Sunday, February 7, 2010

How Come

I have a bit of baggage from my high school youth group experience. I think this is where we need to start.

A friend invited me to youth group in 7th or 8th grade. While I'm sure she wanted to see me saved or growing spiritually or whatnot, it seemed her most salient motivation was the youth pastor's promise to the group that they would receive a pizza party if they brought x-number of friends the following Wednesday night. And let's be honest: pizza is a pretty strong motivator for me even now.

This youth group was part of a church with the word 'Mennonite' in its name. There was nothing Mennonite about the church except its history. A few years later, they changed their name to reflect that and took the word 'Mennonite' out.

Worship was compartmentalized and defined as the part of the life in which we seek an emotional high set to the following chords: G, C, D, and sometimes E-minor. I required an arm's-length radius about me in order to properly seek this high.

Sex was discussed. The discussions were peppered with snickering, jokes, and vague allusions to how fun it is. It was always summed up with these thoughts: "It's only for marriage" and "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

The stage was set: an adolescent brain, a charming, pizza-bearing youth pastor, and a total lack of experience with outed gay people meant that I latched onto his rhyming aphorism unquestioningly.

We had never discussed responsible biblical exegeses, so I had no idea how to even think to ask, "Is the Genesis story meant to be normative, as your aphorism assumes?" let alone, "How does this aphorism shape our attitudes toward and interactions with people who are gay?"

(Slight tangent: The phrase "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is so problematic. First, it instantly serves to dehumanize. I hear a patronizing tone behind it that aims to make anyone who would make such a glaring error in desire an acceptable target for bullying, in the style of kindergartners at recess, no less. Second, it assumes that the Genesis creation account is meant to be normative, that is, to be the pattern to which we are to shape our lives as well. Perhaps it is normative, but that's a post for another time, most likely written by one or more actual theologians (not me). Last, as Christians, let's ask this: Does the phrase, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" help me love God and others better? No? Then let's make sure we're the last generation to throw it around.)

So I head off to college, my head contentedly full of black-and-white answers to complex questions about situations I had never encountered. I went to a conservative Christian school, where my youth pastor and increasingly liberal friends were sure those answers would be cemented in my head for good.

I'm grateful I went to a Christian college. But I didn't come out how any of us expected I would. First, I started listening to good music, some of which was made by people who were not Christians. Then I took some classes about the bible. I learned a little bit about how it was put together, I learned how to ask questions about it, and I learned it was okay to ask questions about it. Oh, and sometimes I used swear words, too.

About a year after graduation, a friend from high school called me up one night and told me he was gay. Yes, even in high school when I was thinking about having a crush on him. And yes, even in youth group. While my high school self would not have stood for the idea that a life experience could shape my beliefs, it had to happen somehow, because suddenly my hatred of the abstract contrasted sharply with my love of a real friend. I had quite the case of cognitive dissonance.

Then about a year after that, a friend from college IMed me from his seminary desk with an apparently heavy thing to tell me. He told me he was gay. Thus began my actual engagement with homosexuality.

That was the How Come. Next up: the What For.

2 comments:

  1. Hey Margaret. I think you tell your own story here in an authentic and thoughtful way, true to form. You reflect deeply on your experiences recognizing tensions and not rushing to quickly to resolution of that tension. I appreciate and applaud your thoughtfulness here.

    In response to your thoughts about Genesis- yes, absolutely the "Adam and Steve" aphorism that is thrown around so lightly is extremely problematic. The very fact that it is a rhyming aphorism echoes juvenile schoolyard taunts and invites more of them behind. And it seems to presume that this is sooo obvious, and that anyone who doesn't "get it" must be stupid. Even if one takes a conservative stance on the question, this is not a responsible way to go about it.

    Secondly, you might be surprised to hear that I actually do think the Genesis narrative is a normative pattern for humanity (for any read who doesn't know, I am the friend mentioned in the last paragraph). Two people of the opposite sex joining for life and procreating (let's remember there is more to the pattern than just heterosexuality) is the basic mode of human family and civilization and is how 90% of people will experience the world if they act faithfully. However, I also believe that a normative pattern is not the same thing as a universal prescription. To say that something is true of humans in general does not mean that it is obligatory for each specific human.

    What's more- every Christian actually agrees with me about this! Think about it in our own world. We regularly enjoin and bless things in our churches which do not conform to the normative pattern in Genesis. People who choose to remain single because of a gifting of celibacy. Married couples who are not able to have biological children, or who for reasons of social conscience choose to adopt instead of having children biologically. Most churches are even pretty nonchalant about divorce. All of these things violate the normative pattern in Genesis.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We see the same phenomenon in the Bible itself. Many places in Scripture show prophets, Christ, and the apostles looking to Genesis 2 as the normative pattern of human sexuality. And yet, there are these places all throughout the biblical narrative where the community of faith seeks to discern how to respond to persons of non-normative sexuality. Torah says that a eunuch is outside of the covenant God made with Abraham ("I will make your descendants like the sand on the seashore"...) and therefore were initially forbidden entrance to the Temple. And yet, Isaiah explicitly overturns this Torah regulation despite its clear rootedness in the normative pattern of Genesis (Isaiah 56).

    We see the same thing in several other places. With regards to divorce, Deuteronomy repeatedly condemns it and yet says that if you do divorce your wife, you must give her a certificate of divorce. Micah declares that God hates divorce, yet Ezra commands any Israelite who has married a foreigner to divorce her. Jesus' own prohibition of divorce is reported as unconditional by Mark, but has an exception for adultery in Matthew.

    Jesus and Paul also enjoin and even exhort chosen celibacy, which is thought to be a sin in the First Testament (to this day conservative Jews consider it a sin) because of the normative pattern of Genesis- "it is not good for a man to be alone".

    Finally, in 1 Corinthians 7 and other places Paul endorses a whole range of sexual relationships that he does not consider ideal, that do not conform to the normative pattern of Genesis nor even to the things Christ has said in the gospels (he adds an exception to the prohibition on divorce "if it is impossible to live in peace", most likely a reference to what we would call domestic violence).

    In all of these cases, the normative pattern is considered privleged and thought to be the center of human sexuality. However, in the actual lived experience of living in communion with other human beings, situations and persons arise which simply are not normative. When this happens, those who are most faithful to the gospel, the prophets and apostles and Christ himself, do not approach with the question, "How can I get this person to conform to this pre-set pattern? How can we adhere to the rules of this situation?" Instead, they ask "Given the reality before us, given the lives and experiences of these people who are seeking communion with God, what do grace, redemption, and the Kingdom look like here?"

    When we ask this question, I think it becomes hard to escape the conclusion that the church needs to offer full dignity and inclusion to GLBT persons.

    ReplyDelete