chapters later we come to a prophesy of life for Israel after the exile, when they finally return home. 

       It's a prophesy about the new kingdom they will build in Jerusalem, but even more so it is a prophesy about life in the coming Kingdom that Jesus, the suffering servant will bring. About the great reversals to come—and the ways the coming of Christ into our world changes things.

And so the prophet tells us in Isaiah 56:3-5:

       Do not let the foreigner joined to the LORD say,

              “The LORD will surely separate me from his people”;

       and do not let the eunuch say,

              “I am just a dry tree.”

       For thus says the LORD:

       To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,

              who choose the things that please me

              and hold fast my covenant,

       I will give, in my house and within my walls,

              a monument and a name

              better than sons and daughters;

       I will give them an everlasting name

              that shall not be cut off.

       In his commentary on Isaiah, Walter Bruggemann notes how extraordinary this reversal is—that those who have been “cut off”—both literally and figuratively—are now welcomed in.  Hartke writes:

       “What God was giving the eunuchs, through Isaiah's proclamation, was not just a place in society, and not just hope for a future. By giving the eunuchs the same kinds of gifts given to Abraham and Sarah—a name, legacy, family, acceptance and blessing... God was giving the eunuchs a story... grounded in divine grace...

       “Through Isaiah God gave me a sense of belonging that I couldn't shake. I believed that by declaring those outside the gender binary to be acceptable, God declared me acceptable… when I read that eunuchs would be made joyful in God's house of prayer, I found myself convinced that transgender people are meant not only to survive in Christian community, but to thrive...

       “God did not ask the eunuchs to pour themselves into the mold of Israel's previous societal norms, nor to bend themselves to fit by taking on specifically gendered roles in the current system. Instead, God called for a transformed community that looked like nothing the people had ever seen.”

       Being childless in the ancient world was a curse—your name, your life, will be forgotten. Yet the promise in vs. 5 reverses that curse. The childless eunuchs will be given a monument, a name, an everlasting name even—that will never be cut off. Bruggemann writes, “The community of Judaism is to be a community that remembers, cherishes, and preserves the name and identity of those otherwise nullified in an uncaring world.”

       We can be that community. We can celebrate and proclaim that the prophesies of Isaiah have been revealed and fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. 

Next Steps

       What’s next? How can we take all that we’ve learned and be a part of God’s expansive, inclusive work? How can we be good news?  Some options to consider, adapted from Transforming by Austin Hartke:

Next steps towards becoming an inclusive faith community:

1. Include an explicit statement of welcome on your website. Note that most churches say something like “all are welcome” but don’t always mean it, so we have to spell it out.

2. Create an advocacy group in your church that will commit to dialogue with your denominational governing board about LGBTQ+ inclusion.

3. Offer adult ed classes on topics related to sexuality, gender and gender identity.

4. Have a presence at your nearest LGBTQ+ Pride celebration

3. Encourage participation and leadership of LGBTQ people in the life of the church

4. Create a gender-neutral restroom in your church building. If you have a single-occupant restroom in the building all you have to do is change the sign.

5. Use inclusive language for the congregation in sermons, liturgies, bulletins and fliers.

6.  Make sure all church leaders—youth leaders especially—have had some training on LGBTQ diversity so they can respond compassionately and knowledgably.

Next steps for individuals:

1. Educate yourself on the basics, and then keep going. See the list of resources at holdingfaith.org for great ways to continue learning and growing.

2. Always use someone's correct name and pronouns. If you're not sure what pronouns someone uses, just ask. If you make a mistake, apologize, correct yourself and move on—no need to make a big deal. Practice pronouns that are new to you.

3. Read the work of LGBTQ+ educators, theologians, and justice workers.

4. Practice interrupting negative conversation. If you are in a safe space and hear someone speaking negatively about someone because of their sexual or gender identity, consider stepping in and explaining why that's not OK.

5. Be vocal in your support so people around you know its all right to express their own support or even to come out.

6. Donate to organizations like Trevor Project that promote LGBTQ inclusion.

       “Crossing Boundaries”—my sermon exploring this story in more depth, can be found at www.holdingfaith.org/videos, along with a list of resources for more exploration or for finding an inclusive faith community.

       The Hays conclude their book with this decisive statement: “We advocate full inclusion of believers with differing sexual orientations not because we reject the authority of the Bible. Far from it: we have come to advocate their inclusion precisely because we affirm the force and authority of the Bible’s ongoing story of God’s mercy... We believe that scripture’s portrayal of God’s wide and ever-opening mercy provides sufficient warrant for anyone who remains doubtful to come down on the side of generosity and grace...It seems to us that God is moving on again, whether we like it or not.”

       In the epilogue, Richard Hays reflects with great humility on the negative impact his earlier, more conservative writing had on the LGBTQ+ community: “I regret the impact of what I wrote previously... That judgment was not informed by patient listening to my fellow Christians... I was more concerned about my own intellectual project than about the pain of gay and lesbian people inside and outside the church, including those driven out of the church by unloving condemnation... The present book can’t undo past damage, but I pray that it may be of some help.”

       The Widening of God’s Mercy was published in September 2024. Richard Hays died Jan. 3, 2025. May these final, beautiful words be a fitting legacy for a man of honest and humble faith. Let the last word be love.

       Madeleine L’Engle wrote, “We draw people to Christ not by loudly discrediting what they believe, by telling them how wrong they are and how right we are, but by showing them a light that is so lovely that they want with all their hearts to know the source of it.”

       May you reflect the beautiful light of Jesus' broad and inclusive, boundary-breaking love.

       Our Lord Jesus, Let us be people who say yes. Yes to welcome. Yes to invitation. Yes to radical acts of hospitality. Yes to breaking down barriers. We say yes. In Jesus' powerful name, Amen.

Week 5—This is the Big One

Broadening our Perspective

       We begin with a passage from Glennan Doyle’s book, Untamed (p. 221ff).

       “There are wild, mysterious forces inside and between human beings that we have never been able to understand. Forces like faith. Like love. Like sexuality. We are uncomfortable with our inability to understand or control these mysteries.

       “So we took wild faith... and we packaged it into religions. We took wild sexuality– the mysterious undefinable ever-shifting flow between human beings—and we packaged it into sexual identities.

       “It’s like water in a glass... We created these glasses to try to control uncontainable forces. Then we said to people: pick a glass—gay or straight. (By the way, choosing the gay glass will likely leave you unprotected by the law, ostracized by your community, and banished by God. Choose wisely)

       “So folks poured their wide, juicy selves into these narrow arbitrary glasses because that was what was expected. Many lived lives of quiet desperation, slowly suffocating as they held their breath to fit inside.

       “Somewhere, sometime, someone—for whatever courageous, miraculous reason—finally... decided to trust what she felt, to know what she knew, and to dare to imagine an unseen order where she might be free. She refused to contain herself any longer...She raised her hand and said, ‘those labels don’t feel true to me. I don’t want to squeeze myself into either of those glasses. For me, that’s not exactly it. I am not sure what it is yet, but its not that.’

       “Someone else heard the first one speak and felt electric hope run thru his veins. He thought: Wait. What if I am not alone? What if I am not broken after all? What if the glasses system is broken? He felt his hand rise and voice rise with ‘Me too!’ Then another person’s hand slowly rose and then another and another until there was a sea of hands, some shaking, some in fists—a chain reaction of truth, hope, freedom.

       “I don’t know if gayness is contagious. But I am certain that freedom is.” 

Mercy, All the Way Down: Hays ch. 11, 13, and 16:

       Jesus’ ministry in the gospels is primarily to Israel—to Jews. And yet the Gospels do include—seemingly deliberately so—several incidents in which Jesus encounters gentiles/foreigners. These episodes offer glimpses of what is to come.

       In Matt. 8:5-13 a Roman centurion–Israel’s enemy– asks for healing for his servant. In a similar story a Canaanite woman–the “other”—asks for healing for her daughter. Both are breaking the boundaries of ethnicity and culture, showing the wideness of God’s mercy to those outsiders.

       John has a similar story of Jesus’ encounter with a Samaritan woman at a well. Samaritans were from the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and separated from the Jews (from Judah) of the Southern Kingdom by not accepting the Jerusalem temple as the place of worship. Jesus’ response: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.” Soon after this, Jesus reveals himself for the first time as the Messiah to this Samarian woman.

       In stories like this and the parable of good Samaritan, R. Hays writes: “A consistent theme of these stories is that Jesus does not reject Israel’s scriptures; instead, like the prophets before him, he insists on interpreting them in light of the conviction that love and mercy lie at the root of God’s purposes. That insistence on God’s wide ranging mercy brought him into conflict with some others, including scholars and religious leaders who were passionately committed to the authority of Israel’s God-given law but interpreted it in a more restrictive way.... Should this contrast of perspectives inform the church’s present conflicts over sexuality?”

       As we turn to Paul’s writings, Hays writes:

       From the church’s beginnings there have always been fierce arguments about ethical standards and identity-defining boundaries...

       The letters of Paul vividly demonstrate the ongoing struggle in the earliest churches to clarify their relationship to the diverse cultural worlds (both Jewish and Greco-Roman) in which their mission was taking shape. 

       Most of Paul’s letters are to churches he founded or to pastors he’s mentored, answering very specific and for the most part practical, questions about life together. As Paul deals with conflict, confusion, and concerns in new churches, he appeals time and again to unity based in love

       But Romans is different. Paul doesn’t know the Romans. He is likely writing in anticipation of his trial before Caesar. In this book, he is laying out his systematic theology– a single broad, comprehensive explanation of the gospel. Hays writes “Romans—for all its complex theological twists and turns—should be understood at root as Paul’s passionate appeal to the Christians at Rome to accept one another in love despite strong differences of opinion and cultural norms.”

       Hays summarizes the book of Romans by saying: “The gospel is a word about mercy, all the way down. No one deserves mercy, but we all need it. And in the end—in some unfathomable way—God will show mercy to all.” That is the theme of the book of Romans—be sure to keep that foremost in your mind as we break it down. 

This is the Big One

        This week's passage is The Big One. Last week's clobber verses were fairly easily dispatched, but our one remaining clobber verse is the one that's usually the sticking point. It certainly was for me. It's one where we need to use all the tools we've gathered throughout our journey to dig in deep to discern exactly what this passage is about.

       So often the clobber verses are pulled out of context, and thrown down in the midst of argument like a prosecutor triumphantly holding up the final damning piece of evidence to convict the guilty party. And yet, Scripture always needs to be read in context—both its historical context and its literary context. As we saw last week, the time we spend exploring the background in which a verse is found is one way we demonstrate the respect we have for God's word. It shows that we care deeply enough to really explore what God is saying through the biblical writers.

       This week’s clobber verse is Rom. 1:26-27: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

       At face value, this seems to be the clearest of the clobber verses, as well as the only one to address lesbian sex. It raises intriguing questions about what is "natural" and what is "unnatural", and what is the "due penalty" for perversion.

       But most important, it should cause us to wonder about the context—what is happening in the world, in the culture, in the church, that prompts this passage? How does it fit into the larger argument that Paul is making in Romans?

       Romans is Paul's most comprehensive explanation of the gospel– which, let's remember, means "good news"—so whatever else this passage means it ought to ring as good news. So how does this harsh clobber verse fit into that good news?

       To see that we need to back up and really look at the context of this passage. We need to explore a big chunk of Scripture. Rather than quote it here, I'm going to ask you to open your Bible or search online and read all of Rom. 1:18-28. Ask God to speak to you through this passage, to open your eyes and your heart.

       Paul trained as a rabbi, a teacher of the law. In Romans you can see this background in play, as he builds a complex, logical argument. As you read Rom. 1, try to follow Paul's argument and where he is going. Keep asking, what is this chapter about? What is his point? The clobber verses in v. 26-27 are not a detour or a tangent, they are part and parcel of a complex, broad, sweeping statement Paul is making. Keeping an eye on that bigger, broader argument is key to understanding the clobber verses. So keep your Bible open to this passage as we trace that argument.

What is Paul's point?

        Paul is making a grand, large argument here—building it piece by piece. It will take two more chapters to fully unfold. So let's parse it out:

       His overall argument is about the sinfulness of the whole world, but in chapter 1 he’s focusing on the gentile (non-Jewish) world. In Rom. 1:18-21, Paul demonstrates that even though they don't have Scripture or the prophets, they "have no excuse" for not believing, because the evidence of God is all around them—in the creation itself, in the innate moral code.

       Paul's argument about the sinfulness of the gentile world would be familiar to Jewish Christians—they would be nodding their heads, clucking their tongues about those immoral gentiles. But then… in chapter 2 Paul turns the tables on these Jewish Christians and shows how even the Jews were no better than the Gentiles—that they, too, are sinners. Rom. 2:1: You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

       All this is leading up to a very familiar verse: Rom. 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

       Paul's point, unfolded over three deep and complex chapters, is how the entire world—Jew & Gentile—is broken by sin and in need of a Savior. We are all sinners. This is all pointing to what Paul will spend the rest of the book explaining: why Jesus came to rescue us (all of us) from a fruitless way of life, to offer us the gift of salvation. Rom. 5:8: But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. 

Where is Aphrodite today?

       If Paul's point, then, is about the broad, global nature of sin and brokenness, and the universal need for a Savior– why focus on same sex relationships? Paul's argument is so broad, so global, so comprehensive, to suddenly switch to something so particular just seems… odd. One would expect the culmination of these verses to be a more common sin like greed or pride or lust for power. Something that underlies the very essence of sin and brokenness itself.

       Remember this most important principle of biblical interpretation: context, context, context. So let's begin with the literary context—the paragraph immediately before our clobber verses. 

       Rom. 1:22-25: Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. 

       Does "worshiping the created rather than the Creator" sound like what is happening when a same-sex couple commits themselves to one another in marriage? When they build a life together? Despite the allusion to "sexual impurity,” it doesn't sound much like it's about sexuality. Rather, it sounds very much like idolatry. And that fits the bigger, broad, global argument, because idolatry is a major concern throughout the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments.

       When we think today about visiting Rome, we might think of visiting some place like St. Peter's Basilica, beautiful sacred spaces devoted to worshiping who we believe to be the one true God. But in the 1st c. Roman world, as you walked down the street, you'd see, not a Catholic cathedral but rather an assortment of temples devoted to the various Greek and Roman gods. Spaces devoted to idolatrous worship. And inside those temples would be both male and female prostitutes. Worshipers of these pagan gods would visit the temple and have sex with one of those male or female prostitutes to join themselves symbolically to that pagan god or goddess. That connection between sexual relations and pagan cult prostitution is lost for us today because we don't have any of those pagan temples around us, but for people living in that polytheistic culture, it would be obvious.

       Pagan cult prostitution was, in its historical context, merely the most visible and obvious example of this bigger truth—that all of us are prone to idolatry– to putting our trust in the wrong things. In the chapters that follow, Paul will share the good news of the gospel: how Jesus has broken into the world to set us free from all that holds us in bondage in order to live the life we were created for—a life of love and joy and belonging.

Leaning into Mercy

       Hays concludes his chapter on Romans by reflecting on Rom. 15:7: “Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.” That’s not just a shrugging compromise; it is the climax and consequence of the intricate, passionate argument of the whole letter....

       The gospel proclaims mercy for all, all the way down.”

Lord, help us to listen well to your Spirit, and to notice and celebrate the ways that you are constantly working to proclaim mercy, all the way down. Empower us by your Holy Spirit so that there might be an outflowing of your love and grace. Help us to follow you in loving, including and serving all, regardless of gender, race, class, or sexuality. To reflect your broad, expansive love and mercy for all people. Amen.

Week 4—Words, Words, Words

The Widening of God’s Mercy, ch. 8-10: Jesus & the Law

    This week we turn to the New Testament, as Richard Hays demonstrates the ways Jesus got into “good trouble” by overturning prevailing expectations, especially regarding the Old Testament law. He writes, “Jesus upset a lot of people. He came proclaiming good news of hope, liberation, and healing. But he also troubled many of his own people.”

       Some background might be helpful here. In the 1st c Israel was an occupied nation, under Roman rule. They longed for the days of King David, when they were a strong and independent nation. It was easy then to see themselves as God’s chosen ones. But this new reality, as a weakened nation ruled by non-Jews, created a theological crisis—how were they to understand their identity as the “chosen people”? Related to that questions was the problem of purity. At the time of Jesus’ ministry, there were several groups that approached this questions differently.

       Readers of the Gospels will be familiar with the scribes and pharisees– the religious elite. In these challenging times, for the most part they entered into a policy of appeasement with their Roman rulers, not directly opposing them as long as they were able to continue their Temple worship without impediment. So for these religious insiders, the Old Testament law was the source of their unique identity as God’s people. They sought to reinforce that identity by scrupulous attention to the law. The presence of Jewish law-breakers like tax-collectors and prostitutes was a challenge to that identity, The solution was to avoid any association with these sinners, so as not infected by their impurity. This is why Jesus is often denounced by the religious elite as one who associated with lawbreakers or the disreputable.

       Another group not as prominent in the New Testament, but still present in the background are the Zealots. The Zealots did not look within the Jewish community for the source of their “impurity,” for them the problem clearly was the Romans– their Gentile overlords. Therefore, the solution to their identity question was to get rid of them—violently.

       Less prominent in the New Testament are monastic communities like the Essenes. These groups framed the purity problem much more broadly– the problem is neither law breakers nor Roman rulers, but rather all of society. They believed our entire systems and institutions, both Jewish and Gentile, were corrupt. So the solution was to separate—to form monastic communities in the desert so as not to be infected. They would spend their days in contemplation and study (this is the group which preserved for us the Dead Sea Scrolls).

       This brief summary reveals a couple of things all these groups had in common. They all see the impurity problem as “out there”– some “other”– whether that is lawbreakers, Romans, or society as a whole. And they all believe the solution is to distance oneself from the impure.

       Jesus’ life and ministry demonstrate a sharply different movement. Jesus does not avoid the impure, whether Gentiles, tax-collectors, lepers, prostitutes or even Roman centurions. Rather that isolating them, Jesus draws near in love. Jesus draws near to the impure to infect them with his righteousness, to heal and restore. In so doing, he demonstrates a distinctly different relationship to the law. As we discussed earlier, Jesus does not overturn the Law, he fulfills it. He takes us beyond rote obedience to “rules” to a deeper commitment to the values and intent that lie behind the Law. Ironically, sometimes that means breaking the rules in order to enforce the intent.

       Hays uses the Gospel stories of Jesus breaking the Sabbath law as perhaps the most striking examples of this. He writes that these Sabbath healings demonstrate the overriding principle that “there are times when the human desire for conscientious obedience to biblical law actually produces actions contrary to the spirit and intent of God’s commandments.” Healing on the Sabbath is breaking a rule, but fulfills the purpose and intent behind the rule.

       Hays points out that in Mark 3:1-6 Jesus frames his healing of a man with the question: “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” The silence of the scholars in response shows how the question challenged them to reflect on the purpose of the Sabbath law—for human wholeness and flourishing. I am touched by the way Hays reflects on this story with compassion and humility:

       “It’s poignant to read the story from the standpoint of these faithful Pharisaic scribes. Here they are, faced with human suffering; their silence in the face of Jesus’s question may indicate that they are internally conflicted about how to answer. They feel unable to help or react in any way because of their strong beliefs and their determination to uphold the authority of scripture. And so their sacred space becomes a place of withholding and suffering.

       “In the silence of these scribes in the synagogue, I see a reflection of my own longstanding reticence to speak about the question of same-sex relationships in the church: uncomfortably aware of aching human need but constrained by my interpretation of scripture from responding with grace or generosity. And so I kept silent.

       “...the Pharisees believe they are seeking to practice righteousness—but their silence is self-condemning... Their strict adherence to their traditional interpretation of the law overrides any concern for the afflicted man who stands before them. That is why Jesus is both angry and ‘grieved at their hardness of heart.’ I now suspect that the Lord may have been also grieved with me.”

       In summary, Hays writes, “In these Sabbath healing stories, then, Jesus acts with compassion and justifies what he has done by appealing to the wideness of God’s mercy. Healing on the Sabbath, he says, is not defiance of God’s law but rather an embracing of its deeper intent. Healing on the Sabbath is a decision to do good and to save life rather than to do harm. The command to rest on the Sabbath is not an arbitrary restriction; it is given for the sake of human well-being.... If the well-meaning attempt to honor God’s law leads to hardness of heart and blindness to the need of afflicted people, something has gone badly awry.”

Words, Words, Words

       Language is funny. We tend to act like words can mean only one thing, as if there were a definitive, set, limited meaning for each word with no variation. When there's a misunderstanding, both sides tend to blame the other for not "saying it right" or "not listening to what I'm saying."

       This week we look at two very similar clobber verses, both from the apostle Paul:

       1 Cor. 6:9-10: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

       1 Tim. 1:9-10: We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.

       The Greek word translated "perverts" or "homosexual offenders" is arsenokoitai. But when we talk about New Testament Greek, we are not talking about modern Greek or even classical Greek. The language the New Testament is written in is Koine Greek. There are no native Koine Greek speakers today. If you've ever struggled to read Canterbury Tales or other literature written in Middle English, you have an idea what the relationship of Koine Greek is to modern Greek.

       Which is where the work of linguists comes in. When people trained in linguistics set out to translate a document from an ancient language, they have to do a bit of spelunking to translate each word. They will look at the context to give clues as to the meaning. They will look at other documents from the same era to see how they use it. For most words in the New Testament, that gives translators enough clues that they can be reasonably sure they have made a fairly reliable expression of their meaning.

       But with these two verses, we have a unique challenge. First of all, there's no context in the verses themselves we can use to understand Paul's intent—they are both just lists. Lists of Bad Things, but no context to know what the Bad Thing is. Even more problematic, Paul's use of arsenokoitai is idiosyncratic—the words are found nowhere else in the Bible. Outside of the Bible it's only use comes after Paul, from writers quoting these verses. We have none of the usual clues used to translate.

        Like many Greek words, arsenokoitai is a compound word—a mosh up of two other words. It literally means "men bedders." Historically it has been translated various ways: "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "the brutal," "pervert." The first time it is translated "homosexual" is in the RSV translation in 1946. The documentary 1946 portrays the political factors that went into that decision.

       The Koine Greek word malakoi is used in conjunction with arsenokoitai in 1 Cor. 6:9. It means "soft", but can be understood in three ways: 1. Literally soft, like fabric. 2. Morally soft or spineless, not having integrity. 3. An insult aimed at effeminate men. Some apply it to the passive (penetrated) partner in sexual relations. In Roman culture, married men having sex with boys– often a slave, or protégé–was common. The "one on top" was a way of showing ranking or superiority. The NIV and NRSV both translate it "male prostitutes"—we'll talk next week about the role pagan cult prostitution might play in the clobber verses.

       As we noted last week, you can see the prevailing cultural patriarchy in the notion that being "treated like a woman" is associated with shame or humiliation. Scholar Michael Vasey writes that "homosexual activity was "strongly associated with idolatry, slavery, and social dominance… often the assertion of the strong over the bodies of the weak."

       The bottom line is that we simply don't know what arsenokoitai means— certainly not with enough certainty to denounce all same-sex relationships. For this reason, I like the Message translation: 1 Cor. 6:9: Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex.

       (for more on translating arsenokoitai, see David Gushee, Changing our Mind, p. 74-79, and Colby Martin, Unclobber ch 10).

What are the rules of sex? Are there any rules?

       The fact that we are dismantling the clobber verses may seem like there are no rules, but that's not the case. It's not that sexual ethics don't matter. The way we live out our faith in our most intimate of relationships is significant. These discussions are important. But healthy sexual ethics go beyond just simplistic, arbitrary dos and don'ts. They challenge us to think deeper about how we care for and treat one another, about broad values and priorities. In many ways, that's more challenging than simply following the rules, but it also is more powerful.

       Last week we looked at the relationship between the Old Testament laws and the

Sermon on Mount. We saw how in the sermon, Jesus is not abolishing the Law, but "fulfilling" it—calling us to think deeply about the value or meaning behind what often look like arbitrary and superficial rules. Jesus is moving us from rigid rule-based thinking to a more thoughtful ethic based on heart attitudes.

       For example, imagine for a moment that you're in a long-term monogamous marriage. One day, your spouse comes to you and says: "I met someone new at work. They are very attractive to me, and they appear to be attracted to me as well. They've given signals they'd be open to a sexual relationship. But I know the rules of marriage, so I've decided not to cheat. That would be breaking a rule."

       Think for a moment about how you'd feel about that interaction, then imagine this alternate scenario: Your spouse comes to you and says: "I met someone new at work. They are very attractive to me, and they appear to be attracted to me as well. They've given signals they'd be open to a sexual relationship. But I know that such a betrayal would break your heart. I love you so much, I can't imagine causing you that kind of pain. It would break my heart to do that. I would never risk our relationship that way."

       Notice that the outward result—fidelity—is precisely the same either way. Your spouse's behavior doesn't change. But the inner heart attitude—the motives, the stance your partner has toward you—is radically different. I think most of us would prefer the second scenario.

       Sexual ethics are to be based around the values and priorities of the Kingdom of God. Colby Martin suggests these "rules" for sexual ethics (Unclobber, p.165-166):

       If you are straight:

Don't be flippant about your body. Don't treat it like it has no value.

Don't break your covenants, don't cheat on people.

Don't sell yourself and don't devalue others by treating them like a commodity.

Don't use your power or influence to take advantage of others.

       If you are gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, or queer:

Don't be flippant about your body. Don't treat it like it has no value.

Don't break your covenants, don't cheat on people.

Don't sell yourself and don't devalue others by treating them like a commodity.

Don't use your power or influence to take advantage of others.

Changing Our Mind: A Historic Example

       Many of our churches are beginning to have these discussions about queer inclusion. As we do, the issue of tradition may come up. Who are we to argue with 2000 years of Christian witness?

       And yet, re-examination of long-held assumptions is part of Christian tradition, particularly for Protestants coming out of the Reformation. The Church has had several radical position shifts over the last two millennia. As we saw earlier in our exploration of Acts 15, in the 1st c. there was a radical shift from thinking of Christianity as something for Jews only to a broader movement that included both Jews and gentiles. In the 20th and even 21stc. we've seen shifts and debates within the church on women's roles.

       A particularly revealing example is the shift in the In 17th & 18th c. on the issue of slavery. It was the source of intense debate—yet now is (for the most part) settled doctrine among Christians. That's a dramatic shift. How did that happen?

       Let's begin by noting that the debates about slavery in the 17th & 18th c. were debates within Christianity. Both the proponents and the opponents of slavery identified as Christian. Like the discussion in Acts 15, both sides used Scripture in their arguments. But how they used Scripture was radically different. A side-by-side comparison of the texts usually cited by each side yields some interesting observations:

       The proponents of slavery would cite verses like 1 Peter 2:18 Col. 3:22, Eph. 6:5-9, and Titus 2:9. All seemingly address slavery in a straightforward, rule-based way, e.g.: Eph. 6:5-9: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

       Abolitionists would have relatively few such verses they could draw from, the lone exceptions being the book of Philemon and Gal. 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slavenor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Rather, abolitionists would lean into verses that didn’t address slavery directly, but instead provided broad, overarching principles and values, e.g.: Gen. 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Luke 10:27: He answered: Love your neighbor as yourself.

       Note that the verses cited by proponents all contain the word "slave." I believe they were written to an oppressed people, not to justify their oppression, but to reassure them that their bondage is not a barrier to belonging to the Kingdom. But the point is that these verses were able to be plucked out without thinking or considering the context. In contrast, most of the verses used by the abolitionists did not contain the word "slave." Most were not writing about slavery per se. They weren't specific rules and regulations about slavery. Rather, they were laying down broad, general principles—Kingdom values like love and compassion and equality.

       Theologian Mark Noll writes, "Nuanced biblical attacks on American slavery faced rough going precisely because they were nuanced. This position could not simply be read out of any one biblical text; it could not be lifted directly out of the page. Rather, it needed patient reflection on the entirety of the Scriptures; it required expert knowledge of the historical circumstances of ancient Near Eastern and Roman slave systems… and it demanded that sophisticated interpretive practice replace a commonsensical literal approach to the sacred text." -The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.

       How can these same principles inform the way that we read the clobber verses? How often are we drawn to the simple, the easy, the obvious? We love certainty and clarity. But life is not like that. Life is not simple. Life is complex, full of complicated problems with multiple factors. As appealing as they might be, simple answers to complex problems are usually wrong.

       One of the ways we show the value we place on the Bible, our faith, and one another, is our willingness to engage hard questions thoughtfully with complex, nuanced thought. That doesn't mean everyone has to be a biblical scholar, but it does mean we are called to be thoughtful and prayerful about our lives and our relationships. About Scripture and about our faith. About living life in the Kingdom.

       This week's clobber verses were fairly simple to dispense with. Next week we will tackle the most challenging of the clobber verses—Romans 1. Taking these tools with us, being willing to do the hard work, will be essential to this task

       Come, Holy Spirit, come. Make us willing to do the hard work of loving well. Make us willing to think deeply about your word and the life you are calling us to. Help us move beyond simple answers to the deeper love, the deeper life, you have for us. Amen.

Week 3—A Curious Collection of the Rules of Bacon, Football, and Sex

Why we do this

We began by looking at sobering stats about the effects the marginalization of the LGBTQ+ community has on queer youth in particular—increased risks of homelessness, depression, and even suicide. But there is hope: LGBTQ+ youth who reported having at least one LGBTQ-affirming space had those risks reduced by 35%. This is why the work that we are doing to open our hearts and minds to queer inclusion is so important.

       Scholar David Gushee explains how this data led him to explore affirming theology: "The fact that traditionalist Christian teaching produces despair in just about every gay or lesbian person who must endure it is surely very relevant information for the LGBTQ debate… It became clear to me that however complex the exegetical and theological issues are, existentially and humanly I needed to wrestle with these questions in the community of the bullied rather than the community of the bullies."

Taking a Deep Breath

       As we begin to consider queer inclusion in our churches and families, conflict often comes to the forefront. When we're talking about the lives and wellbeing of our own loved ones, this raises anxiety. We’ve gathered some tips for managing that stress and being able to be a "non-anxious presence" in those spaces:

1. Lower the temperature—use deep breaths and cognitive reframing to remain calm and non-anxious.

2. Listen carefully, ask good questions, and summarize what you heard.

3. Spend time in prayer and silence together.

4. Use clear communication. Defining terms is particularly important here.

5. Look for places of commonality. Is it possible to reframe the conflict?

6. Keep coming back to prayer and silence.

The Widening of God’s Mercy, ch. 4-6

       In ch. 4, Christopher Hays builds on a key principle of open theism—that God is mutable or changeable. Its a controversial position, but one that makes sense of Scripture, especially passages that support genocide or child sacrifice. The dangers of taking everything in Scripture as indicative of God’s unchanging will are especially evident in the conquest passages. (see Greg Boyd, Death of the Warrior God.)

        “’Offering children to Molech’ (Canaanite child sacrifice) is a powerful metaphor for interpreting laws in a way that we know to be harmful to children.

       “Many in the church treat sexuality in a similar way: They understand that traditional church teaching about sexuality can be harmful, and they often have people in their families and networks whom they know are affected, but because of their faith and their reverence for God and tradition, they feel unable to support a systematic rethinking of the questions. The situation is especially excruciating for parents of LGBTQ teens who feel pressure to choose between the teaching of their church communities and support for their own children...

       “Rather than denying we mean harm and continuing to do harm, it may be better to say that we have been following statutes that are not good.” 

       In ch. 5, Hays demonstrates how in the Old Testament, God is constantly widening the borders of who is included in their grace. The prophet Isaiah reveals that even the Egyptians and Assyrians, enemies of Israel who had oppressed and enslaved them, will be met with grace and inclusion.

       “There are strong indications from the very beginning of the Old Testament story that God’s plan for the other nations was much broader and more inclusive than it sometimes appears. It’s often said that the Hebrew Bible is the story of the ‘chosen people,’ but the Bible itself says that God’s story with this people is only a microcosm of his purposes for the whole creation...

       “From start to finish, Isaiah’s vision of God is expansive, in ways that would have been uncomfortable for the book’s original readers. But Isaiah’s prophecies also crystallized the image of a universal God that we still hold today.” 

       In ch. 6, Hays returns to the theme of God changing their mind: “God does not mechanically control all events.... The idea that God does not foresee and control everything, and feels pity and regret even concerning his past judgments, is troubling for some theological views, but if we take the Bible seriously, it is hard to deny.”

       He ties this to the danger of “knowingness”—or certainty. He draws on the philosopher Jonathan Lear who sees certainty “as a substitute for thought” in which “reason is being used to jump ahead to a conclusion, as though there is too much anxiety involved in simply asking a question and waiting for the world to answer.” This default desire for certainty, for our knowledge of God to be settled and complete, can blind us to the ways that God is moving and doing new and unexpected things. 

Curious rules and oddities

       Our exploration of today's "clobber verses" began with a clip from a satirical monologue by President Jeb Bartlett in the classic drama, The West Wing, in which Bartlett challenges the use of Leviticus to condemn homosexuality by pointing out a number of other Levitical laws that seem ridiculous to today’s Christians. You can find the humorous clip at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJM.

       Aaron Sorkin obviously intended the speech rhetorically—but it highlights the problem Christians, who generally hold the whole Bible as authoritative, have grappling with their relationship to the Old Testament Law. Very few Christians quote from Leviticus today unless it's to condemn homosexuality. It's full of some very odd rules, many of which very few Christians follow today. Pastors and theologians have attempted time and again to find a way to differentiate which rules are binding for Christians today and which aren't. They will distinguish between a "moral code" versus a "cultural (or purity) code." But the fact is, the two are intermingled throughout the book. The rules Christians often think are "cultural" are placed right alongside the ones we think are "essential"—with no clear distinction.

       It's helpful to remember that these laws were written to a people (the Hebrew community) coming out of slavery in Egypt, where they had no freedom—every aspect of their lives dictated by their oppressors. They are learning how to form a community of free men and women. And they are entering into the Promised Land—Canaan.

But there were already people living in that land—Canaanites, Philistines. (The fact that they are displacing another people group raises other significant theological problems– but that's a discussion for another day). The Levitical law was about being set apart from the people in Egypt and Canaan. The rules are making them distinct, different. They highlight how Yahweh is calling them to a distinctive way of life.

Why is it always about men?

       Which leads us to two similar clobber verses: Lev. 18:22 “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (or "an abomination"). Lev. 20:13: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

       The Hebrew word used to describe same-sex relations in both these verses is Toevah, usually translated "abomination" or "detestable." When you hear the word "abomination" what comes to mind for you? It's a word that we associate with horrible, gross, disgusting things. It is a word that evokes shame.

       Toevah is used 117 times in the Old Testament. Only two of those 117 verses have to do with homosexuality. Most are things Christians do not condemn today. In Lev. 18-20 all sorts of sexual acts are forbidden, including sex with menstruating women. Many scholars note that Toevah is often associated with idolatry (we'll see the role of pagan cult prostitution in a future session). So rules about sex were part of differentiating Israel from their pagan neighbors.

       It's interesting to note that Leviticus condemns "men lying with men" but not the parallel of "women lying with women." In fact, of the six clobber verses in the Bible only one discusses lesbian relationships. Scholars note the emphasis in the Old Testament on fruitfulness or reproduction. Children are a blessing, and having progeny, building a legacy, is a primary goal of life. Odd stories like the tale of Onan's "spilling his seed" in Gen. 38 seem to reflect this concern about non-reproductive sex.

       To put it crassly, "lying with a man as a woman" appears to be referring to sexual positions. In the ancient world, sex in the dominant (on top) position was considered a way of showing dominance or primacy. There are lots of ugly ways that played out that have nothing to do with sexual gratification or love, but were all about domination and humiliation. It is about power—and who has it. One can see reflected in that the prevailing patriarchy of the time—where being treated "like a woman" is considered humiliating.

Watch out for the abominable… bacon

       But it's not just sex. Food is also a key concern— with that same Hebrew word, Toevah, used to describe unclean (or non-kosher) foods. Pork, shellfish, all sorts of forbidden foods (including *gasp* bacon!) are also called an "abomination."

       But then… in Acts 10 the apostle Peter has a vision in which a sheet, covered with all sorts of forbidden foods, is lowered from heaven:

       Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

        “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

       The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. –Acts 10:13-16

       This led to Peter converting a Gentile (non-Jew) to Christianity. Something similar is discussed by Paul in 1 Cor. 8 regarding food offered to idols. These stories are one of the reasons why Christians generally do not feel bound to kosher food laws. The bottom line is that many things that are called an "abomination" in the Old Testament don't seem to be so in the New Testament.

       A lot of Jesus' teachings have to do with establishing a new relationship with the Law. This is a whole discussion in itself. An excellent resource is Glen Stassen's book, Living the Sermon on the Mount. Stassen shows how Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but to show us it's intent (Matt. 5:17). In the sermon, Jesus gives example after example where he specifically references an Old Testament law—and then shows how interpreting it literally is fruitless—what Stassen calls a vicious cycle. Stassen suggests the goal is not to rigidly follow the rules that control external behavior, but to have a transformed heart. In Matt. 15:17-20 Jesus emphasizes that we don't become pure by what we do or don't eat, that it is what's in the heart that makes someone clean or unclean. And so if we can eat bacon, we can accept homosexuality. If bacon doesn't make us unclean, neither does loving someone of the same sex. 

Shame

       The word "abomination" is used to shame people—especially queer people.

       When we do something that we believe or have been told is wrong or immoral, we feel pain. We feel guilt. Humans basically have three responses to guilt. One is denial. We can think of the Roman governor, Pilate, who examines Jesus and finds he has done no wrong, but is too cowardly to stand up to the crowd shouting "crucify him." So Pilate washes his hands in an attempt to symbolically absolve himself of guilt. This sort of denial is rooted in shame. It is a way of hiding.

`      We have an even more dramatic and tragic response to shame in the example of Jesus' disciple, Judas– the one who betrays Jesus. Almost immediately after putting his plan in motion, Judas is filled with remorse and tries to undo it. When he is unable to do so, Judas kills himself. This reminds us of those horrible, tragic statistics we read earlier from the Trevor Project research—demonstrating the destructive impact of shame. It leads to self-harm and devastation. It leads, whether figuratively or literally, to death.

       Shame is so destructive because it has to do with our innate worth and identity. Someone experiencing shame does not just feel regret for something they did. They feel shame because of who they are. Their very core identity is a source of devastation. The tarnished identity of shame is intractable and permanent—you are forever defined by your worst moment. Even today, when we think of Pilate, we think of his cowardice. When we call someone a "Judas" we are calling them a betrayer.

       Shame leads to hopelessness.

       That is not the good news of the gospel. That is not the good news of grace. One can look to Peter—who similarly denied and abandoned Jesus in his time of greatest need. When the rooster crows, waking Peter up to what he has done, he is devastated. He feels remorse. But… he is not destroyed. He does not hide his actions, but is able to face it honestly, with repentance and healthy remorse. And because of that, he is able to move forward. We know about his denial—it is not hidden—but he is not defined by it. His remorse is transitory, and in fact, energizing. It moves him forward. He has a full and powerful life after that low point.

       Because of the use of words like "abomination" and the associations we give to that word, queer people are often stuck in shame or denial. They feel marked by the label. They often hide themselves, their true identity, from their families and their church communities.

       But the message of grace calls us to something different. Jesus is calling all of us to a more authentic spirituality. It's obvious from this blog that I don't believe homosexuality is a sin. But what's even more important is for people of all sexualities and gender identities to be able to be authentic. To create safe spaces where no one needs to hide parts of themselves. To not live in shame.

       Come Lord Jesus, come. Help us to be a part of healing all that is broken, including all that is broken and hurting for LGBTQ+ people and especially for youth. Give us wisdom and soft hearts. Help us to create safe places where everyone is known, loved and valued for their full and complete selves. Amen.

Queerfully and wonderfully made*—

(*title not original to me)

The best way to begin is usually by listening. In our case, listening to the voices of LGBTQ+ folks, telling their own authentic truth, will help us move toward understanding. So we began by reading a moving passage from Jennifer Finney Boylan’s memoir, She’s Not There.

       "Since then, the awareness that I was in the wrong body, living the wrong life, was never out of my conscious mind—never, although my understanding of what it meant to be a boy or a girl, was something that changed over time. Still, the conviction was present during my piano lessons with Mr. Henderson and it was there when my father and I shot off model rockets, and it was there years later when I took the SAT and it was there in the middle of the night when I woke in my dormitory at Wesleyan. And in every moment as I lived my life, I countered this awareness with an exasperated companion thought, namely, Don't be an idiot. You're not a girl. Get over it... But I never got over it.” 

Speaking the Same Language

       Another part of understanding is making sure we mean the same thing by the words we use. Language is always shifting, which can lead to miscommunication. Some general principles from Austen Hartke’s book Transforming:

#1. There’s a huge variety in the way LGBTQI2A people describe who they are. It can feel comforting to have strict definitions, but language is constantly changing, definitions shift in order to become more accurate or for different contexts.

#2: Always prioritize the definition given by the person standing in front of you. That person understands their own identity better than anyone else, and it’s a gift to be able to learn from them.

       With those important caveats, we review some basic terminology adapted from the 2nd edition of Transforming. (A helpful visual is the Genderbread Person, found at https://www.itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2018/10/the-genderbread-person-v4/)

1. Be aware of different definitions of "gay"— LGBTQ+ folks generally use it to refer to orientation rather than behavior.

2. There are generational differences in the use of the term "queer.” Older folks may hear it as an offensive slur, while younger people tend to hear it as an affirmation of group identity. It can also be used as a verb "queering."

3. Some groups try to make a distinction between "same sex attracted “and "gay,” although there really is no difference. The effort is often related to conversion therapy– attempts to change one’s sexual orientation. The APA has banned conversion therapy because studies show not only is it ineffective—it's harmful.

4. Be aware of the difference between gender and orientation. Your sexual or affectional orientation is about whom you are sexually and romantically attracted to, gender has to do with your innate sense of self.

5. The gender binary is a social system in which it is assumed that all people can be divided into one of two genders. It is the norm in white, Western contexts, but other cultures may distinguish between up to seven different genders.

6. A transgender person is someone whose gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned at birth.

7. A cisgender person is someone whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth, even if expressed in ways that aren’t typical for their gender.

8. People who dress or act in a way that is not typical of their assigned sex in their particular culture may be called gender-nonconforming or gender-expansive.

9. A nonbinary person is someone who isn’t either a man or a woman, who has a gender identity that’s between or beyond those definitions.

10. Some outdated terms: mtf, ftm (male to female, female to male) and afab, amab (assigned female at birth, assigned male). Instead simply say trans man/woman. 

The Widening of God’s Mercy, ch. 1-3

       Christopher Hays invites us to consider the picture we have of God. Is it an all-controlling, all-knowing, Calvinist God—one who never wavers, never varies? What is the fruit of seeing God as an angry and unyielding deity?

       In contrast, he tells the story of a gay friend who kept a coloring page a Sunday school teacher gave him as a child that said “God don’t make no junk”: “He hid it under his bed. He would take it out occasionally, when he needed a reminder that he had been created as he was, and he’s never forgotten it. No one forgets when the church manifests the love and joy that God feels toward creation; nor do they forget when it doesn’t.”

       In the following chapters, we consider several stories that present a very different picture of God– one that is moved and responsive to human action, able to change their mind. It begins in Genesis when the Lord seemingly changed their mind about carrying through with the threat that Adam and Eve would die if they eat of the forbidden tree. We see God changing their mind about humanity after the worldwide flood. In Jonah, God’s mind is changed about the destruction of Ninevah.

       God even seems to change their mind about biblical laws, permitting people to question laws that seem unjust. In the book of Numbers, the daughters of Zelophehad question the law that prevented them from inheriting their fathers land. Similarly, Job defended himself before God against the charge that some hidden sin caused his calamity.

       Hays writes, “These stories are, at bottom, characterized by a good-natured, if weary, sense of humor about humanity, and about God’s relationship to us... (they show) God’s propensity to relent from punishment, to show mercy even at the cost of changing his mind and bending his principles of justice... God’s plan for the world is broader than some think...

       “These are not special cases! There are many, many places where Old Testament laws on the same topic in different collections disagree with each other... (suggesting that) the diversity and disagreements within the biblical laws are not an accident or an embarrassing error caught by pesky scholars. This story shows God himself taking part in reinterpreting and outright revising existing practices. In the Bible, God seems less troubled by change than his spokesmen are...                 

       “There are many ways to be faithful, but this is one of the most important: to know that God listens, cares, and responds; to know that God is just and is open to widening his justice and mercy; and to act on that knowledge despite the resistance that the world can throw up... Although conservative religious leaders today may act as if challenges are threats to the community, to its faith, and even to God Himself, ironically it is just such challenges that enable the church to endure.”

Science and Gender Identity

       This ability to see God as changing and adapting can help guide the church’s ability to reconsider long-held practices around sexuality and gender.

       The Bible does not address gender identity directly—and that's important. When the Bible is silent, we can lean into the general instructions on love, and learn from what science can tell us. We can learn from science that gender in animals is not as binary as we think: there are species with multiple genders, animals able to change their gender, as well as animals that are intersex. Similarly, gender in humans is not as binary as it appears, even on chromosomal level, with 1-2% of the world’s population being neither xx nor xy. We have many historical records of trans and nonbinary people, including many indigenous cultures which celebrate "two spirit" peoples.

       Gender diversity may seem to be rising now, not because it's more prevalent but because there is more awareness so that people have a name for what they are experiencing (Jennifer Boylan’s memoir describes this well). While there is considerable and disturbing backlash, there is more acceptance today, making it easier to come out as gender diverse. The rise of puberty blockers allows youth who are experiencing gender dysphoria to put a pause on puberty and the development of secondary sex characteristics.

       Gender can be compared to handedness. We don't decide to be right or left handed, we discover it. It's something intrinsic to who we are. When we use the non-dominant hand it just feels wrong. Something doesn’t seem to fit.

       And yet, both state and federal trans-exclusionary bills have increased in recent years. Conservative Christian groups have aided this effort, often spreading misinformation. As a result, nearly half of respondents to the US TransSurvey have considered moving to another state due to anti-trans laws. According to a study by the Trevor Project, these laws have caused up to a 72% increase in suicide attempts among transgender and nonbinary youth. Of particular concern is President Trump’s 2025 executive order: “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.  These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” The impact of this decision has been broad and heartbreaking.

       But there is hope. Transgender and nonbinary youth who reported having at least one gender-affirming space had a 25% reduction in reports of a suicide attempt in the past year. That means that the hard work we are doing can be literally life saving.

Queerfully and Wonderfully Made: Gen. 1:1-27

       There is no clear clobber verse denouncing trans or nonbinary Christians. The passage most often used to exclude gender diversity is Genesis 1, because it seems at face value to be reinforcing a gender binary as part of God’s intent for creation. The passage describes creation in terms of a series of contrasts: light/dark, day/night, water/sky, water/dry land, culminating in vs. 26-27:

       Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, to be like us. Let them be stewards of the fish in the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, the wild animals, and everything that crawls on the ground.” Humankind was created as God’s reflection: in the divine image God created them; female and male, God made them.

       So we see the creation account contains many pairs that seem at first like binaries— dark/light; day/night, sky/sea, dry land/sea. Yet each of these binaries is, in fact, not a binary but rather a polarity. They describe two endpoints on a continuum. We have dark and light—but we also twilight, dawn, all sorts of times when light is dim. We have day and night—but all sorts of times between noon and midnight: evening, morning. We have dry land and sea but also swamps and bogs and wetlands. It's a figure of speech called a "merism," similar to the phrase "I searched high and low." In the same way, science has shown us, male and female are not binary, but rather two endpoints in a continuum of gender identity and gender expression.

       We intuitively get this continuum with light and with time–no one needs to explain to us that afternoon and morning are included in light/dark, day/night. So why is it that we read male and female as binary?

       A helpful explanation is offered by Episcopal priest Tara Soughers in her book Beyond a Binary God: "Binary pairs are useful for simplifying large amounts of information we are required to process. It's developmentally appropriate for young children to think in binary terms… (but) most of us have learned that binaries are limiting and in many cases are inadequate to describe the world around us...

       "However, there are some binaries that seem to be difficult for us to let go of. Often, these are categories around identity: who is who, and how different groups are valued… these binaries are much harder for us to ignore, as they serve to mark the boundaries between those who are like us and those who are not. Marketing, politics, and the legal system all tend to reinforce these markers of identity, privileging some at the expense of others. While many people fall between the extremes, we often act as if there is an obvious dividing line."

       We can observe similar “us/them” arbitrary divisions in our culture today: Republican/Democrat, white/black, immigrant/native born, rich/poor, or liberal/conservative. This tendency to think in binaries—especially with groups of people—is hard-wired in us. It feels unified because it reinforces group identity—even as it leads to greater division and hatred. Perhaps one reason (besides scapegoating) that the trans community is under attack right now has to do with this identity piece. For Christian nationalists who are trying to preserve white male priority, the presence of nonbinary folks may be a challenge to their identity and purpose.

       But one of the true gifts of trans and nonbinary inclusion is the way it pushes us to think beyond us/them. Returning to Gen. 1:26-27: Humankind was created as God’s reflection: in the divine image God created them; female and male, God made them.

       Soughers notes that "the writers of the first creation story were expressing their belief that both men and women image God, a radical idea in a time when women were often seen as inferior, derivative, or even property. Their insistence upon naming the two genders seems to have been an attempt to expand those who were seen as being made in God's image, not narrow it." She goes on to say: "We learn from this that human beings are complicated. We often try to make things simple—either/or– but humans rarely fit neatly into binary categories. In creating human nature, God seems to have delighted in complexity rather than simplicity."

       Our experience in the world and creation is that our gender identity does seems to be innate—which means, God did make us the way we are—including people who don't fit the gender binary. The Genesis creation story ends in v. 31: God saw all that was made and it was very good.

       Genesis 1 is a celebration of diversity. We see this intuitively as we walk through a forest, alongside the ocean or through a beautiful garden. We delight in the diversity of flowers, of wildlife, of beauty. This is no less true with the diversity of human beings. It is a holy and wonderful thing to celebrate all that beautiful uniqueness. The inclusion of trans and nonbinary folks in our faith communities helps us celebrate and expand our understanding of ourselves and of God’s own self. 

Why We Gather

       This is important and holy work. There are so many benefits from adopting an affirming theology– a clear, consistent theology that makes sense and intuitively fits our picture of Jesus as loving and inclusive. When we feel bound to a theology that doesn't make sense, we train ourselves to ignore cognitive dissonance, which distances us from God. Heart is separated from head. But when we adopt a consistent theology—one that makes sense of our lived experience of the world—our faith becomes real and invigorating. You can see it lived out in real terms.

       Finally, the fruit of affirming theology is that families are made whole—both individual families, and our church family. We are meant to be one—all are included, all are invited in.

God of endless wonder,

       The world you created is incredible. The vastness of the universe, the diversity of life itself. We are amazed. And of all the complex and wonderful things you have created, perhaps people are the most incredible.

       Forgive us for the urge to tame all this overwhelming complexity into bite-size pieces. Forgive us for thinking we can create artificial barriers between "us" and "them." Help us instead to simply marvel at the wildness and beauty of all you have created. Amen.      

Week 1—Welcome to the wonderful & messy, painful & hopeful world of church conflict

Welcome! Our first week of Holding Faith / Holding Family was all about introductions. This is hard work– looking at long-held beliefs and assumptions and daring to reconsider them. It can be anxiety producing. Kay and I are honored to be with you on this journey, and grateful for your courage in saying yes to the invitation.

       Our desire at Holding Faith is to be a safe space. It's a safe space for gay, lesbian, bi, transgender and queer folks. But it is also safe space for people who are conflicted about all those things. People who are not sure what they think. Most of us come from evangelical settings, places that don't affirm those things. Some of us might still be. Most of us have had a journey to get to where we are today. And really, all of us are still on a journey, discovering new things. So we want to just celebrate showing up, listening, being attentive. We want to make this a safe space to ask questions, have strong convictions or to be uncertain. Free to not know everything. Honesty, confidentiality, and non-judgmental support will be key as we move forward. Being known as our authentic selves is essential, so trust is vital.

Resources

       The topics we'll be exploring around LGBTQ+ inclusion are complex. Devout Christians have a range of views on these issues, as well as on the larger issue of biblical interpretation. So there is plenty of room for discussion, growth and wonder.

       Each week I will draw from resources to talk about the problematic clobber verses, includingTorn by Justin Lee and Changing our Mind by David Gushee. Many of you may be familiar with these from your own reading. We’ll spend the bulk of our time exploring a new book: The Widening of God's Mercy by Richard and Christopher Hays, which takes us beyond proof-texting to observe the wide overarching love and inclusion of our boundary-breaking God.

Sharing our Stories

       The Widening of God's Mercy is an intensely personal book. The authors share their stories with brutal honesty and with genuine contrition.

       Richard Hays’ earlier, influential book The Moral Vision of the New Testament opposed same-sex relationships, and became a driving factor for many who sought to exclude LGBTQ people from the Church. He writes:

       “I acknowledge that I bear responsibility for the pain such developments have caused to many believers who belong to sexual minorities. And for that I am deeply sorry... In this book I want to start over—to repent of the narrowness of my earlier vision and to explore a new way of listening to the story that scripture tells about the widening scope of God’s mercy.”

       Christopher Hays writes: “Fifteen years ago, I was hired by Fuller Theological Seminary, an institution largely governed by “compassionate conservatives.” The faculty held diverse views, but I understood the institutional stance going in... I simply didn’t care enough about it, or about the well-being of LGBTQ people, to consider it a deal-breaker in taking my job... But I’m done being safe while many others are not...

       “Some things have not changed. I remain committed to the unparalleled centrality of the Bible... The conclusions I have come to are not the result of a new revelation... but rather the slow and logical outworking of years of reading the Bible...

       “This book isn’t just about us changing our minds... the book is also for those who are already convinced that LGBTQ people are just as good as straight people but who are unsure about God and Christianity. Often this means people who were raised within Christianity and were repulsed by some of its contemporary manifestations.”

       My story: Thirty years ago, as a newly minted Presbyterian pastor, I was chosen by the evangelical contingent to represent them in a debate on the floor of Presbytery. To my surprise, my opponent was my hermeneutics professor, Dr. Jack Rogers. On that day, my side won the vote—but I walked away knowing I had lost the debate. That began a years-long journey toward inclusion, which led me in entirely unexpected directions. I was aided by reading the same resources we will use in this course, but also by some wise queer friends, patient with my questions, who walked with me.

Some Wild & Wonderful Opening Assumptions

       The opening chapter introduces the idea of the widening of God’s mercy as the overarching theme of the Bible. The Hays—either consciously or not—draw on some themes that resonate with Open Theism. Open theism is a controversial movement, that may seem shocking at first. It overturns a lot of our most basic assumptions about God. I have been working and writing in the field for more than a decade. While surprising and unexpected, I have found it to be powerful, biblical, and enormously helpful in sorting through some of the thorniest theological issues we face.

       I don’t know if the Hays would identify as Open Theists or not, but they list four opening assumptions that resonate well with core principles of Open Theism:

1. Open Theism: In order to make room for human freedom, God’s omnipotence and omniscience must have constraints. Hays: “Contrary to the common idea that God’s decisions are eternal and immutable, there are numerous stories of God changing God’s mind in the Bible.”

2. OT: God is moved by what happens in the world and responds accordingly. Hays:“Contrary to the common idea that biblical law was written once, in stone, and is unchangeable, the actual biblical story.. is one in which laws are under constant negotiation and revision.”

3. OT: God’s default stance toward all of humanity is love. Hays: “Contrary to the common idea that “God’s people” was a clearly defined entity based on ethnic or national boundaries, various texts... show that God’s plan was always wider, and that new groups were regularly being invited in from the margins, even when existing biblical laws expressly excluded and condemned them.”

4. OT: God does not coerce or impose their will on the world. God influences but does not force. Hays: “Contrary to the common idea that the New Testament brings complete and final closure to God’s revelation, the New Testament promises that the Holy Spirit will continue to lead the community of Jesus’s followers into new and surprising truths”.

       The Hays explain: “For...many readers of the Bible today, it is a comfort and a bedrock idea that God “is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb 13:8)... We suggest that for those who would like to make sense of the Bible, these statements about God’s unchanging word must somehow be held together with a long tradition of examples where God does in fact change his mind... In particular, God repeatedly changes his mind in ways that expand the sphere of his love, preserve his relationship with humankind, and protect and show mercy toward them.”

       A key term used throughout the book is mercy, which the Hays describe as “God’s grace, compassion and favor...God’s overflowing love...propensity to embrace, heal, restore, and reconcile all of creation.”

Reading the Bible Together

       What bothers most Christians about queer inclusion is the Bible. The verses in the Bible which address homosexuality are called "clobber verses"—because to queer Christians they feel like they're used to clobber them. We might assume there must be dozens of these verses in the Bible, but in fact there are just six.

       We will explore not just those six "clobber verses" but what we believe about the Bible in general. Which is helpful, because LGBTQ+ inclusion is not the first major controversy the Church has had, nor will it be the last. The skills we learn throughout this process will help us to address a whole host of issues that will arise as we seek to live out our faith in real-life relationships and communities.

       Devout Christians have a range of views of the Bible. Some are what we call "inerrantists"— who believe that every word is literally the words of God's own self. Some feel the Bible is a book written by men a long time ago that is of mainly historical interest. Despite the common rhetoric that one must choose between these two binary options, in=n between those two extremes are a range of more nuanced beliefs—that the Bible is inspired by God in a way that the words of humans are intermingled with a movement of God's Spirit, or that the Bible is the best picture we have of God. All of these views co-exist within modern Christianity and even within historic Christianity.

       One rubric I've found helpful for dealing with troublesome passages is a "Jesus-centered hermeneutics." In John 10:30 Jesus says, "I and the Father are one.”

Col. 1:15-19 says: Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation… For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things.

       Jesus came to show us God. To show us God's heart, God's values, God's nature. Jesus is the best picture we have of God. So, while we may never answer every question we have about the Bible, we have Jesus. And Jesus shows us who God is. When we encounter troubling passages or differing interpretations like we will see in the weeks ahead, we can fall back on this: how does this interpretation square with the picture of Jesus we see in the New Testament? We should reject any interpretation that deviates from the picture of God that is revealed in Jesus Christ.

How do churches decide stuff???

       Before digging into the "clobber verses,” it's helpful to look at what we can learn from church history about how to resolve conflict. Queer inclusion is not the first time the Church has faced conflict over an important issue, and it won't be the last. The history of the early church in the book of Acts is a story of the church coming together time and again to resolve those conflicts and move forward.

       The first major conflict arises over the issue of circumcision in Acts 15:1-31. This is not something most churches are conflicted over these days, but it was in the 1st c. The conflict is triggered by the influx of Gentile (non-Jewish) converts to Christianity. Prior to Paul, the vast majority of new Christians were Jewish. The men would have already been circumcised when they were 8 days old—it was a done deal. But this influx of uncircumcised Gentiles raises the question of what Jewish practices do they need to adopt in order to be a part of the Christian church? For adult men this is obviously a really important consideration. And for the Church itself, there's a lot on the line that will determine how far their message reaches beyond the Jewish community.

       So in Acts 15, a meeting is called of the church leaders to resolve the issue—much like church leaders today are gathering to discuss and debate queer inclusion.

       As we read through the story of how they resolved this conflict in Acts 15, the first thing I notice is that both sides are using Scripture. The side arguing for circumcision references the "law of Moses" in verses 1 and 5. And James, who is the bishop of the church in Jerusalem, cites "the words of the prophets" in verses 15-18. Both of these are references to the Old Testament.

       So often in the church, the debate over including and affirming LGBTQ+ believers is framed as a debate of "Bible-believers" versus "Bible deniers." It's framed as one side having the Bible and the other side caving in to social norms or pressure. But this is not the case. Both sides are using and citing Scripture to make their argument. Indeed, most church conflict is like that— both sides leaning on Scripture.

       For most Christians, the Bible is the primary and most important source of authority– the tool we rely on to find truth and the data we need to make decisions. This workshop assumes that, and will focus most of our attention on what Scripture has to say about queer inclusion.

       But the fact that, like in the debate in Acts 15, most church conflict involves Scripture on both sides means that we need to bring in other tools to help us to interpret and apply Scripture to the particular issue. That doesn't lessen the primacy of the Bible. Quite the contrary, the effort to think and study deeply is one way that we honor Scripture. The other sources of authority we bring in are simply tools we use to help us consider how we apply Scripture to the concern at hand.

       In Acts 15, we can see several additional tools the early church leaders brought to the discussion to inform their decision. The first is found in the very fact that such a convocation was called. Paul could have just stuck his tongue out at those who said the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and continued on doing what he was doing. Instead, he submits himself to this process—allowing the decision to be made in community. So, while our discussion about queer inclusion might be fraught, anxiety producing, and even deeply painful at times—it is a holy process. It is a process about building a beautiful and loving community where all voices are respected.

       So the first supplemental tool we can see in Acts 15 is community. Reading on, we see a couple more. Both Paul and Peter describe what happened when they shared the gospel with Gentiles (vs. 4, 8, 12). Paul says there were "miraculous signs and wonders." Peter says, "God gave them the Holy Spirit." James references their testimony as important in v. 14. So we can see experience—our experience of God's movement and activity—as another source of authority.

       Finally, James begins his argument in vs. 19 with the phrase "it is my judgment" showing us that our reasoning—our intellectual capacity to research and learn and think about an issue—is another important tool in our communal decision making.

       This particular set of four sources of authority was most famously identified by John Wesley as an important way of discerning together God's leading. Called "the Wesleyan Quadrilateral" it places the Bible in the center as the primary and most important source of authority, with experience, reason and community (or church tradition) as subordinate tools to help interpret and apply Scripture.

       As we work our way through the six "clobber verses" that address homosexuality, we will come back to this pattern again and again—using these supplemental tools to interpret and apply Scripture to the question of queer inclusion, while also looking at what other biblical teachings might apply to this question.

       I love the way the final decision of the Jerusalem council is described in their letter to the churches in vs. 28: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." There's a lovely humility there that highlights the work of the community, as well as our faith that God's Spirit is working in and through our discussion. No matter how fraught or deeply painful this process may be, it is holy work, and God is moving in and through it.

       Our workshop is a place to lean into the practice of community, as we spend time each week discussing these passages together.

A particularly ugly story… but is it a story about gay sex???

       The clobber verse/passage that is most strongly associated with the Bible's position on homosexuality is the story of Sodom in Gen. 19:1-26. It's obviously where we get the term “sodomy.” But note that the Bible doesn't use the term sodomy—that's an English word coined long after the fact based on people's interpretation or association with Sodom, not on anything in the text itself.

       It's a very ugly and violent story, disturbing for a lot of reasons (let this serve as a trigger warning). The story begins when God calls Abraham to leave his home in Ur and resettle in The Promised Land (Canaan). Abraham brings along his nephew, Lot, who eventually settles in the city of Sodom.

       When the story begins, Lot is visited by what appears to be three men—but the text tells us they are actually angels. The men of city show up wanting to gang rape the angels. The city is then destroyed by God as an act of judgment for their wickedness.

       There are a lot of disturbing elements of this story—at one point Lot offers up his daughters to appease the crowd, the destruction of an entire the city, Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt. We could spend an hour on each of these disturbing elements, but for the purpose of exploring this as a teaching on homosexuality, I find three key questions to ponder: What is the most important thing in this story? Is this a story about homosexuality? Are the angels really male?

       What stands out to me most in this passage is not the apparent (but dubious) gender of the angels, but the fact that the crowd wants to gang rape them. We know, of course, that rape is not an act of love, or even of desire or lust. It is an act of violence and domination. We have seen this throughout our sordid and painful history.

       This story is offered up in Gen. 19 as an explanation for Sodom's destruction because of their "wickedness"—but Genesis never says what that wickedness might be. The closest we come to connecting it to homosexuality is in Jude 7, where it is described as unspecified "sexual immorality." Rape would certainly fit the bill, regardless of the gender of those involved. The context of Jude 7 is about angels—and it occurs to me there is something deeply perverse about a people who are visited by angels—messengers of God—and their first response is not awe or wonder or curiosity about their message—but rape. So it could refer to defiling the holy.

       But we have a much clearer explanation in Ezek.16:49-50: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

       Hospitality in the ancient middle east was not just a matter of etiquette or socializing. In a time before there was a Holiday Inn in every town and a Starbucks on every corner, showing holy hospitality to strangers traveling through the desert was literally a life-saving act. It was an act of compassion. Their callous response to vulnerable strangers in their midst is a peek into their hardened hearts.

       We will continue this pattern of exploring one "clobber verse" each week. In each case, it will be an invitation to move beyond a superficial reading to think deeply about what the text really says. When we are willing to do the hard work of digging in, we honor Scripture by taking it seriously and being willing to invest our time and energy. When we do the hard work of listening to the LGBTQ+ community, prayerfully learning about their experience, being willing to navigate painful conflict even in our families and churches, we are engaging in holy work. We are showing the compassion of Christ, and trusting in God's Spirit to move in and through it.

       Loving God, we want to be lead by you. So help us to lean in. Help us to listen. Help us to be kind and respectful to one another. Help us to open our hearts to what you are saying to us today. I pray your presence be with us as we seek you. May we know the height and depth of your love in a new and incredible way.

       In Jesus' name, Amen.