Shamelessly stealing from my friend Bad Catholic, I'm a United Methodist with a somewhat liberal theology. Specifically, I want my church to be more inclusive of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered. Generally, I just want to help get God out of that Little Box some Christians want to shove him into.
Would that I could put it this well. There's not even any quotes I can pull because the whole thing resonates so exactly with how I read scripture and experience the world. What do you do when the map and what you see in the real world with your own eyes conflicts? Personally, I can't choose the map just because it's The Map.
posted by Bad Methodist @ 10:07 AM
7 comments
I became a Christian when I was 19. I started out pretty run-of-the-mill conservative, but my theology has grown progressively more liberal the more I study the Bible. Here I might seem like a raving liberal, but politically I'm actually a moderate conservative. Although I'm straight, the death of Matthew Shepard, the existence of Fred Phelps, and two sermons on the same day from different preachers on the subject of standing in the way of hate combined into the two-by-four God used to call me into fighting for gay rights. The United Methodist Church's official stance is that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching," so I guess that makes me a bad Methodist.
7 Comments:
The most remarkable part of that post was this little paranthetical aside:
(It's also unseemly, too much like we're telling homosexuals, "You wait out in the hall while we discuss your fate. We'll call you in later and let you know what we decide.")
I've watched and occasionally participated in a lot of Christian "gay" debates over the years, and it never ceases to amaze me how often we are spoken about, and so rarely spoken to.
But Fred gets it. Hallelujah, he gets it!
Yes, Fred does get it. That aside hit me like a two-by-four between the eyes in a "I resemble that remark!" kind of way. It's so easy for straight people to get so caught up in our philosophical arguments and how "right" we think we are that we forget we're talking about real people's lives.
"Go run off and play while Mommy and Daddy discuss what's best for YOU. ::pat pat::" UGH! Kill me now.
Bad Methodist, I just realized my post might come across like I think you don't "get it." Which, I can assure you, isn't the case. I've never gotten anything but a totally respectful vibe off your posts.
And as much as it annoys me, I've come to accept that some straight people will only ever reached by straight allies--the testimonies of gays is just too suspect. For that, I am very grateful that there are people like you out there, fighting the good fight and keeping the dialogue going.
Thank you! But no, I didn't take your comment that way at all. That was just my reaction to reading the aside in Fred's post.
My husband and I have both had occasion to work with the National Association of the Deaf, and we learned very early on that it's National Associaton OF the Deaf, not FOR the Deaf. That doesn't mean they don't have hearing people working with them, but they're very clear that it isn't about the strong, capable hearing people coming in and rescuing the poor, needy Deaf people. The Deaf can speak for themsevles, thankyouverymuch.
I took that attitude with me when I started working on marriage rights. I'm very conscious of the fact that I'm an outsider, not the Hero that's going to Save The Day. (It's a bird! It's a plane! It's... Straight Girl!!!!) But even so, it's SO easy for those of us--well, for me anyway--fighting for someone else's rights to get pretty full of ourselves. "Look at me, what a wonderful person I am to be doing this!" When in reality, it's HUMAN rights we're talking about. It's important to me because it's the right thing to do, not because I'm so wonderful and the poor LGBT wretches need my wonderfulness to save them. It's good to get occasional reminders of that from people like Fred, who are so well-spoken and have a way of really nailing home the point.
I disagree with the idea that the Bible cannot be used as a map because it it out of date. It is and always will be relevant to all people of all cultures. The problem is with correct interpretation.
It reminds me of the Herman Melville book Billy Bud. A young boy sets sail for his parent's hometown of Liverpool England. He has a map that was provided by his father, but once he gets there, he realizes that the map is out of date. Street names have changed. Landmarks are different. Shops have closed. You get the idea.
I don't agree with it, but your post made me think of it.
disagree with the idea that the Bible cannot be used as a map because it it out of date.
I disagree with that, too, and I'm pretty sure Fred (Slacktivist) wasn't saying that either, considering he's an evangelical Christian and more than a little Biblically literate.
What this means to me is that I can't take the literal interpretation at face value if it conflicts with what I see of the world in my own eyes. It means I have to dig deeper to find the truth, not that I have to throw out the map because it's "out of date." The Bible is God's eternal message to all of us in any given time, but it is necessarily written through the lense of human perception at a given point in time. So I do think we have to take that lense into account and try to figure out what the real message is for us.
Thanks for passing on slactivist's post. Good reading.
Post a Comment
<< Home