It was a beautiful sunny Vancouver day in mid-September. The kind of day that still feels like summer even though we all know that these types of glorious days are numbered and fall is just around the corner. Nevertheless there is sunshine, warm temps, and amazing energy in the air, so we'll take it!
It was a beautiful sunny Vancouver day for a wedding. This particular service had all the elements that comprise a nice, traditional wedding. A large, downtown, gothic-style church building. The longest centre aisle of any church in the entire city of Vancouver. 10 attendants. A flower girl and ring bearer. A pipe organ to provide beautiful fanfare for such a special occasion. And of course 2 grooms joining their lives together in holy matrimony. What a minute!! OK maybe it isn't an ENTIRELY traditional wedding. I have to admit that since British Columbia legalized same sex marriage in 2003 (with the entire country of Canada following suit in 2005), I had not been to a same sex wedding ceremony of this scale. Most of my gay friends who married (including David and me) had very intimate, small, non-traditional ceremonies held in big homes with ocean views, in Stanley Park, or in the privacy of a downtown condo. But this wedding on Saturday had all the bells and whistles that one could possibly think of. My part was to play the piano during the ceremony, lead 2 congregational hymns, and sing a solo during the Signing of the Registry. Everything was ready to go for a prompt 2:00pm start. The 2 grooms - Kevin and Ryan - looked dapper in their tuxedos. The beautiful sanctuary was full of family and friends. And I was all set to be a part of this wonderful occasion in the life of my 2 friends.
It was a beautiful sunny Vancouver day in which to unexpectedly and profoundly witness God's Kingdom revealed, advanced, and experienced. One of my favourite Bible stories is that of Peter and the vision of the unclean animals (Acts 10: 9 - 48). In this vision, Peter sees a sheet descending from heaven full of unclean animals - animals that Peter would never touch or eat because they were considered unclean. Unacceptable. Sinful. Yet a voice commanded Peter to eat all the animals that were on the sheet. Peter said no. The voice said yes. Peter said no. The voice said yes. When Peter continued to resist, he heard this powerful statement from the heavens: "What God has made clean, you must not call profane." That is my favourite line from this entire story. What God has made clean, you must not call profane. A new era had arrived in the early church. Previous understandings of what's clean and what's not......who is clean and who isn't.......what is accepted and what isn't........were being turned upside down. Those who previously were thought to be outside the Christian community were now being accepted into the community of faith.
I'm so grateful that the story of Peter and the unclean animals did not stop in the Book of Acts. This amazing story of the inclusion of those who were previously thought to be outside the kingdom of God has continued throughout history. Groups and classes of people who had been denied any type of full participation in the life of the church were being welcomed in as more chapters of that vision were being written. Their gifts, callings, and contributions were being recognized. Previous understandings and readings of certain Scripture passages were being re-interpreted. The circle was being enlarged and widened. Because of Galileo's courage in the 1600s against the prevailing geocentric position of the organized church, we came to see that science and faith are not enemies, but 2 sides of the same coin. Because of the outspoken witness of many women with obvious gifts to ordained ministry in a time when they were denied their full calling, we now welcome women into the leadership and ordained ministry of the church. Because of the bold witness of mixed race couples in a time when the church named their love as sinful because "it's against the Bible", we now celebrate mixed race marriages in our communities. And I witnessed on Saturday another chapter being written in that vision of the unclean animals. Same sex love - in many churches today still considered "unclean" - was blessed, affirmed and celebrated! In a transcendant way, the love, the blessing, the tangible sense of Spirit filled me to overflowing with joy, gratitude, and a sense that the vision of God's Kingdom - including and blessing those who were previously considered unclean - moves forward! I was in tears just taking in the significance of that vision moving forward here in my lifetime in this time and place.
It was a beautiful, sunny Vancouver day.........
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Curt! I trust you’re well. I don't know if you have read my post on "Scourge" or not, but just as strongly as you feel you are justified in your homosexuality, I believe incredibly strongly that an alternative view to this post should and must be made known. In “A Wedding Like No Other,” you refer to the vision that changed Peter’s view of the Gentiles. This passage is a favorite of mine as well, as this is what the LORD used to speak to my heart in a great way for His calling upon my life our junior year. I must let you know that you are using this passage wrongly to present a false view that it can apply to accepting homosexuality. It is interesting to note that you did not endeavor to share Scripture to back your idea. It is clear in Scripture that homosexuality is not acceptable to God, but at the same time individuals in bondage to this way of thinking certainly CAN be “made clean” through His power! However, through the vision to Peter, God was showing him that a group of people—GENTILES (and not just the Jews) were accepted by God. ALL people groups (i.e. “races”) can come to God through Christ. ALL of us are sinners, but NO ONE is prohibited from coming to God because of Jesus’ payment for our sins, which made it possible for unholy people to come into the presence of a holy God. Rather than belonging to a particular group of people as the term “Jew” denotes, “homosexual” is a description of a person based solely upon a desire, a preferential choice, a changeable sexual disposition or course of action. This description is NOT equivalent to being “Jew” or “Gentile.” While many have achieved victory over homosexual desires and have left such a lifestyle, NO ONE can erase a title or achieve victory over being “Jew” or “Gentile.” In short, I must say that you are dead wrong to use Peter’s vision to apply to normalizing that which is contrary to the design of God for male/female sexual relations.
ReplyDeleteHi Jeff, It's always interesting to me when folks with your belief system choose to take issue with something that Jesus never did, according to the gospels. My experience, after 40 + years of participating in then observing evangelical Christianity is that this approach comes from a place of fear of what one doesn't understand, not one of love and openness to understanding. Those whom I have spoken with reject living from a place of fear. You may not understand Curt's walk with God, but it is his experience, just as yours is yours. If you were here, you would see your friend celebrating life, loving and being loved, engaging others and, yes, in a ministry that reintroduces people to church community that expresses the welcoming love of God, undoing the damage done by right wing evangelicals who chose to exclude them from “the” church. Your intent is good, I'm sure, but what needs to be acknowledged is that when scripture is used to condemn, there is a slippery slope of marginalization, discrimination and violence. I offer you the following quote: "Even when we believe scripture is 'without error,' it's a risk to think our understanding is 'without error.'" What if scripture on homosexuality has been misinterpreted by folks of your belief system? What is left in the wake of that "error" is people being excluded from their churches, from their families and go through exgay rituals to become "normal." What is left in the wake of the "error" of those who believe differently than you is a community of people who, for the most part, have wanted nothing more than to live peaceful lives of integrity and want to see the injustices that they have experienced “in the name of the Lord” to end. I leave you with a scripture that we can both agree on: "What does the Lord require of you? To act JUSTLY, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." God bless you, and may God have mercy on the souls of those who seek to divide and destroy rather than understand.
ReplyDeleteHello Sylvie. Thanks for your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteRE: “…your belief system….”
The Bible is not ‘my’ belief system as Scripture isn’t up to “private interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20). It is the Word of the living God, a belief system for ALL people and truth from our Creator. There is one God, Jesus Christ, the Creator of all (Col. 1:16 "by him were all things created …) He is NOT just “of the Gospels.” Adam and Eve walked with Him (Gen. 3:8). He is the “fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9). He formed Adam out of dust and took from his side to form Eve. When the Pharisees challenged Jesus on marriage (Matt. 19), Jesus took them to Genesis. You may disagree, and that’s fine IF I this is baseless human opinion. However, I am not sharing opinion but Scripture. You use an argument from silence (“Jesus never did”) which is baseless and opens the door for shifting opinion.
"...comes from...fear of what one doesn't understand…”
Understand what? God made a man and a woman, that established marriage (“one flesh”). It is His design. *I* didn’t come up with it so it is not *my* understanding.
“Those ... reject living from a place of fear.” Everyone has feelings, experiences, etc., but the Scriptures override these, providing an anchor of truth for all issues.
“You may not understand Curt's walk with God....”
I do not understand Curt’s walk with God, but I can learn and know the Scriptures.
“…you would see your friend celebrating life, loving and being loved, engaging others…”
He may very well be celebrating, loving, and “ministering”…but for whom, for what purpose, and according to what standards? Scripture refers to pleasure in sin for a season.(Hebrews 11:25)
“…undoing…damage done….”
I understand. There are many issues over which religious people disagree, and many times rejection takes place. However, when there is a disagreement over clear Biblical teaching, it is totally different. “...the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32)
There is much damage done in the name of religion. However, much damage is also done to those who accept the Bible regardless of human ideas. In history, people have stood for truth sometimes to the point of death.
(contd)
(contd)
ReplyDelete“…when scripture is used to condemn, there is a slippery slope ….” I understand. Scripture is often misused to fit an agenda, which Curt has done in using Peter and the sheet. He made it say something Scripture doesn’t say. Sure, a “slippery slope” can happen, but to allow these things to take place over truth is still more error, and two wrongs don’t make a right. …we believe scripture is 'without error,' it's a risk to think our understanding is 'without error.'" I understand. Our understanding could be in error in some cases with the Bible. However, it is impossible to misunderstand that God made two people at creation, Adam and Eve, and made them husband and wife. It is impossible to misinterpret this, along with many other passages which reference sexuality. “What if scripture on homosexuality has been misinterpreted by folks of your belief system?” This is a serious question, but the burden of proof is on you b/c the “what if?” has no basis. I could say, “What if watermelons are purple until when they are cut oxygen hits them and turns them pink? Prove me wrong.” The burden of proof is on me as there is absolutely no evidence for watermelons being purple on the inside. In this, I’m trying to share why ‘watermelons’ couldn’t be purple (i.e. innate, unchangeable sexual “orientation”) and you say, “What if…?” with no basis. But the subject of sexuality is much more serious than watermelons. “I leave you with a scripture ... "What does the Lord require... act JUSTLY...." …may God have mercy....” I certainly agree with the Scripture, but in light of what was already said, I must add that doing “justly” IS pointing out UNjustness such as proliferating sexuality contrary to God’s design: same-sex attraction resulting in relations treated as “marriage.” While some speak this unlovingly, it is unavoidable that no matter how it is spoken, the truth is that marriage was designed by God for a man and a woman, for life. I too ask mercy for each one who is in bondage to deviations from His design, and for those who would proliferate this bondage, for they indeed proliferate division and destruction.
The common thread through all your responses is "the Bible says it, so that must make it true". Every single argument you've given has to be ultimately attached to a Scripture verse or passage or "Biblical principle" as if that will therefore give the argument merit. This is a very weak method of logic. Typically the text in question is not allowed to be a witness on it's own behalf. Imagine a book that says "This book is true" and then tons of people start believing it because the book says so. Hmmmmmm....that's the situation with fundamentalism. I know the arguments that Jesus is the only religious leader who rose from the dead thus validating Christianity and that people have died for this faith so therefore the Bible must be true. But according to the Muslims, Mohammad also ascended into the heavens and Mormons as well as Buddhists have also died for their faith as well. So are Mormonism, Islam, and Buddhism true faiths? And even looking at the Bible from a literal standpoint, there are numerous problems with a literal reading. You CONSTANTLY refer back to creation design....God made one man and one woman for life - that is God's consistent plan for the family. How does that stack with Abraham's family? Abraham's first son was the child of his wife's slave-girl. Similarly, the twelve sons of Jacob have four different mothers. So I wonder which Sunday School class at First Church that Jacob and his 2 wives would be the most comfortable in: the Plural Marriage Class or the Young Marrieds: Mutiple Wives? Yet I cannot get anyone to tell me how the "one woman/one man for life" model in Genesis squares with Jacob's "one man/2 wives" model? And what about usury (the practice of lending money out with interest)? It's clearly prohibited in Scripture (Proverbs 22: 26-27; Isaiah 24: 1-6; Nehemiah 5: 1-13 among others). Yet I don't see fundamentalists following this practice by forbidding church membership to anyone involved in the practice of usury whether they're a banker or they have a mortgage. And there are many passages that support slavery or mention the practice as normative. I Peter 6: 1-9 is proof positive that slavery is part of the universal plan of God because of its' context. This passage gives instructions for households. It starts with "children obey your parents"....then reminds us to "honour our father and mother".....then tells fathers to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord"...then goes on to tell slaves to "be obedient to them that are your masters". This clearly puts slavery as a universal unchanging truth. Why teach vs 1-4 as "universal, never-changing truths that are God's plan for the family" yet shift gears abruptly at verses 5-6 and teach "but slavery was a cultural practice that is no more"? Which is it? Either take the entire passage as timeless or take it all as cultural. As a gay Christian, I'm tired of getting beat up with the Bible by a group of people who don't even follow it themselves. So until you start kicking people out of church until they sever all ties with all banking systems...until you start offering weekend "plural marriage encounters" ...until you start offering Slaves/Masters Sunday School classes, and until you follow thru with your literalism and advocate the death penalty for gay and lesbian people just like the Bible instructs, I don't want to hear your Bible quotes. You're obviously not very serious about following it.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is but one source that I use in shaping my life. I read it metaphorically, not literally. I utilize the Wesleyan quadrilateral: I take Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience to forge an ethic. Each of these 4 pillars intersect and challenge the other ultimately revealing truth for me.
So Jeff I’m just as committed to God as you are. We're just in different places. I have laid out my beef with the system of fundamentalism. But I bless you and Heather and your life together. I only wish that you could bless me as
"There was a time I would reject those
ReplyDeletewho were not of my faith.
But now, my heart has grown capable
of taking on all forms.
It is a pasture for gazelles,
An abbey for monks.
A table for the Torah,
Kaaba for the pilgrim.
My religion is love.
Whichever the route love's caravan shall take,
That shall be the path of my faith."
-Ibn Arabi
Beautiful poem! A great reminder to me to be even more open......Thanks so much to whomever posted it......
ReplyDeleteAnd another poem :)
ReplyDeleteSame-Sex: God Weighs In – John Allemang
© The Globe and Mail
Saturday, December 18, 2004
The problem with omnipotence
Is this: you just can’t fold your tents
And migrate to some distant place
Untainted by the human race,
Where no one vainly takes God’s name
Or plays the power-glory game –
For even when you try to hide,
They still demand you be their guide,
The universal know-it-all,
Forever at their beck and call.
Right – same-sex marriage. Here’s the thing:
If two men want to wear a ring
And do what married people do,
You won’t catch this God shouting, “Boo.”
Our vision statement up above
Is, “How can you go wrong with love?”
But what do I know? I’m just God,
A deity without a bod,
Who can’t tell pious gay from straight
Or see why love should lead to hate.
So, not much brimstone, or much fire.
To you who think the issue’s dire,
I must seem like a total fraud
And nothing like Isaiah’s God,
Who steered his values to the right
And like Ralph Klein, preferred to fight
The infidels who went astray.
I’d rather turn the night to day
Than force each he to find a she –
But then, no one elected Me.
Hey there,
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to comment that in Genesis 1 God creates man and woman in Gods' image (plural, more than one God in the original Hebrew language) “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness"
In Genesis 2, God has created Adam (the earth creature) and realizes that "It is not good that this earth creature should be alone" and so creates a whole bunch of animals: cattle and birds and creatures of the sea - for Adam as a helpmate. None of these work until God creates the creature that awakens in Adam his delight and his desire. "at last, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" ... similar, not animal, a helpmate, an equal ... made in Gods' image ...
When we realize and allow ourselves to have our delight and our desire awakened in us by someone in Gods' Image - that's when we live God's ultimate desire to us.
And yes, Jeff, this is using scripture to uphold my reading of it, as you have used scripture to uphold your reading. The difference being, I completely understand where you are coming from - I'm not sure you understand where we (Sylvie, Curt, I) come from with all of this. That's where the difference lies, in the respect and allowing of each to have an understanding, always in God's name.
Hey Curt. Let me first address “very weak …logic.” Scripture begins with, “In the beginning God…” Who was there but God? Adam was the first man who received first instructions from the Creator. In short, the Book from the ultimate Authority carries sole authority in and of itself for it is from Him Who is over all and Who made all things.
ReplyDelete“…the text in question is not allowed to be a witness on it's own behalf.”
It all depends on where the text originates. What would we know factually about creation without the Record from the One Who was there at creation and Who communicated the account? Adam wouldn’t have known, but he first received instruction from God.
False faiths like Mormonism do not have a factual basis, but have been proven to have great errors, such as has been proven by genetics. The Bible, though, has been proven time and again, giving it overwhelming credibility at LEAST as a reliable historical document. False faiths have inner contradictions, contradict the Bible, and do not bear up totally with history or science. For example, DNA studies have traced mitochondrial DNA back to a first woman called “Mitochondrial Eve.” Ah--the Bible already stated there was one first woman, Eve. And for children to come from a union, there had to also be a man. The Bible tells of that one first man, Adam, and that through his sin we received death (I Corinthians 15:22). Genesis also tells of Abraham’s and Jacob’s marriage situations but these are not a part of the origin / foundation when God Himself pronounced everything “very good.” Maybe you’ve read the Pharisees’ challenge to Jesus concerning marriage? (Matt. 19) In response, He took them to the beginning with Adam and Eve (NOT Abraham or Jacob).
I’m curious as to how usury relates to marriage? Maybe you recall the various categories of God’s laws that He established with Israel [e.g. ceremonial laws (feasts)] Some of the OT laws God intended for all mankind, while others were part of a covenant between Himself and Israel. Surely, you recall some of this from Bible classes in high school or college. And what would usury have to do with being a church member? I don’t understand.
(cont’d)
“…there are numerous problems with a literal reading…”
ReplyDeletePerhaps these alleged problems are due to our own ignorance of ancient Hebrew, of the design of God, or of the Jewish customs? Maybe our thinking should be brought under GOD’s thoughts rather than us seeking to superimpose OUR thinking over HIS? By referring to Abraham’s or Jacob’s messed-up families as rules by which to undermine God’s one-man/one-woman/one-flesh design in Genesis, you superimpose limited human rationale above HIS. He BEGAN with Adam and Eve, NOT with Jacob/Rebeckah/Leah or Abraham/Sara/Hagar. It is clear from Scripture that the other situations were not happy homes but were full of strife. And slavery? How about an early concept of jobs, such as indentured servants? Don’t we have jobs today? The entire passage you referenced IS timeless truth relative to ALL aspects of authority in our lives…such as parents and employers.
“…until you follow thru with your literalism…”
This statement indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of “Biblical literalism,” which is taking the Bible at face value within a proper context. In essence, you cannot Biblically justify homosexuality using faulty marriages that were not according to God’s original design. The creation account (including the first marriage) could never have come about solely through human means. Fulfilled prophecies prove the Bible miraculous. Bible history really happened, as science continues to prove. The Bible is and should be the final authority for all matters of our faith, including marriage.
“You're obviously not very serious about following it.”
No--not according to YOUR definition of “literalism,” for it is based upon a faulty understanding and / or application of understanding of the truths of a miraculous Book that is thousands of years old, from many manuscripts (some 5500 copies extant), and that covers many languages and cultures. Perhaps we all should study it more to understand what it is saying, rather than set up baseless “straw men” arguments which arise from a 21st century, western mindset. Curt, Heather and I would love to bless you and David as individuals, but your open relationships (“gay” and “married”) are outside of clear boundaries God established for human sexuality at creation. I pray for you and David that you understand that I didn’t set these boundaries. The Creator did. May He bless you both with conviction over this and boldness to come out of this bondage, as many like you have done.
To Graham,
ReplyDeleteHi. It is good to have another one in on these comments!
Re: "... as you have used scripture to uphold your reading. The difference being, I completely understand where you are coming from - I'm not sure you understand...That's where the difference lies..."
I must respectfully and vehemently disagree with your assessment of our differences re: the subject of homosexuality. We fundamentally disagree on our views of Scripture. It isn't our understanding of Scripture that is key. It IS that we realize that the Bible is the revelation of the Supreme LORD of all of creation. It is His revealing of HIS design for mankind (through verbal, plenary inspiration), without error in its statements (as HE is without error). Men may malign it, misinterpret it, misapply it, misuse it, or ignore it...but God's Word stands! Basically, you are saying: "That's YOUR interpretation." This is impossible, as Scripture is not of "private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). It is what it is. We need to study it to "shew ourselves approved...a workman that needeth not to be ashamed..." (2 Timothy 2:15). Again, thanks for joining in on the discussion. Have a great day!
Hi Curt. All I can say to your post is 'Amen!'
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded when reading your response,
'The common thread through all your responses is "the Bible says it, so that must make it true,"'of Gershwin's 'It Ain't Necessarily So.' Honestly, if some want to take the Bible literally, then I wish they would do so and not just take literally those bits they like and agree with and ignore the bits they don't.
Blessings and Peace.
Isn't it unusual that the proof of those who support a literal, inerrant interpretation of the Bible have only THE BIBLE ITSELF as proof? That's like saying 'Curt's blog is inerrant because Curt's blog says so.' Seriously flawed argument, but then seriously gutless to post anonymously as well. . . .
ReplyDelete