Harmony of Grace

A bit of a life update.

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 13:37:23 +0000

It has been a hot minute since I have posted to my personal blog.

There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, my various ministry commitments in Hilton have been keeping me extremely busy. Second, my wife and I have been navigating life as a family of four since welcoming our second-born into our lives in October last year. It has almost been a year and I know that this is not a unique challenge to us, but it certainly hasn’t been insignificant trying to manage my desire to wr-0ite while still prioritising family time and ministry commitments.

This isn’t to say that I have not been writing. I have been publishing regular articles and devotions for various groups such as the Jesuit Institute of South Africa, The Methodist Church of Southern Africa and the Emmaus Ministries of South Africa. But I must admit that I have neglected my personal blog and social media channels.

In preparing to write this update, I have been reflecting on why this is the case. It is true that I have been extremely busy with various things - important things. I have also developed an unhelpful perfectionism and only post things if I can get them to as high of a standard as possible. But then why have I still had this lingering feeling that I have been slacking off?? And then it hit me…

There was another life-changing event that took place that coincided with my lack of posting in recent years. At the beginning of 2023, my mother-in-law passed away. This was obviously a massive shock to our family, but I don’t think I have fully realised just how much this effected me personally.

Reflecting on my journal and social media pages, it was in the latter half of 2022 that I was the most productive I have ever been. I was publishing weekly blog posts, had just started a YouTube channel and released the first season of my podcast, Investigating Ikigai. This all lined up with our family’s move from Bethlehem to Hilton at the end of 2022. I remember feeling inspired to harness the writing skills and creativity that I had been developing in new and exciting ways.

Then three weeks after moving into our new home, we were struck with the devastating news of the passing of Mel’s mom at the young age of 54. Her untimely death sent us into a spiral and while we managed to keep ourselves mostly together on the outside (we had a two year old and jobs that were relying on us), the journey through grief has been longer and more difficult than we could ever have imagined.

I remember trying to give myself grace at the time and put all of my personal plans on hold until I felt better and more motivated to face them again. I naïvely thought this would have been a few months at the most. What I had not expected, was to still be struggling with this debilitating grief over three years later. This is just a reminder that no two people’s mourning is the same and grief does not have a consistent time frame to navigate.

Every time that I have found a bit of motivation to get going again during the past three years, it has quickly fizzled out shortly afterwards. This has been the most demotivating part of all. But I have kept on fighting, one day at a time, and I am slowly starting to feel more like myself again.

So what is next?

With some renewed energy and motivation, I have been working on some new and exciting plans. I am busy recording the second season of my Podcast, Investigating Ikigai, with some very exciting guests lined up! While I am working on that, I will be trying to write and post regularly on my Rev Joe channels, such as Substack, Patreon and Facebook.

I am not in any shape or form an “influencer” and one of my biggest frustrations with the online blogging space is just how many different sites and social media pages need to be posted on to make sure that all of your “followers” receive the content. I will keep working out how to consolidate all of these various channels. I have recently discovered WhatsApp “channels.” I think that most people are using WhatsApp so I am wondering if this may not be the best avenue to share my content to those who are interested in following along.

I would also like to post occasional YouTube videos again and have continued working on various book manuscripts with the hope of publishing one in the coming years.

I am wary of over-committing to too many things with the real possibility that I can’t follow through and letting others (and myself) down yet again.

But I am also hopeful that if I am honest with myself and others in the public sphere, there is an element of accountability that will hopefully help to motivate me to keep going. So I cannot promise to be as productive as I was before. But I would like to commit to being open and vulnerable about the journey that I am on. I have always processed my thoughts about life, God and the world through writing and I think my soul has missed having this regular outlet.

I hope that you will follow along for the journey and that we will all learn to listen for God’s still, small voice together - even in the midst of the noise and the grief and the mess.

The Ceremony that Divided the Church

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Thu, 01 Aug 2024 10:00:00 +0000

Note: A shorter version of this article was first published with the Jesuit Institute of South Africa.

Last week Friday, my family sat down to watch the opening ceremony of the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris. The French always have a knack for the theatrics and this year was no different. The performances throughout the long ceremony were mesmerizing and provocative. We went to bed that night feeling tired but excited for the Olympic Games that were officially starting the following day. Little did I know that not everyone shared my enthusiasm.

The Outrage

I woke up the following morning and decided to browse social media (when is this ever a good idea?). My feed was filled with people sharing their outrage at a particular scene of the Olympics’ opening ceremony. A still picture of the ceremony was being shared alongside a picture of Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” painting which admittedly showed a slight resemblance to the original. According to the outraged folk (including some morally questionable celebrities like Elon Musk and Donald Trump), the organizers of the Olympics were attacking Christianity and Christians need to stand up and defend their God. I saw phrases being thrown around like: How could they mock God like this? What a brazen anti-Christian display! Jesus is weeping!

Having watched the ceremony myself, I had not personally been offended, but I decided that it would be best to do due diligence and rewatch the parts that people were complaining about. Alas, I still could not see the connection and decided to wait until more information was available before commenting myself.

What was really going on?

Luckily, we didn’t have to wait long for the organizers of the opening ceremony to make an official statement. They shared a post claiming that the scene in question was an artistic reenactment of the “feast of the Greek God Dionysus which makes us aware of the absurdity of violence between human beings.” They even went so far as to apologize for any offense that may have been caused by the scene. Phew! Finally, we could all take a deep breath and recalibrate our outrage. We may even see some apologies by those who misinterpreted the scene. At least that is what I thought.

Unfortunately, the explanation did not seem to satisfy the angry Christians who were still deeply offended. To them, the apology was a cover-up and the Olympics were intentionally mocking Christianity.

This whole crazy situation got me thinking of what was really going on here.

Persecution Complex

I think that many Christians struggle with a persecution complex. Perhaps because Jesus and the apostle Paul claimed that those who follow Jesus will be persecuted, we are always looking for any opportunity to claim persecution.

We have seen this in many different ways. When other world religions have grown and been given voices in schools and governments, some Christians have claimed that their own voice is being suppressed. When LGBTQ+ Christians have begun taking their rightful seats at Christ’s table, some Christians have claimed that churches are compromising their biblical values. When people have stood up to fight for the rights of women, children and people of colour, some Christians have claimed that the “woke liberal agenda” is somehow taking away their own religious freedoms.

Humans love having something to stand for and fight against. I don’t think standing up for what you believe is a bad thing. But when every little thing we disagree with is claimed as an attack on our religion, we reveal more about ourselves than we do about others.

Does God need to be defended?

I must ask the question, does God need to be defended as aggressively as this? Even if we claim that the Olympic ceremony was intentionally mocking Christianity, do we really think that God would be offended by it?

Jesus was often mocked and ridiculed, even to the point of being crowned with thorns on the cross. He never showed offense or outrage. He was humble and gracious in his response to any and all mockery. He let people experience God through his loving actions and words. The many responses that I have seen to the Olympic ceremony have unfortunately been anything but loving and gracious.

The real issue

As I reflected on this whole situation this week, I kept on coming back to one question - what exactly were people offended by in this scene of the opening ceremony?

Even if we pretend for a minute that the scene from the opening ceremony in question was intentionally a reenactment of The Last Supper, what exactly is the problem?

The problem can’t be that the reenactment isn’t true to the original last supper of Jesus. Even Da Vinci’s beautiful painting portrays a bunch of white dudes sitting on chairs along one side of a table whereas Jesus and his disciples would have been brown middle-eastern men that would have eaten together by sitting on cushions on the floor. Da Vinci appropriated the scene of the last supper into his white European context in Italy in the 1500’s.

Furthermore, Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” is one of the most recreated pieces of art in all of human history. Many TV shows and movies have presented their own portrayal of this painting, such as The Simpsons, The Sopranos, South Park, Battlestar Galactica, That 70’s Show, Dr. House and many more. There was even a wildly popular image circulating a few years back of Donald Trump inserted into Da Vinci’s Last Supper scene. None of these above examples received even close to the amount of hate expressed towards this year’s opening ceremony.

What then is the difference? To me, it is clear. This particular reenactment involved drag queens and members of the LGBTQ+ community. For many Christians, this is the mockery that they are so offended by; that the scene of the Last Supper could be reenacted by this group of people, who are so far beyond their boundaries of love and acceptance, is the true disgrace to them.

This understanding deeply saddens me. Are these not the very people that Jesus would have shared a meal with - those who have been outcast and shunned from society by the religious elite?

Drag queens have gotten a bad rap from religious legalists in recent years with many claiming that they are a bad influence (and even predatory) on children and youth. The truth of the matter is that there have been countless more examples of child and sexual abuse within churches from clergy and church leaders than there have been from drag shows and Drag Story Hour events (many of which bring joy and healing to children and families alike).

It might not be comfortable for many of us to acknowledge the deeply-ingrained fear, hatred and even homophobia within us, but as those who claim to be Christ’s ambassadors in this world, we must do better. Rather than being known for what we are against, can we not be known for what we (and Jesus) stand for? Things like love, peace, joy, hope and faith. As the founder of Methodism, John Wesley, said: “though we may not all think alike, can we not all love alike?”

Image Source: Chatanooga Pulse

Some Final Thoughts on Pride Month

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Sat, 29 Jun 2024 19:15:00 +0000

This post brings an end to my Pride Month series of blog posts. Over the course of this last month, we have had an in-depth look at the six “clobber” passages that have been used to condemn homosexuality and LGBTQ+ people and why they don’t say what many tend to believe they do. I have also presented some of my thoughts and experiences that have led me to become an affirming Christian and pastor.

My main focus this month has been to dismantle the unhelpful perceptions that people have towards the LGBTQ+ community based on false or biased information they were given about the bible, God and Christianity. I hope to have shown why I believe the bible does not condemn same-sex orientation or same-sex couples in mutually-committed and consensual relationships.

Not only do I believe that the bible does not condemn same-sex relationships, I strongly believe that a faithful reading of the bible supports same-sex relationships and can give us wisdom and tools for healthy same-sex relationships, just as it does for healthy heterosexual relationships. However, I wanted to limit this series to Pride Month so I will compile my thoughts on this particular belief in another post or two and release them in the future.

I wanted to write some final thoughts on my experience of publishing these Pride Month posts this past month.

Conversations with Non-Affirming Christians

I must admit that I have been pleasantly surprised by most of the interactions and conversations that I have had with non-affirming Christians this month in response to my posts. In the past when I have posted in support of the LGBTQ+ community, the majority of responses have been filled with hate and condemnation, with little intention to converse in a healthy way. This month, I am pleased to say that I have managed to have a few civil and enjoyable conversations with non-affirming Christians. I don’t think any of us came away from those conversations changing our opinions, but we understood more about each others beliefs and felt encouraged to continue following Jesus together, even though we believe differently on these topics.

This is my dream for the Church, that we can focus more on what unites us than what divides us; that we can minister together for the Kingdom of God and the thriving of all people, even though we don’t always agree on what that may look like. Would I prefer that everyone agreed with what I believe to be the most faithful interpretation of scripture and affirm LGBTQ+ people and relationships? Yes. Would I love LGBTQ+ people to be able to walk into any church and know that they will be loved and accepted for who they are? Of course! But I am also willing to offer the same respect to non-affirming Christians that I would hope they would extend to me. I will continue to fight for the rights of LGBTQ+ people to exist and thrive in this world, but I can accept if other Christians don’t share my support - as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of LGBTQ+ people to exist and belong.

An Interesting Observation

In most of my conversations with non-affirming Christians, their justification for their stance is that the bible “clearly” condemns homosexuality. They ask me: “how can you read the same bible as me and think so differently about this issue?” For many people, the bible is the ultimate barrier to affirming LGBTQ+ people and relationships.

This month, I wrote four articles laying out in-depth bible studies of the passages of scripture that seem to address homosexuality. I thought that these would be the most sought-after articles because of the obstacle they been for so many people, myself included. However, I was surprised to discover that these posts had a much lower readership than my other posts speaking about my personal experiences.

When speaking of experiential things, like how I have experienced God working in the lives of LGBTQ+ folk, non-affirming Christians are quick to say, “but the bible says,” but when I try to help them understand what the bible actually says, they go silent or say, “you are just twisting the words of scripture” without offering any other sort of rebuttal or helpful conversation.

There could obviously be many reasons for the lower readership on these posts. Perhaps many of my readers have already done their research on these passages and are comfortable with what they’ve discovered. But I have to wonder if this shows that while many people claim that the bible is their biggest stumbling block to affirming homosexuality, they are happy to just accept the interpretations that they have heard from popular voices in the Christian world.

If people really want to take the bible seriously like they claim, they should be willing to put in the effort and do the research that faithful biblical interpretation takes. I feel so strongly about this need to take the bible seriously because the lives and souls of real people are at stake based on our interpretations of these sacred texts. If we desire to take the bible seriously (and not just literally), this is the type of scholarly work that we need to be willing to commit to.

It seems to me that many Christians are afraid of biblical scholarship. They are seemingly more comfortable just believing what their (often self-ordained and self-taught) pastor says than trusting the work of hundreds of biblical scholars who have devoted their lives to faithfully studying these sacred texts. This is something I feel like I may need to address in future posts as well.

Conclusion

I hope I have made myself clear about my beliefs about LGBTQ+ people and relationships in my posts this month. If not, let me try to summarise as briefly as I can:

I am not saying that the biblical authors would have affirmed an LGBTQ+ person if they were teleported back in time into their midst. These ancient people had an ancient understanding of the world and were doing their best to follow God faithfully within their limited understanding of humanity, God and the world. We have since acquired a lot more knowledge about sexuality and gender. We need to do the same work as the biblical authors and discern how best to follow God faithfully now within the limit of our new (but still limited) understanding of humanity, God and the world.

The bible does not directly address the issue of same-sex orientation or the expression of that orientation. While the bible’s six references to same-sex behaviour are indeed negative, the concept of same-sex behaviour in ancient biblical times was sexual excess, not sexual orientation. Furthermore, the main reason many non-affirming Christians believe the bible’s statements should apply to all same-sex relationships (men and women’s anatomical differences) is not mentioned in any of these texts.

I don’t believe that any of the biblical passages condemn homosexuality or LGBTQ+ people. But even if I did think that a few verses from the bible condemned homosexuality, I would still need to discern whether my interpretation of these verses are in line with what I know about Jesus Christ. As Christians, Jesus is our ultimate measuring stick to determine whether our interpretations of the bible are righteous or not. In all of the accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry, Jesus never said one word remotely related to the condemnation of homosexuality or LGBTQ+ people. Every single time scripture was used to condemn or exclude someone from God’s love and grace, Jesus countered that interpretation by offering even more love and grace.

Our ultimate test as to whether our interpretation of something is faithful or not, is to ask the question: “Would Jesus say amen to this?” Would Jesus say amen to the way that a few biblical passages have been used to condemn the entire LGBTQ+ community? Would Jesus say amen to the way that thousands of LGBTQ+ youth feel led to commit suicide because they cannot reconcile their sexuality and gender with their faith? I don’t think so.

Would Jesus say amen to an interpretation of the biblical texts that cause LGBTQ+ people to feel loved, accepted and empowered by God? Would Jesus say amen to a Church that is united in love and respect and compassion for all people? Would Jesus say amen to a Church that fights against injustice and works together for the well-being of all people, regardless of gender or sexual-orientation? Based on what I know about Jesus and the Kingdom of God that Jesus preached, I believe that he would and he does.

What else does the New Testament say about Homosexuality?

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 20:17:00 +0000

So far in this Pride Month series of blog posts we have studied three Old Testament passages (Genesis 19:1-29, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13) and one New Testament passage (Romans 1:18-32) that have been used to condemn homosexuality and LGBTQ+ people. We have learnt how these passages were actually about gang rape, inhospitality, priestly restrictions against the blurring of boundaries, and an exposure of Jewish prejudices in order to unite the Church.

In today’s post, we are going to look at the final two clobber passages, both which are also found in the New Testament. These are in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

Let’s read them now:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)

For the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine - 1 Timothy 1:10 (NIV)

These verses have been used to condemn LGBTQ+ people to an eternal conscious torment in hell as they will apparently not “inherit the kingdom of God.” They are also the two verses that are referenced the most by non-affirming Christians, likely because most modern English translations erroneously use the terms homosexuality or homosexual, making them easy to find and misuse. So what is really going on in these verses?

Back to the Greek

The two words that have been mistranslated in these two passages are malakoi (in 1 Corinthians) and arsenokoitai (in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy). Malakoi is often translated as “effeminate” and arsenokoitai is often translated at “homosexuals.”

It should immediately be noted that biblical translators throughout the centuries have failed to reach a consensus on how to handle these two words. They have been translated in many various ways since the first English translation a few hundred years ago.

Let’s take a deeper look at these two words and try to determine what exactly Paul was trying to say here. But first, let’s see how these words should NOT be translated as homosexual as they have in recent years.

The word homosexual has no right being in the bible

The word homosexual was only coined in 1868, 156 years ago. It was (and is still) used to identify people who are attracted to people of the same sex. The term was invented because a clinical term needed to be given to a concept that was only then starting to be understood and accepted. It is unfair to force a nineteenth-century clinical term into an ancient text that we already know had no concept of same-sex attraction and mutual, consensual same-sex relationships.

For the majority of English bibles since they were first translated in 1535, the words malekoi and arsenokoitai were translated to describe a type of sexual perversion between two men. It was believed that Paul was referencing actions, not identity. Yet over the past century, with the sudden awareness of orientation as an inborn aspect of one’s identity, the translations shifted to using terms that condemn men for simply being attracted to other men.

The first time that the word homosexual appeared in the bible was only in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version, a mere 78 years ago. I was shocked when I first learnt this fact. This realisation quickly disputes the claim that these passages have always meant to condemn homosexuality. If you are interested in learning more about this, please source and watch an incredible documentary released recently called 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture.

We can therefore be fairly certain that these two Greek words are not referring to same-sex attraction. So what exactly do these two words mean?

Malakoi

In it’s most basic form, malakoi simply means “soft.” In two other places of the New Testament, the same word is used to describe soft fabric. Malakoi was also used in a moral context as an insult to describe a male who was spineless or weak. The third and final way that malakoi was used was to describe a “womanly man,” clearly a disgrace in a male-dominated, patriarchal society. This definition goes beyond being merely weak to being “like a woman,” which is why some translators choose to use the word “effeminate.”

The word malakoi was not always used in reference to sexual acts. Men were called malakoi when they did anything considered feminine, including gambling, greed, vanity, drunkenness, and a fondness for fine foods. Some ancient writers used the term to condemn men who were lazy, cowardly or extravagant. In earlier English biblical translations, malakoi was translated as weaklings and wantons.

Some references to malakoi did involve sexual conduct. It was common for men who willingly submitted to penetration by other men to be mocked as malakoi.

Interestingly, the word malakoi was also used to describe men who aggressively pursued women and fell prey to a woman’s charms. These were seen as effeminate characteristics because they displayed a lack of self-control. Being “soft” in a sexual sense meant that a man was self-indulgent and enslaved to his passions. He was ruled by someone or something other than himself. In today’s context, this would likely apply to womanizers and “simps” (someone who shows excessive attention towards someone in pursuit of affection or sex).

When we view this word alongside Paul’s condemnation of sexual immorality and exploitation in his list of vices, it is likely that Paul’s use of malakoi was talking about the “effeminate” men who were making themselves available for sexual exploitation, perhaps for economic gain as prostitutes.

Arsenokoitai

Arsenokoitai is not like other Greek words. Most Greek words in the bible can be compared to other usages during that time to find out how people used them and what it meant to them. But there are no other usages of this word for scholars to compare its context to. It is very possible that arsenokoitai is a word that Paul made up. It can best be described as a combination of two words: arsen meaning “male” and koite meaning “bed.” Thus many modern translators have deduced that it refers to two men who share a bed and engage in same-sex acts.

Paul may have termed the word arsenokoitai, but it does show up in other writings not long after Paul. The fascinating thing is that whenever arsenokoitai is used in other writings, it is always used when the author was addressing economic or exploitative concerns - sometimes with zero mention of sexual activity. Even when these texts do refer to sexual sins, the word arsenokoitai is not included alongside them and is instead put in other lists referring to economic and exploitative sins.

Because of its context in this passage, it is a fairly safe assumption that Paul was speaking about sexual activity between two men. But nowhere in this passage or in Paul’s theology as a whole does it imply that Paul was speaking against people born with same-sex attraction, nor a same-sex couple in a loving, committed relationship.

It is way more likely that, just like the other clobber passages, Paul had a specific excessive expression of same-sex sex acts in mind when using this word. This interpretation is supported by the fact that both times arsenokoitai is used in the New Testament, it is placed in-between sexual sins and exploitative sins, such as in 1 Corinthians where it is after “sexually immoral” and “adulterers” and and before “thieves” and the “greedy,” and in 1 Timothy where it is after “sexually immoral” and before “slave traders” or “perjurers”

One exploitative practice that was prevalent in Paul’s day was Pederasty, the act of men having sex with young boys. Pederasty was so common that Greek philosopher Philo merely described it as the union of “males with males.” Although not specifically mentioning pederasty, he would have expected his readers to understand the reference. It is possible that Paul was taking a similar approach here.

Some scholars suggest that arsenokoitai should be interpreted together with malakoi. The understanding is that malakoi referred to boys and young men who were kept as prostitutes for use by older men. Arsenokoitai therefore referred to the adult males to indulged in same-sex practices with such boys.

The Core of the Issue

Paul speaks against sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 5, before condemning financial exploitation in the first part of chapter 6. He then explains how sexual immorality and financial exploitation are combined in their sinfulness.

A faithful reading of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy would imply that Paul was condemning sexual activity engaged in by people of the same sex that was either exploitative (like pederasty) or economic (such as prostitution) in nature.

Paul was more than likely condemning excessive and exploitative sexual conduct. This is confirmed by noticing that the other vices listed in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 can be understood as sins of excess or exploitation: sexual immorality, adultery, thievery, greed, drunkenness, slander, and swindling.

Paul is saying that people who are malakoi and arsenokoitai are people who see and treat others as less than, who abuse their power and privelege, and who sell themselves or engage in prostitution. As Paul says, they are like adulterers, fornicators, idolaters, thieves and greedy slave owners. Paul says that these people are not a part of what God is doing through Jesus. They are not a part of the Kingdom of God.

It would be great if, as churches and Christians, we could focus on addressing true evils as Paul did, such as pederasty and economic and sexual exploitation. Instead, many have put a blanket-condemnation over all LGBTQ+ people and same-sex acts, grouping them in with the true evils mentioned above that Paul was addressing in these passages.

Conclusion

Paul’s lack of condemnation of homosexuality is not equivalent to an endorsement. However, as mentioned before, Paul never had the knowledge about human sexuality and gender that we have today. Can we safely claim that Paul would have supported same-sex relationships today? No. But can we safely claim that Paul would have condemned homosexuality if he had our understanding today? No, not with the limited information we have access to.

What we can safely claim is that Paul condemned certain same-sex acts, just as he condemned certain opposite-sex acts. It is important to understand why he condemned them. It wasn’t merely because they were same-sex acts, but because they were exploitative and economic in nature.

I personally believe, now that we understand more about human sexuality, we can take this argument further to ask ourselves what kind of relationships did Paul, Jesus and the biblical authors endorse? They endorsed mutual, committed, sacrificial, consensual, loving relationships. Is it possible for same-sex relationships to fulfil these characteristics? Of course!

Sources and Further Reading

Brown, Peter - Body and City
Brownson, James - Bible, Gender, Sexuality
Lee, Justin - Torn
Martin, Colby - Unclobber
Scroggs, Robin - The New Testament and Homosexuality
Spong, John Shelby - The Sins of Scripture
Vines, Matthew - God and the Gay Christian

Image Source: Sojourners

“Love the sinner, hate the sin” and “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” - Challenging some unhelpful perceptions and catch phrases thrown at LGBTQ+ people.

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:34:00 +0000

There are many common phrases that are thrown around by non-affirming people that may be well-intentioned, but can be extremely painful for LGBTQ+ people to hear. Some of these may even be believed to originate in the bible.

Whether you are personally affirming of LGBTQ+ people and relationships or not, I am sure that we would all like to be more loving towards each other so please take these reflections to heart and perhaps think twice about the words that you use when talking to LGBTQ+ people (in fact, a good rule of thumb is to be careful with our words no matter who we are talking to - not least because many LGBTQ+ people are still living in the closet and may not disclose how they feel to you).

“Love the sinner, hate the sin”

This phrase is commonly quoted by non-affirming Christians to claim that they still love LGBTQ+ people, even though they “disagree with their lifestyle” (another very harmful phrase to avoid). This phrase is declared so strongly by some that you would swear it was written in the bible or even said by Jesus himself (spoiler: it wasn’t).

Let’s be clear that the first part of this phrase is true. Of course we are called to love sinners! It is a message we encounter throughout the bible and in Jesus’ own words and actions. While Jesus certainly did love sinners, his command to his disciples was not to love the sinner, but to “love their neighbour.” This distinction is important. To love someone as our neighbour does not mean we necessarily have warm feelings for them. It doesn’t even mean that we have to like them personally. It means doing good to them, seeking to bless and encourage them. It means showing kindness to them, even though they have no right to claim this from us. Many people who cite this phrase do not show kindness, goodness or blessings to the LGBTQ+ neighbours.

As Adam Hamilton says, “I think Jesus knew that if he commanded his disciples to “love the sinner,” they would begin looking at people more as sinners than as neighbours. And that, inevitably, would lead to judgment.” When we put ourselves in a situation of seeing others as sinners rather than neighbours, our focus on the other as sinner rather than as neighbour defines our relationship.

For us to claim: “you are a sinner, but I choose to love you graciously anyway,” we are being self-righteous and prideful (two things that Jesus clearly and regularly spoke against).

The second half of this phrase is where the real problem lies. Jesus often interacted with sinful people, and yet we never hear Jesus saying that he hates their sin. When Jesus spoke to sinful people, he didn’t talk about their sin, but always about God’s forgiveness. In fact, the only time that Jesus ever seems to demonstrate a glimmer of hatred for sin is when the sin is committed by religious leaders who are hypocritical and using God’s name to abuse the poor and the oppressed.

Some people might point to the Apostle Paul’s writings to claim a need to hate sin, such as Romans 12:9 where Paul writes: “Love should be be shown without pretending. Hate evil, and hold on to what is good.” But notice that Paul is not telling his readers to hate other people’s sins, but to hate the evil that they might be tempted to pursue in their own lives. Don’t pretend to show love, then judge in the very next breath.

Let me be clear: We should not keep silent about the problem of sin. There are sins and evil that we must hate and oppose in this world: sins that harm, oppress, or do evil to others, such as domestic abuse, racism, injustice, and indifference to others (I would include homophobia in this list). We should hate that children routinely die of starvation in our world of plenty. We should hate that people are victims of human trafficking. A part of our witness as Christians is to stand up to evil and resist it. Generally though, when we use the phrase “love the sin, hate the sinner,” this is not the sin that we are talking about. Mostly, this phrase is used to condemn LGBTQ+ people. It is used to define someone’s sexuality as a sin, even though many faithful Christians do not hold the same definition of sin.

The truth in the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin,” stops with the first word: Love! Let’s love one another and strive to lay aside our own sin, while demonstrating humility and grace towards others.

Jesus calls us to love others not in spite of their sin, but because they are people who deserve love, just like every single person in this world. They deserve our love because God first loved us. We must love them because Jesus said love is the way his disciples are meant to live and love has the power to change the world.

“God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”

Many people have used this phrase to somehow prove that homosexuality is against God’s ultimate plan for human relationships. The core argument behind this phrase is as follows: If God created a male and a female as the first humans, God intends that the correct (and only) human relationship that God desires is between men and women.

If we set Adam and Eve as the optimum standard for all human characteristics and relationships found in the book of Genesis, we will run into serious complications.

If we set Adam and Eve as God’s ideal humans, then we are also claiming that anyone who was born with a physical or mental disability is not accepted in God's eyes because they are also not like Adam and Eve were traditionally thought to be.

Or what about someone who is born intersex with both male and female genitalia? They do not fit the typical male or female identification and yet we do not immediately condemn them to eternal punishment (at least I hope we don’t).

But when it comes to someone's sexual orientation, for some reason, we are quick to base God's acceptance of a heteronormative relationship on this ancient story of God creating the first human beings.

Furthermore, we do not know much about Adam and Eve at all. We might presume that Adam was masculine and Eve was feminine, but that says more about our modern gender constructs than the scriptures themselves. The bible does not say much on this point. What happens if there was a literal Adam, but he was actually quite a feminine bloke?

The way that we use scripture to create clever catch phrases that can be debunked with a short theological reflection says a lot about our own personal prejudices.

We need to remember that the story of Adam and Eve is an ancient story from an ancient people. It was told and cherished to bring significance to their community’s understanding of God and humanity and the relationship between them. It was never meant to be a blueprint for human characteristics and relationships for all humans at all times. To read it as such is irresponsible and harmful to many.

A better interpretation of the Creation story in Genesis is that it is not good for humans to be alone. God created humans to be in healthy, life-giving relationships - whether heterosexual, homosexual, platonic or other. The story of Adam and Eve does not dispute this truth.

The Issue of Celibacy

Some non-affirming Christians claim that they can accept that some people are born with homosexual attraction and that this is not sinful in itself, but once an LGBTQ+ person acts on their sexual attraction, this is when their sin is committed. The argument then follows that as long as LGBTQ+ people remain celibate, they can be accepted in these particular Christian circles.

These people will point to select verses in the bible like Paul’s instruction to the church in Corinth for those who are single to remain celibate (1 Cor 7). They will further claim that it is a gift for LGBTQ+ folk to remain celibate as it will be marked against them as righteousness.

The problem is that while some straight and queer folk may have the gift of singleness as some like to call it, it is unfair and unreasonable to expect all LGBTQ+ folk to magically have this call upon their own lives, just as it would be unfair and unreasonable to expect all heterosexual people to have this call upon their lives.

Many people, both heterosexual and homosexual, choose to live a period (or the entirety) of their lives as celibate for their own personal or spiritual reasons. I don't think anyone would condemn their decision. Paul even goes so far as to declare it a holy calling, saying that for some, it is better to remain celibate than get married.

The problem with this argument is that for Paul, celibacy was a good and holy choice. For LGBTQ+ folk who are “encouraged” to remain celibate, it is not. They are told that it is necessary for them to be celibate to remain in good standing with God. It is an unfair and an unhealthy expectation to place on all LGBTQ+ Christians.

For the love of God, can we PLEASE stop comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and murder??

This is my biggest pet peeve in the conversation around LGBTQ+ affirmation. Often, when the topic of LGBTQ+ inclusion comes up, some non-affirming Christians respond by saying: "Yes we are supposed to love LGBTQ+ folk, but that doesn't mean we have to support their ‘lifestyle,’ just like we are supposed to love murderers and pedophiles, even though we don't support their actions."

To compare someone's sexual attraction or even their acting out of their sexuality to evil atrocities such as murder or pedophilia is absurd and highly disrespectful. LGBTQ folk are harming no-one by loving people that they are attracted to.

There is another variation of this argument by making exaggerated comparisons of homosexuality with true evils in the world. It goes something like this: "If we start accepting so many different sexualities and genders, then where does it stop? Will we also start accepting human adults having relationships with children or animals?" This tactic often refers to the “slippery slope.”

I’m sorry what?? Even though I cannot believe that I even need to address this, let us try to break down the reasons that these comparisons have no justification.

The key in this conversation is consent. When an adult enters into a sexual relationship with a minor, there is no reasonable consent. This is clearly wrong. When a human has sex with an animal, there is no consent from the animal. This is clearly wrong.

LGBTQ+ advocates are not fighting for a free-for-all, anything goes world. All they are asking, is that consenting adults are allowed to honour and practice their sexuality in a way that brings them joy and makes them experience love and wholeness.

I understand that there are some deranged people in the world who would love an excuse to abuse animals and children, but to compare LGBTQ+ people and relationships with these atrocities is insulting and obnoxious to say the least.

While some non-confirming folk want us to believe that supporting LGBTQ+ rights will lead to an immoral revolution, I do not know any LGBTQ+ advocates who are calling for the opportunity to molest their cats or the right to sexually abuse children.

“Homosexuality is being forced on our children!”

Many heterosexual people and particularly non-affirming Christians feel offended or even persecuted when they see more and more of the entertainment industry representing queer folk in movies, TV and music. Furthermore, education systems throughout the world are trying to develop helpful curriculum to educate children about the full spectrum of gender and sexual norms. And yet, non-affirming Christian parents are claiming that "homosexuality is being forced on them and their children."

Firstly, gay children have spent years watching heterosexual couples making out on their TV’s and in their textbooks and it never “turned them straight.” Let’s stop creating fear in places there need not be.

The reason why LGBTQ+ people and relationships are becoming more visible is because they are finally being given a voice and a platform that they have deserved all along. No-one is trying to turn your kids gay. You are still allowed to teach your opinions to your own children. LGBTQ+ activists are just trying to ensure that LGBTQ+ children are allowed the same freedoms that you also enjoy; the freedom to exist; the freedom to love; and the freedom to be themselves.

Try to imagine just how much LGBTQ+ folk (and especially children) feel affirmed and honoured by seeing people just like them on television, in books and in church.

Transgender Issues

The transgender community have their own challenging misconceptions and unhelpful catch-phrases that are hatefully spewed at them. Some of these are: the difficulty in using gendered bathrooms they feel comfortable to; the misunderstanding of assigned sex and gender; the issue of male and female sports categories; and the horrible catch-phrase tossed around to belittle trans people: “Well I identify as a helicopter or a cat.”

I would like to address these issues intentionally and coherently in a separate post soon, but for now, if you would like to be an ally to the trans community, please refrain from using these topics and phrases to condemn and belittle trans people and try to confront others who do.

Image Source: Loughborough University

The Ultimate Irony of Romans 1

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Sat, 22 Jun 2024 06:01:00 +0000

The Romans Clobber Passage

If you grew up in a non-affirming church as I did, you were probably told that you can either affirm homosexuality or uphold Paul’s authority as a biblical writer - you cannot do both. For many non-affirming Christians, Paul’s words in Romans 1 are the end of the debate.

There’s no question that Romans 1 is the most significant biblical passage in this debate. It is the longest reference to same-sex behaviour in the bible and it appears in the New Testament.

Paul’s letter to the church in Rome has been used to label countless LGBTQ+ people as unnatural, shameful and immoral.

This is also the only passage in scripture that seemingly refers to same-sex relations between women as well as men.

But as we dig into this text, we may be surprised by what we find as we try to determine whether it is fair and a faithful application of the text to use it to reject all same-sex relationships and LGBTQ+ people today?

Paul’s discourse that is often quoted in this debate is found in Romans 1:18-32, but is succinctly summarised in verses 26-27:

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual 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 shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26–27)”

Let us start by looking at some of the negative words that Paul uses in this passage.

Three Negative Words

There are three words with negative connotations in this passage. Let us determine their use in Paul’s context and how they may assist us in interpreting this passage today.

Shameful

The first word with a negative connotation in this passage is the word shameful. The Greek word atimia has been translated as “shameful” or “dishonourable” in Romans 1. Contrary to popular belief, atimia does not necessarily refer to something morally reprehensible but to something that was culturally shameful. Actions that were atimia had no societal value and would bring shame and dishonour upon you; they were not inherently wrong or sinful.

One reason we know this is because atimia is the same word that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 when instructing women to pray with their heads covered and to describe men with long hair. It is interesting that most modern Christians do not oppose women praying without head coverings or men with long hair as vehemently as they do same-sex acts. In this Corinthians passage, we generally interpret Paul as referring to the customary practices of his day and the societal shame caused by deviating away from them.

The societies of Paul’s day were “honour-shame” cultures. Honour and shame functioned as social currency. But what was regarded as honourable or shameful in one culture could vary in another. For example, long hair was often honourable for men in Old Testament times, but norms had changed by the time of the New Testament. A focus on honour and shame can help us confirm the reasons for Paul’s negative statements about same-sex behaviour.

Twice in this passage Paul says that dishonourable sex was a result of idol worship. During Paul’s day, as in the time of Leviticus, some idol-worshiping cults included sex as part of their worship rituals, sometimes in bizarre ways. Cult temple prostitution, castration, and same-sex sex rites in honour of popular goddesses were all well-known sex practices of the time. These shameful acts were certainly outside the bounds of good and honourable expressions of sexual activity.

Unnatural

Another word with a negative connotation in this passage is the word unnatural.

The Greek phrase for unnatural here is para phusis, meaning “against nature.” The way that this phrase has been used to condemn LGBTQ+ people is to say that God designed men and women to complement each other (emotionally and sexually) and anything contrary to God’s original design is “unnatural.” But this is not what Paul was referring to by using this word.

Interestingly, when God grafted the Gentiles to the Jews as a branch to an olive tree (Romans 11), he grafted them in para phusis. For God to include the Gentiles into the family of God was a move against nature, but not immoral or sinful. To use this word to define a sinful action is simply wrong.

The easiest way to understand para phusis, with regards to sexual relations, was whether the sexual activity in question adhered to traditional gender roles and whether there was an intention to procreate. A male/female sex act was natural because it had the potential for procreation, rendering all other sexual expressions as “unnatural” or “against nature.” This also meant that any sex that was not for procreational reasons or defied traditional gender roles was seen as “unnatural,” even sex between opposite genders. This included: women initiating sexual intercourse, women taking a dominant role in sexual intercourse, oral and anal sex between a man and woman, and even sexual relations with a women who was unable to have children for whatever reason. This is likely what Paul meant about women changing natural sexual relations for those that are contrary to nature in verse 26. Rather than a reference to lesbianism, this was likely a condemnation of women committing “unnatural” sex with men.

Paul did not coin the terms “natural” and “unnatural” as labels for sexual behaviour. In the ancient world, if a man took the active role in sex, his behaviour was generally deemed to be “natural.” But if he took the passive role, he was derided for engaging in “unnatural” sex. The opposite was true for women: sexual passivity was termed “natural,” while sexual dominance was “unnatural.” Same-sex relations challenged those beliefs about nature and sex by putting a male in the passive role or a female in the active role. This distortion of gender roles, combined with the non-procreative character of same-sex unions, is why ancient writers called same-sex behaviour “unnatural.”

While men having sex with men would have been seen as contrary to nature in Ancient times, so would men and women engaging in any sexual acts that were non-procreative. In societies that viewed women as inferior, sexual relationships between equal-status partners could not be accepted. Same-sex unions in particular disrupted a social order that required a strict hierarchy between the sexes.

Lustful

The third and final word with a negative connotation in this passage is lust. The Greek word for lust is epithumia. When used in a negative context, such as this passage, it refers to an excess of a desire.

It is not desire itself that Paul opposes, but excessive desire, which directs itself toward what is not rightly ours, overcoming self-control and obedience to God. Our desires - particularly our sexual desires - can lead us astray, but such desires are not inherently evil. In fact, they can draw us into healthy marital relationships that, according to Ephesians 5, reflect and point to the deeper love between Christ and the church.

The most common forms of same-sex behaviour in the Greco-Roman world were pederasty, prostitution, and sex between masters and their slaves. The majority of men who indulged in those practices also engaged in heterosexual behaviour, often during the same times in their lives.

Some scholars have therefore argued that Paul only condemned same-sex behaviour that was practiced by heterosexual people. Paul therefore denounced same-sex behaviour because it was unnatural to those individuals engaging in it - that is to say, it went against their natural heterosexual desires. In Romans 1, Paul described people who “exchange” or “abandon” opposite-sex for same-sex relations. So perhaps it is reasonable to think that Paul was condemning homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons because of excessive lust.

In a society that prized moderation as a virtue, the excessive nature of same-sex behaviour as it was widely practiced revealed a lack of self-control. Same-sex relations were not objectionable because the partners shared the same anatomy, but because they stemmed from indulgence and excess. It was believed that some people were so insatiable that ordinary pleasures no longer satisfied them. They then tried to intensify their desires through new, exotic modes of gratification. In sex, it meant abandoning the “easy conquest” of women for rarer, more challenging sex with males.

Given the cultural status of same-sex behaviour in the ancient world, it’s not surprising that Paul condemned it. He opposed all forms of lust - sexual desire indulged to the excessive height of same-sex behaviour would have been no exception.

This is the cultural context that Paul’s original audience would have read Romans 1:26-27. Paul wasn’t condemning the expression of homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality. He was condemning excess as opposed to moderation.

Whether Paul understood that people could be naturally attracted to the same-sex or not, his words indicate that he believed that people who were engaging in same-sex activity were at least capable of heterosexual attraction.

With each vice that Paul listed in Romans 1:18-32, humans are capable of making the opposite, virtuous choice. Instead of worshipping idols, we can choose to worship God. Rather than succumbing to greed, we can choose to give generously. Instead of hating, we can choose to love. For Paul, same-sex relations fall into that same pattern. Rather than following same-sex attractions, we can follow opposite-sex attractions.

As the failure of the modern “ex-gay” movement has shown, however, this isn’t the case for gay people. Gay people cannot choose to follow opposite-sex attractions, because they have no opposite-sex attractions to follow - nor can they manufacture them.

Where does this leave gay Christians today who seek committed relationships? They don’t pursue same-sex relationships because they’ve grown tired of heterosexuality and are seeking a new outlet for their insatiable lusts. They pursue same-sex unions for the same reasons straight Christians pursue opposite-sex unions. They desire intimacy, companionship, and long-term commitment.

While these three words have been used out of context to condemn LGBTQ+ people and relationships today, what was shameful and unnatural about the sexual behaviour described in Romans 1:24-27 is the presence of excess lust, self-centredness, abuse, and the violation of gender roles that were widely accepted and enforced in the ancient world.

The Main Point - Paul’s Rhetoric in Romans

While our study on the three Greek words that Paul used in this passage is helpful in understanding how same-sex acts were seen during Paul’s time, they do not get to the core of the issue in Paul’s letter to the Romans. What was Paul trying to do by writing these words that have been used to condemn LGBTQ+ folk throughout the course of Christian history? And what can we learn from this about the way we treat LGBTQ+ folk today?

The church in Rome was a deeply divided community along ethnic lines when Paul wrote this letter to them. The church had welcomed Gentiles into their church community, but they were struggling to find ways to live together. This community of believers still had an us vs them mindset between the Jews and the Gentiles. One of Paul’s primary goals was to offer a theological exposition of the gospel that reminded the church in Rome to see one another as equals at God’s table. In his letter, Paul was urging this fractured community to live together in harmony.

In order for Paul to unite the Jews and Gentiles in this community, he needs to level the playing field. He must establish neither group as superior to the other. He must unearth long-held prejudices, expose them, and bring everyone to mindfulness of their sameness. To do this, he sets a trap for the Jewish Christians. He launches into a discourse that taps into their prejudices for their Gentile neighbours, stringing them along as though he sympathises with their posture.

To achieve this, Paul employs a writing rhetoric called an “epideictic discourse.” The purpose of this rhetoric is to heap blame on a common enemy before providing a more hopeful rallying point. In other words, Romans 1:18-32 was composed to persuade the readers to heap blame on the wicked and ungodly people (in this case, the Gentiles) that this passage was describing. It was composed with the goal of whipping up an emotional response in the original hearers.

You can imagine the passion building in the room as the Jewish Christians hear the story of the wicked people (Gentiles) who turn from God, move toward idolatry, engage in shameful acts, and reap God’s judgment. They start to turn to each other, congratulating themselves that Paul is on their side. You can feel the Gentile Christians panic, wondering if Paul and Jesus were not as gracious as they first seemed.

But then Paul triggers the trap and reveals his purpose. After fifteen verses aimed at idolatrous pagans, loaded with multiple uses of the evocative third person “they,” Paul now flips the script and goes second person: “therefore you have no excuse; everyone of you who judged; you condemn yourself; you, the judge, practices the same things.” (Rom 2:1). In Romans 2, Paul immediately pivots to just as strongly condemn the hypocritical self-righteousness of those who pass judgment on those degenerate gentiles. In passing judgment on the Gentiles in their community, they have revealed that they are in the same boat. If the Gentiles suppressed the truth of God by their unrighteousness, then the Jews must acknowledge that they suppress the truth of God by judging the Gentiles. The playing field has been levelled.

In some ways, it was like the strategy the prophet Nathan employed with King David in 2 Samuel 12. David had Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, killed so that he could have Bathsheba. Rather than directly confronting David about his sin, Nathan told him a story about a rich man who stole from a poor man. After David became angry at the man in the story, Nathan revealed that the man in the story was actually a representation of David. Similarly, Paul began talking about wicked people who had turned from God, then discussed how they began to worship false idols, leading God to give them over to dishonourable sex rites that accompanied such worship - rites that involved same-sex acts practiced by otherwise heterosexual people, something Paul knew his audience would find deeply objectionable.

This is the core of Paul’s theme throughout Romans. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates Paul’s larger point in the first few sections of Romans: No-one is righteous and we are all in need of God’s salvation. As Paul claims in Romans 3:23 - “All people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” It is only through the redemption offered by Jesus Christ that anyone can be made righteous before God. The idolaters who engaged in shameful and unnatural sex rites were a perfect illustration for the seriousness of turning away from God, a way to get his audience to agree with him before he unexpectedly turned the tables on them.

Paul is saying that if you agreed in any way with the Jewish prejudices and erroneous beliefs about the sins of the Gentiles, then you are a source of the problem. It’s as though Paul says, “there is no excusing you when you throw around judgments like that discourse I just recited, because when you judge the Gentiles, you are condemning yourself! Throughout the rest of the Romans letter, Paul encourages the fractured communities to stop judging one another because judgment is God’s and God’s alone.

The overall goal of Paul’s opening section of his letter to the Romans (Romans 1:18-3:20) was to demonstrate the universal need of humanity for the salvation that is found in Jesus Christ. Through this clever rhetoric, Paul exposes the more subtle but no less deadly sins of judgmentalism and selfish ambition in Romans 2.

The Ultimate Irony

The real irony of all this is that this passage that has so often been used to condemn homosexuality and LGBTQ+ people was originally intended to be a warning to those who were judging and excluding others because the other people’s “sin” was deemed to be worse than their own. Does this sound familiar at all? If we had to bring Paul’s message into our context today, I wonder who his words would criticise most today - those LGBTQ+ Christians who are trying to faithfully follow Christ or those so-called Christians who are loudly judging them and condemning them to an eternal hell?

Conclusion

Paul wrote a letter to a church in Rome almost two thousand years ago. This church was struggling because Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians couldn’t find harmony. They were constantly bickering and judging one another. Paul used his rhetorical skill to expose the prejudices of the Jewish Christians and create a level playing field.

While Paul’s words towards same-sex acts in Romans are certainly negative, they appear in a context that differs greatly from the debate taking place within the church today. For Paul, same-sex desire represented an innate potential for excess within all of fallen humanity. When that potential was acted on, it became “shameful” and “unnatural” in the sense that it subverted conventional, patriarchal gender norms.

The moral problem of Romans 1:18-32 was “unbridled passions,” not the expression of same-sex orientation. If we are truly faithful to the meaning of Scripture, we must rethink how we are interpreting and applying this passage today.

Confusion has since come because some Christians have interpreted a few verses of this letter as meaning Paul condemned any and all same-sex sex acts, instead of seeing them as part of a larger discourse typical of how Jews saw their Gentile neighbours. And in a tragic twist, these same verses have been used to judge and condemn our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters. How much more beautiful would it be if Paul’s words were used to unite the Church (as originally intended) and to reconcile the Church with the LGBTQ+ community?

As Colby Martin says in his book, unClobber, “May we one day be able to reimagine Paul’s opening words in Romans 1:16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes . . . to the straight, the gay, the lesbian, the bisexual, transgender, and queer.”

Sources and further reading

Boswell, John - Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality

Brownson, James - Bible, Gender, Sexuality

Dio Chrysostom - The Seventh of Euboean Discourse

Hays, Richard - The Moral Vision of the New Testament

Hubbard, Thomas K - Homosexuality in Greece and Rome.

Julian of Eclanum/Augustine - On Marriage and Concupiscence

Martin, Colby - Unclobber

Miller, James - The Practices of Romans 1:26

Porter, Calvin - Romans 1:18-32: Its role in the Developing Argument

Vines, Matthew - God and the Gay Christian

The Challenge of Finding a Church Home as an LGBTQ+ Christian

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Tue, 18 Jun 2024 11:00:00 +0000

One of the most difficult parts of an LGBTQ+ Christian's life is choosing a church to attend. Many have experienced much hate and abuse in the church in the past and are fearful of being hurt again.

There are three main approaches that churches have towards LGBTQ+ folk:

Welcomed

One of the most common stances towards LGBTQ+ folk in many churches is to declare that they are welcome to attend the church's worship services on a Sunday. I think that even the most conservative churches today would not prevent LGBTQ+ folk from attending their services. After all, it adds to their attendance figures and increases their financial coffers.

However, there is usually a catch. While LGBTQ+ folk might be welcome to attend these church's services, they will never be allowed to take up any leadership roles, they might be prevented from partaking in certain parts of the church's life, will probably receive many condescending looks and will be at risk of being made to feel inadequate and sinful at times, either explicitly or more subtly. There is also usually an underlying assumption that if LGBTQ+ folk attend for long enough or listen to enough sermons, they might magically come around to the church's way of seeing things.

Accepted

Some churches have taken a slightly more progressive stance towards LGBTQ+ folk. They encourage them to be a part of the church's life and claim to accept them as they are. While they might not understand LGBTQ+ folk, they acknowledge that LGBTQ+ Christians exist and are happy to accept them as a part of the church's life.

This approach is certainly better than the first. In church's such as this, LGBTQ+ folk can sometimes find a home where they are comfortable and feel loved. They might even be given an opportunity to serve on the worship team or lead a bible study.

The problem is that this approach merely tries to keep everyone happy. Churches will claim that everyone is accepted, but will struggle to explicitly call out situations of exclusion or abuse because they do not want to be at risk of offending a particular group of people.

Therefore, while LGBTQ+ folk might feel comfortable and accepted at churches such as this, they could be afraid to be their true selves at the risk of being hurt again.

Affirmed

Finally, there is the approach that I believe is the most life-giving and Christ-like for LGBTQ+ Christians to discover.

An affirming church celebrates a person's sexuality as a healthy part of who God created them to be. They do not ask LGBTQ+ Christians to leave a core part of their identity at the door.

An affirming church celebrates the love of LGBTQ+ couples in the same way they do for their straight couples. They intentionally greet and get to know an LGBTQ+ person's partner in the same manner as they would welcome a new boyfriend/girlfriend of one of their cisgender, straight members.

An affirming church understands that LGBTQ+ folk have God-given gifts and talents that should be utilized in leadership and ministerial positions in the church.

An affirming church welcomes, accepts and affirms a person's God-given sexuality in all of its diversity, goodness and glory.

A final note

I understand that not all churches are on the same page about this. Some churches have interpreted the bible in a way that they cannot reconcile LGBTQ+ relationships with their understanding of God's plan for human relationships. Unfortunately, I have to accept that some churches will never change this belief.

All I am pleading is that churches would be clear about their position towards the LGBTQ+ community.

Let us not gaslight LGBTQ+ folk by telling them that they are welcome, but in order to be a part of the church's life, they need to suppress or change a core part of who God created them to be.

Let us be open and honest if we are willing to accept LGBTQ+ folk in our church communities, but are unsure about how far this acceptance goes.

Let us declare loudly and proudly if we are willing to affirm and celebrate LGBTQ+ folk in all areas of our church's life and ministry.

LGBTQ+ folk have been devastatingly hurt by churches who claim one thing, but practice another. Let us be clear in our intentions so that LGBTQ+ folk know where they can find a true church home.

And finally, to my LGBTQ+ siblings in Christ. Be encouraged that there are churches out there who will welcome, accept and even affirm you as a beloved child of God, just as you are. I know that they are unfortunately sometimes hard and scary to try and find, but the love and peace and joy that you can experience when you do find an affirming church home is an incredible gift that you will always be grateful for.

Image Source: David Hayward (The Naked Pastor)

The Laws of Leviticus

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Thu, 13 Jun 2024 12:45:00 +0000

The second and third passages of scripture that are used to condemn homosexuality and clobber LGBTQ+ people come from the often-read book of Leviticus (sarcasm alert).

Before digging into these verses, let’s quote them here:

“Don’t lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.” - Leviticus 18:22

“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” - Leviticus 20:13

These strong words in the Bible have armed anti-gay protesters with enough content to fill their picket signs with hatred and violence. “Homosexuality is an Abomination” and “God hates fags” and “To death with the gays” are all signs that make regular appearances at Pride parades throughout the world, unfortunately often held up by so-called Christians. Regardless of someone’s belief about homosexuality, I will never understand how some Christians see this as a Christ-like response.

While not all non-affirming Christians go to this extreme, many of the unhelpful comments and beliefs towards the LGBTQ+ community stem from this phrase in Leviticus that calls same-sex acts between men an abomination. So how do we responsibly deal with these passages?

How to approach the laws in Leviticus?

The book of Leviticus is filled with 613 laws that the Israelite people were instructed to obey. Many of these we still try to obey today (like those against bestiality, incest, lying, stealing, and child sacrifice) and many we do not (like those against shaving, wearing mixed fabrics, getting tattoos, sowing different crops in the same field, and sexual activity during a women’s period). Clearly, just because something was condemned for God’s people in Moses’ day doesn’t automatically mean it is condemned for Christians today.

Many non-affirming Christians say that affirming Christians just pick and choose which laws to obey and which to ignore, but I don’t know any Christians that still obey them all today. The truth is, we cannot and do not follow all of the laws that were given to the Israelite people in Leviticus. We all need to discern which laws are still God’s command for us today and which laws are no longer relevant. Even John Piper, one of the most popular non-affirming voices in the evangelical church, says that “there are laws in the Old Testament that are not expressions of God’s will for all time, but expressions of how best to manage sin in a particular people at a particular time” (Piper - This Momentary Marriage).

It is easy to forget how many laws from Leviticus we no longer follow. Leviticus 3 and 11 forbids eating animal fat or blood, or anything that lives in the water but doesn’t have fins and scales, or animals that walk on all fours and have paws. This means bacon, ham, sausage, clams, crabs, lobster and shrimp are all out of the question, plus many more. Leviticus 13 says that anyone with an infectious disease has to be quarantined and declare their condition by ripping their shirt and shouting: “unclean! unclean!” So we kind of got this one right during COVID, but what about our annual flu season?

How do we faithfully and responsibly discern which category these two verses against same-sex male acts fall into without just picking and choosing to suit our purposes? There are various means that people use to discern which laws are still appropriate for us to follow today.

Moral and Cultural Laws

The first way people discern between which laws from Leviticus are still relevant to us today is to separate them into moral and cultural commandments.

Some have claimed that Leviticus contains clear moral commandments that apply to all cultures and all situations such as the laws against murder or stealing. These laws are clearly still applicable today. They claim that Leviticus also contains clear cultural commandments, like those requiring ritual sacrifice or forbidding certain foods, which were applicable for various reasons at particular places and times in the past, but are no longer necessary for Christians today.

But what makes one command cultural and another moral? There is nothing in the bible that states which is which. Sure, Jesus and the New Testament authors often “overturned” some Old Testament Laws such as stoning a women caught in adultery and eating pork, but others such as wearing mixed fabrics are never changed, and yet I doubt any Christian today will claim that God condemns someone for wearing a poly-cotton blended shirt. And yet, for the ancient Israelites, all of the laws would have been moral laws, even the one’s that we easily dismiss today.

With this circular reasoning, it is easy for a non-affirming Christian to say that the above passages condemning same-sex male acts are moral commandments while affirming Christians can claim that they are cultural commandments.

Sexual laws

Some non-affirming Christians claim that while we can discard some laws like not eating bacon and shellfish, all of the laws relating to sex are eternal. However, we don’t adhere to all Old Testament laws on sex and marriage today, such as the command to not have sexual activity during a women’s menstrual period (Lev 18:19; 20:18), or that a virgin woman who is raped must marry her rapist (Deut 22:28-29), or that a man can marry his brother’s widow if he dies without a child (Deut 25:5-6), or the Old Testament acceptance of polygamy and concubinage (Deut 21:15-17; 2 Samuel 12:7-19). It is clear that not all Old Testament sexual norms and laws carry over to Christians.

The Death Penalty

Some non-affirming Christians will claim that a good discerning factor of which rules to still take seriously today are the ones that bring severe punishment such as the death penalty. Again, this argument falls short when we realise some of the other laws that brought about the death penalty: prostitution (Lev 21:9), using the Lord’s name in vain (Lev 24:16), working on the sabbath (Exodus 35:2), charging interest on a loan (Ezekiel 18:13), and children who disobeyed their parents (Deut 21:18-21). These “sins” do not get nearly the same attention in modern churches that homosexuality does.

An Abomination

Same-sex acts weren’t just condemned in this passage, they were called an abomination. Surely this harsh word means that the Old Testament law against same-sex acts is a moral commandment for all time? Unfortunately, as we dig a bit deeper, we discover that other things were also described as an abomination in the Old Testament, such as charging interest on loans (Ezekiel 18:13), burning incense (Isaiah 1:13) and eating forbidden foods (Deut 14:3-21) which was later overruled by Jesus and the apostle Paul in the New Testament.

In the vast majority of cases, when the word abomination is used in scripture it is referring to idolatrous practices of Gentiles. The same Hebrew word for abomination (toévah) is used in at least thirty-eight other passages in Scripture to refer to idolatrous practices. It is therefore not an ethical term, but a term of marking boundaries. The word toevah was meant to stipulate when Israelites were crossing boundaries and living in indistinguishable ways from the surrounding nations.

So maybe it is not responsible to use this harsh word in English to condemn homosexuality today.

So what was really going on here?

The Hebrew term abomination does help us get to the heart of the issue in Levitical Law and the two verses we are studying today.

For us to determine whether Christians should observe the prohibitions of same-sex intercourse today, we must discern the reason for the inclusion of this law in Leviticus. Were these prohibitions condemning all homosexual relationships for all time?

It is noteworthy that only same-sex acts between males is mentioned in Leviticus and not same-sex acts between women. If the issue were homosexuality being addressed, surely female same-sex relations should be condemned on an equal basis?

Scholars on both sides of the same-sex relationships argument agree that the Levitical commands to the Israelite people were mostly about the condemnation of cult prostitution which was the primary form in which same-sex intercourse was practiced in Israel and its surrounding nations. This understanding is supported by the use of the word abomination that referred to idolatrous practices. The prohibition of same-sex male acts was a part of Israel’s call to be both separate from other nations and holy to the Lord.

A Call to be Set Apart

The purity laws of the ancient Israelites, of which Leviticus forms a part, attempted to replicate the order of the original creation, where there was a “place for everything, and everything was in it’s place. They tried to preserve what was perceived as the order of creation, and avoid inappropriate mixtures. This included food to be eaten, clothes to be worn, and boundaries of appropriate sexual relationships. Emissions of blood and semen were especially problematic. One can see how this concern for a man “lying with a man as with a woman” would raise concerns in the context of these broad forms of moral logic.

In Leviticus, the Israelites are given a list of rules to keep them separate from the polytheistic cultures around them. “You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt where I am taking you from and the land of Canaan that I am taking you to” (Leviticus 18:3). The people of Israel were called to live unlike every other nation around them.

While some of the rules in Leviticus seem strange to us today, back then they were ripe with meaning. Many, if not all, of Leviticus’ laws had theological and practical significance. Tattoos weren’t condemned because God disliked ink on skin; they were a part of certain pagan rituals that God didn’t want the Israelites associated with. Having strict dietary rules meant that adherents of those rules were not likely to eat outside of the faith community. Having to eat kosher food prepared in a kosher kitchen went a long way toward creating separation and encouraging the call to holiness at every meal.

As we saw in our study on Sodom and Gomorrah last week, many surrounding cultures to the Israelites used same-sex acts as a way to dominate and control others. In Mesopotamia, men were raped and turned into eunuch’s as a punishment to degrade their status in society. In Babylon, same-sex acts were used in predicting good or bad fortunes. In Egypt and Canaan, men that were overcome with lust used to abuse their power by having forced sex with boys and young men.

The priestly writers were aware of the variety of sexual practices among their neighbours and decided to define themselves in terms of a strict moral code that reflected their sense of values based upon their knowledge and the popular prejudices of their day. Their rules called them into a life of identifiable boundaries that set them apart from their non-Jewish neighbours.

Leviticus cultivated the sense of Jewish separation from everyone else that was deemed to be necessary for the maintenance of the Jewish national identity. It was incumbent upon the Israelites to define themselves as both holy and different. Therefore, Leviticus’ prohibition of male same-sex acts was because it was a violation of cultural boundaries, not because it was inherently evil or unnatural.

Christ’s role in God’s Law

The reason Christians don’t follow all of the Old Testament prohibitions is because of the saving, reconciling work of Jesus Christ. The New Testament teaches that Christ fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17). Christ’s death made it possible for us to be permanently reconciled to God. Before then, only temporary atonement was possible through the sacrifices of Jewish priests. Paul explained in Romans 7 that the Law existed to expose our sin, revealing our need for a Saviour. Christ’s death on the cross liberated Christians from being bound as slaves to the law.

The overall agenda established by the book of Leviticus concerning purity was radically transformed by the gospel of Christ. It is inadequate, from a Christian perspective, to attempt to build an ethic based on the prohibitions of Leviticus alone. Our standing before God doesn’t depend on whether we’ve followed any laws.

The Context of Leviticus

The truth of the matter is that the ancient Israelite people had absolutely no concept of consensual, committed same-sex relationships as we do today. In their eyes, same-sex acts were always a perverted act or an act of idolatrous worship.

Like all other people, the writers of Leviticus could not escape their limitations in knowledge nor their place in history. Because of the advance in scientific learning, the ancient attitudes and ignorances of the past tend to die out as new revelations challenge old practices.

Overwhelming scientific and medical knowledge exists today revealing that sexual orientation is not a moral choice. It is therefore not morally culpable. The above texts in Leviticus should be viewed, like much of Leviticus and the Bible, as stages in human development that we have outgrown, that we have been educated beyond and should therefore abandon. Very few people today still argue for a flat earth and a literal seven-day creation of the earth, and yet that is what the biblical writers believed. How can we so readily move on from that understanding because of what science has taught us and yet we cling to archaic interpretations of issues around human gender and sexuality?

We should note that if someone had claimed to be a homosexual in ancient times and entered into a relationship with someone of the same sex I do not think they would have been affirmed or celebrated, and they would not have been permitted to openly enjoy a relationship with another man. Life would have been awful if they tried. They could have got killed for it. That being said, the same arguments could be made for being a woman in the ancient world. It would have been awful in many ways to be a woman—or a child, for that matter. A rebellious woman or child also could have been killed. The ancient patriarchal world was brutal, and many of its laws were founded on assumptions about the superiority of men.

The ultimate question is, if the ancient Israelites did have our modern scientific understandings, would they have viewed same-sex acts as sinful? The honest answer to this is that we will never know. Therefore, we need to discern the overarching direction that God has been inviting God’s people throughout Scripture and Christian history to determine how God is inviting us to respond to this topic today.

What do these passages mean for us today?

The laws in Leviticus were not arbitrary; they had a purpose. The Law was designed to move people toward love of God, self and neighbour. As Jesus said, all of the Law can be summed up in the two greatest commandments: love God and love your neighbour (Matthew 22:36-40). Therefore, any attempt to understand the laws today (and to understand how we might apply them today, if at all) must be done in the context of moving people towards love.

In discerning the purpose of the laws in Leviticus, we need to determine the direction that God is leading God’s people. This is the same principle Christians have used when reinterpreting the Old Testament’s support for slavery and polygamy. God was working within a flawed culture and people while ultimately leading people in the direction of greater progress, equality and love. Ancient Israel was dominated by patriarchal structures and norms, including its prohibitions of male same-sex intercourse. But far from being a reason to view Scripture as outdated or sexist, the Bible itself is what points us toward a path where patriarchy and homophobia is no more.

In terms of the biblical purity laws, we need to acknowledge that the larger canonical movement of the bible was away from defining purity externally and toward defining purity in terms of the motives of the heart and will. It was also a movement away from a backward look toward the old creation, and shifting to a forward look toward the new creation.

In determining how one should respond to LGBTQ+ couples who want to commit themselves to each other in lifelong relationships as faithful Christians who honour each other, Leviticus’ concerns about idolatry, violations of male honour and distinguishing themselves from other nations seem distinctly out of place. We can appreciate the way the ancient writer is seeking to preserve the integrity of Israelite life in Leviticus without assuming that the same concerns are relevant to life today. Simply put, the religious, purity, procreative, and honour-shame contexts that form the underlying moral logic of the Levitical prohibitions, understandable and coherent as they may be in their own context, simply do not apply to contemporary committed Christian gay and lesbian relationships.

When it comes to questioning the sinfulness of people born with same-sex attraction, or the sinfulness of a gay couple living together in a loving, committed relationship, these two verses in Leviticus simply do not help. We need to stop using ancient Levitical Laws that were designed for a specific purpose and a specific people as a means for understanding who we are today. It is not the proper place to discover what God’s dream is for us today and what it might look like to engage in a loving, committed, mutually respecting relationship with another person.

When interpreted faithfully, these two verses, which were written to help a liberated group of slaves understand how they were to be a uniquely called-out nation in the world, can not and should not be used to condemn the LGBTQ+ community.

It’s time we end the online trolling and throw away the picket signs, because those are the things that are truly an abomination.

Sources and Further Reading

Bird, Phyllis - The Bible in Christian Ethical Deliberation Concerning Homosexuality

Brownson, James - Bible, Gender and Sexuality

Gagnon, Robert AJ - The Bible and Homosexual Practice

Lee, Justin - Torn

Martin, Colby - Unclobber

Nissinen, Martti - Homoeroticism in the Biblical World

Olyan, Saul M - And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman

Sprong, John Shelby - The Sins of Scripture

Vines, Matthew - God and the Gay Christian

One pastor’s journey towards the full affirmation of LGBTQ+ folk

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 13:31:00 +0000

I have been vocal in recent years about my support of the LGBTQ+ community. One thing I have yet to do is share my story of how I came to a point of being fully affirming of LGBTQ+ people and relationships. This is what I hope to do here.

My Early Homophobia (fear/dislike of LGBTQ+ people)

I can’t remember the first time I encountered LGBTQ+ people in the world. All I can remember is that, as a child, I was taught that homosexuality is wrong. Whenever a gay couple came on the TV or walked past us in the mall, someone in my family would make a comment about how it was “against nature.” I never questioned it. I just presumed this was the way it was - anyone who was gay chose to go against the flow of how things “should” be.

I attended an all-boys school where toxic masculinity ran rampant and the word gay was a synonym for anything that was uncool or it was used as a derogatory term for anyone who didn’t fit the mould of a macho man.

As I became more involved in the church as a teenager, my anti-gay views were enforced by the conservative circles I found myself a part of, but now the bible was used as the justification for my homophobia.

My Gay Friend

Although I knew of one or two gay people from a distance during my schooling years, I tried my best to distance myself from them and never intentionally engaged with them.

The year after I finished school, I stayed in touch with my closest friends, one of which stayed in the same town as me. My friend and I used to chill together regularly. One day we were watching a movie when a gay couple kissed on the screen. Without even thinking, I loudly exclaimed “ewww!” I didn’t think twice about it. We continued with our day and then I gave my friend a lift home that evening. As we pulled into his yard, he started crying. I asked him what was wrong and he said he needed to tell me something. He explained that he is gay and has hated himself since realizing it a few years earlier. I was shocked. This was one of my best friends and I had absolutely no idea. I did not know what to say. What do you say to someone you know and love deeply, but suddenly confessed to being something that you had always thought was reserved for sinners and evil people? I think I said something like “don’t worry, it’s okay, I don’t mind, we can still be friends.”

Unfortunately, we never spoke about it again and our friendship quickly deteriorated. I could say that my friend struggled to accept himself and wasn’t able to be himself around me, but it is more likely that I could not get past my entrenched homophobia to see my friend as a real person worthy of love and friendship again.

Luckily my friend and I reconnected again years later, but the way that I hurt him and our friendship will forever haunt me and be one of my biggest regrets in life.

My Hidden Homophobia

So I finally knew an openly gay person and the topic of homosexuality was no longer an issue that didn’t affect me. I realized that I was now dealing with real people with real names, lives, joys and struggles.

I began to preach and work full-time in a church as a worship and youth pastor. I still believed that homosexuality was a sin, but the way I spoke and taught about it had to be more measured and considerate as I encountered more and more LGBTQ+ folk in my church and community. I had to start asking serious questions… What do we do with the gay couple that has been attending our services and want to get involved in the worship team? How do I love and care for the fourteen year old in my youth group who was born with male genitalia, but is clearly a girl and desires to live as such? These were real issues that real people were dealing with. Clever Christian catch-phrases and bible verses used out of context were not going to help them experience God’s presence and grace.

And so I began listening to people’s stories and experiences. I stopped telling people that homosexuality was a sin, but I wasn’t ready to fully accept LGBTQ+ folk as they were. I could not reconcile my previous beliefs about homosexuality with my new experience of meeting good people who I loved who clearly did not fit the gender and sexuality norms. Furthermore, I was told that the bible clearly condemned homosexuality so what was I to do?

My go to approach to LGBTQ+ conversations was to avoid them as much as possible. I was kind to the LGBTQ+ people in our church and community, but I never went out of my way to include them. If asked about my stance on homosexuality, I would revert to the age old slogan: “I love then sinner, but I hate their sin.” Looking back now, I know how unloving this approach actually was. You don’t love someone by ignoring all that they share with you about their own experience and everything science tells you about the natural occurrence of homosexuality. It is impossible to love someone fully when you consider a core part of who they are and who they love as a sin (more on this in an upcoming post).

My Biggest Turning Point

A few years later, I felt a call into the ordained ministry of Word and Sacrament. I went to seminary and this was the biggest turning point in my journey towards full affirmation.

I have always loved the bible and I made it a habit to read my bible as much as possible, often memorizing whole passages of Scripture. I was always ready to offer scripture references that addressed every issue I could have been confronted with (homosexuality included). I believed the bible was the inerrant Word of God and that it was written to be our instruction manual for life on this earth. I thought that this was what it meant to take the bible seriously.

At seminary, I learnt that taking the bible seriously didn’t mean taking it literally or taking verses out of context to support our beliefs. It was here that I learnt Hebrew and Greek and the challenges of translating the bible from ancient languages. I learnt about the ancient context when the bible was written and how to discern the author’s original purpose for sharing what they did. I learnt about the many contradictions in the bible and the many different genres that are present. I learnt how to interpret scripture responsibly in order to prepare sermons and preach the Gospel in a lifegiving way. I learnt about the way scripture has been interpreted through the thousands of years since it was written. I learnt about different interpretive frameworks when reading the bible such as liberation, feminist and queer theology. I learnt about how the Church has used the bible to harm as much as heal and how faithful Christians fought for years (sometimes against the Church itself) to abolish injustices like slavery and the subjugation of women and children. I am certainly not perfect or unique in my knowledge and I am still learning every day, but because of my studies and formation at seminary, I am a completely different person to who I was before.

As I committed myself to studying more and more of the Bible, Christianity and the Church, I discovered that the biblical evidence I assumed would support my previous beliefs simply wasn’t there. This studying is a responsibility that I still take seriously today through reading, attending courses and listening to scholars from various cultures and contexts.

I must clarify that not everyone who attended seminary with me became fully-affirming as I have, but I can safely say that everyone became more open-minded and mature as we encountered and did life with people who were starkly different to us. Every single one of us was transformed into wiser, more respectful people as we began to take God and the Bible seriously.

Ministry with LGBTQ+ Christians

Even more convincing to me than the biblical knowledge and tools I gained while at seminary was the people that I have met along the way. I studied theology with people who were gay, intersex and transgender. I met ordained LGBTQ+ clergy who had faithfully been serving God in their churches for many years. I served under their leadership and continue to minister alongside them to this day.

Jesus said that we will know true prophets by the fruit that they produce; a good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad fruit cannot bear good fruit (Matthew 7:16-18). I simply cannot deny the fruits of God’s Spirit I have seen present in the lives of many faithful LGBTQ+ Christians I have met and journeyed alongside in recent years. I am continuously amazed at their faithfulness and humility, even at the hands of immense persecution and opposition. These are true disciples of Jesus who are responding to the sacrificial call that God has placed on their lives.

Becoming an Ally and an Advocate

Finally, as I have continued to read LGBTQ+ voices and grown in my understanding of LGBTQ+ issues, I have arrived at a place in my life and ministry where I cannot be silent any more. I have seen first-hand the immense hatred and even violence that LGBTQ+ people have encountered and continue to experience today. As a minister and an insider to the Church, I have seen how the bible has been used and abused to exclude and oppress others. I can no longer stand by silently as this injustice goes on unchecked. As Einstein once said, “If I were to remain silent, I’d be guilty of complicity.”

I believe that the world and Christ’s Church is beautiful and powerful because of the diversity of its people. When we exclude LGBTQ+ people from our churches and our leadership, we are missing out on a large, beautiful part of God’s Kindom in this world. If we want to experience God’s Kindom in all of its glory and diversity, no-one can be excluded because of their gender or sexuality. This I believe with all my heart and soul.

I believe that this journey towards full affirmation of LGBTQ+ people is the direction that God’s Spirit is inviting the Church and anyone actively working against this movement is working against God.

The Sins of Sodom and Gomorrah

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Fri, 07 Jun 2024 12:23:00 +0000

One of my goals with this series in Pride Month is to unpack the passages of the Bible that seem to address homosexuality directly.

The bible’s texts about homosexuality were my biggest stumbling block in my path towards full affirmation of LGBTQ+ folk. I grew up being told that the reason homosexuality is seen as a sin by Christians is because the bible says so. This was enough for me to stand firm in my opposition to homosexuality and with a brief glance at the often-quoted "clobber" texts, it was easy to confirm these statements.

However, as I began to take my study of the bible seriously, I noticed that a lot of what I had been taught about what the bible says about homosexuality was simply not true. This was my first realization of how easy it is to pick and choose verses from the bible to support any particular beliefs.

In these posts, I will share some of the information I have learnt in the hope that you too will learn to take the bible seriously and not be afraid to question some of the interpretations of Scripture that you have been given.

I love the bible and the way that God’s Spirit reveals new, living words to us through its pages. Settle in as we get a bit nerdy.

The Story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is found in Genesis 19:1-29. It is the first of the six “clobber-passages” in the bible that have been used to condemn homosexuality and LGBTQ+ people. Many people claim that God destroyed the city of Sodom because the men there wanted to have sex with other men. They assume that the Sodom story was about homosexuality.

It doesn’t help that the word sodomy which refers to anal sexual intercourse originated from this passage. However, this says more about our modern interpretation of this passage than it does about what was actually going on in the story itself.

The majority of biblical scholars on both sides of the same-sex relationship debate have long-dismissed the idea that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom. Yet this story is still thrown at the LGBTQ+ community as a reason why God hates homosexuality.

Regardless of how you read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, it is disturbing. Two (male) angelic visitors arrive in Sodom and are offered safe housing by a man named Lot. A vicious mob consisting of all the men in Sodom arrive at Lot’s house and demand that the two visitors be given to them for their sexual use. In hopes to spare the guests, Lot offers his two virgin daughters to the mob instead, but they decline his offer. The angels tell Lot and his family to leave the City quickly as God was about to destroy it as there were not even ten righteous people among them.

The Context

We need to remember that we are dealing with a story and culture wildly different to our own. In order to understand what is really going on in this story, we need to do our best to understand the context that the story was told in. Furthermore, to better understand the purpose of the story being told, we need to understand what other lessons were being taught alongside the passage in question.

The passage before our story (Genesis 18) tells of God and two angels visiting Abraham. Abraham is praised as the model host for his hospitality shown to the strangers. In the same conversation, God declares that Israel will become a moral and just nation while Sodom and Gomorrah are a lost people full of sin and injustice. The storyteller has already set the two cities up to fail and contrasted them with the morally upright Nation of Israel.

In Genesis 19, the same two angels arrive in Sodom. There were no hotels or Airbnb’s in the ancient world. Travel was hard and dangerous with no protection unless hospitality was offered to the travelers. If hospitality was not found, travelers became fair game for abuse. Luckily for our two angelic travelers, Lot shows them the same hospitality as Abraham, welcoming them into his home.

The author of Genesis reinforces the depths of Sodom’s cruelty and inhospitality by contrasting it with the accounts of Abraham and Lot’s generous hospitality toward strangers.

Further References to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible

The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were representative of evil and injustice in the minds of the ancient Israelites. When God’s people were straying away from the ways God intended for them and worshipping false idols, they would often be compared to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned thirteen times in the Old Testament. Out of all the times that they are mentioned, not once is their sin of a sexual nature. According to the Old Testament authors, their sins were: oppressing marginalized groups, murder and theft (Isaiah 13:19); adultery, idolatry and power abuses (Jeremiah 23:14); oppression of the poor and prideful and mocking behaviour (Amos 4:1-11, Zephaniah 2:8-11).

The most explicit definition of Sodom’s sins is found in Ezekiel 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 the needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore, I did away with them as you have seen.”

In all of the above references to Sodom and Gomorrah, sexuality goes unmentioned. If Sodom’s sin had indeed been same-sex behaviour, it is strange that none of the Old Testament references to it mention it.

In the New Testament, Sodom is mentioned eight times. Just as in the Old Testament, the implied sins of Sodom are of general evil and a lack of hospitality (Matthew 10:14-15, Matthew 11:23-34, Luke 10:10-12, Luke 17:28-29, Romans 9:29 and Revelation 11:8). Two of the New Testament references to Sodom mention sexual sin, but same-sex behaviour is not specified (Peter 2:7 and Jude 7). Peter speaks about the “depraved sensual conduct of the wicked” while Jude says that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah “indulged in gross immortality and went after strange flesh.” Some non-affirming people focus on the phrase “strange flesh,” implying that this is a condemnation of same-sex relationships. However, the Greek phrase for strange flesh is sarkos heteras. You might recognize hetero as the prefix for heterosexual. A literal translation of this phrase is more accurately, other flesh or different flesh. According to Jude, the men of Sodom pursued flesh that was too different to their own, not too similar. Scholars mostly agree that the phrase “strange flesh” likely refers to the attempted rape of angelic beings. This is supported by the previous chapter of Jude which compares Sodom’s transgressions with those humans who mated with angels in Genesis 6, arousing God’s wrath before the flood (Jude 6).

Was Sodom’s sin homosexuality?

How do we know that God’s condemnation of Sodom was not because the act of rape itself would have been a same-sex act? Other than none of the other references to Sodom in the Bible mentioning it, when Lot rebukes the men of Sodom for threatening to rape his visitors, he gave them a reason to back off. He said, “don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof” (Gen 19:8). What Lot didn’t say is just as revealing as what he did say. He did not say, “don’t do anything to these men because that would be a same-sex act.” The issue to Lot was that his visitors were under the protection of his roof. If anything happened to them, he would be liable for the suffering they endured.

The passage mentions several times that every man in the city shows up to Lot’s house. This should immediately rule out any interpretation that this story is about homosexual orientation or same-sex relationships. According to common sense and statistics, it simply cannot be the case that every man in the entirety of Sodom, from the youngest to the oldest, was gay. Furthermore, if they somehow did happen to all be gay, it doesn’t make sense that Lot would later offer his daughters to have sex with.

There must have been something else going on here.

The patriarchal desire for power and domination

In the ancient world, for a man to be raped, it was considered the ultimate degradation. Rape was how men showed their dominance over the outsider and the enemy, regardless of gender.

When the men of Sodom demanded that Lot bring out his guests to have sex with them, it was not an expression of sexual desire but rather a display of power. Aggression and dominance were the motives in this situation, not sexual attraction.

The storyteller’s point about the mob’s plans to gang rape, humiliate, and subject the visitors to such displays of dominance tells us that this can’t be a story about same-sex love or a relationship between two people of the same sex.

Furthermore, when the mob refuses to have sex with Lot’s daughters, it shows once again that their presence at Lot’s house that evening was not about sexual desire. They are there for the sake of control and power. Most of all, they are there for the storyteller to show what the opposite of godly hospitality looks like.

The failure to distinguish between consensual, committed homosexual relationships and violent, coercive relationships shows a serious moral blind spot from modern readers. It is almost as though non-affirming Christians are saying that the main issue with the mob’s intention to rape the foreigners is the fact that the foreigners were men, not that it was rape in and of itself. Of course gang rape is wrong, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. Sexual violence is a profound violation of human dignity. Rape is evil, regardless of whether it is done to men or women.

The sins of Sodom were not homosexuality. They were inhospitality, greed and abuse of power. These sins presented themselves with a lustful desire to rape and oppress the foreigners among them.

So when did the story of Sodom and Gomorrah become about sex?

The first person to explicitly link Sodom’s sins to same-sex behaviour was a Jewish philosopher who lived in the first century AD, named Philo. His interpretation came about more than fourteen hundred (1400!!) years after the book of Genesis was written. Even for Philo, he was not describing same-sex behaviour as the expression of a sexual orientation. For him, Sodom’s sin was a sign that some people over-indulged on their sexual desires (www.well.com/~aquarius/philo-abraham.htm).

Philo’s interpretation only became the standard Christian interpretation a few hundred years later in the fifth century AD. Regardless, this interpretation unfortunately became the dominant Christian view over time.

Conclusion

In summary, the Bible never identifies homosexuality as the sin of Sodom, or even as a sin of Sodom. Even when Christians later came to read it that way, their concept of homosexuality still differed greatly from the modern concepts of consensual, committed same-sex relationships and the LGBTQ+ community.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah reminded God’s people that they were called to be a people that embodied hospitality, sought justice for the oppressed, cared for the outcast, and used their abundance to provide for others. The entire point of Genesis 19 is that people of God are called to be people who receive the outcast and the outsiders, not create them.

To ask Genesis 19 to answer the questions of same-sex attraction or the sinfulness of a loving, committed same-sex relationship, is to ask questions it does not (and cannot) answer.

This is not a story about men who are sexually attracted to other men. It is a story about a mob with a desire to dominate and control two male foreigners, not because they wanted to enjoy same-sex acts with them, or develop a relationship with them.

Sources and Further Reading

Colby Martin - Unclobber

James Brownson - Bible, Gender, Sexuality

John Shelby Spong - The Sins of Scripture

Martti Nissinen - Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective

Matthew Vines - God and the Gay Christian

The Terminology of Pride Month - What is with all the letters, pronouns and flags?

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Tue, 04 Jun 2024 06:19:00 +0000

I understand that some of the terminology encountered during Pride Month may be confusing to those who are not familiar with conversations around LGBTQ+ issues. This post is going to be explaining some of the terminology that you might encounter this Pride Month.

Some of my definitions may not be perfectly accurate, but I have tried to present as much terminology as possible in a manner that is easy to understand. Please continue to do your own further reading around this terminology.

Some Unhelpful Responses to Avoid

Non-affirming people (those who do not affirm LGBTQ+ people) seem to be so afraid of all the terminology around LGBTQ+ issues. Rather than taking the time to learn about it, they will complain that the ever-expanding LGBTQ+ vocabulary is “getting ridiculous” and refer to LGBTQ+ folk in derogatory terms such as “the alphabet people.” Meanwhile, the same people will easily list the names of the 25 players in their favourite sports team and happily learn the lyrics to hundreds of their favourite songs.

Furthermore, there is a fairly new trend where non-affirming people will refuse to use people’s preferred pronouns or engage with someone who has pronouns in the bio of their profile. This reveals that they have put no effort into learning the reason and value of doing so.

These are some of the misconceptions that I hope to address in this post. The definitions I provide here are not based on personal beliefs and interpretation, but are the scientifically accepted terminology accepted at this point in time.

Sex, Gender and Sexuality

First, let us make some distinctions between a person’s sex, gender and sexuality.

Sex - The physical anatomy that a person is born with that doctors use to identify their gender.

Gender - The internal understanding that a person has about their gender. This is who they “identify” as.

Cisgender - Someone who identifies as the same sex they were born with.

Transgender - Someone who identifies as a different sex to what they were born with.

Sexuality - Someone’s sexuality defines who they are attracted to. This is usually sexually but not necessarily always.

Heterosexual - Someone who is attracted to the opposite sex.

Homosexual - Someone who is attracted to their same sex.

LGBTQ+ Acronym

Next, let us have a look at the letters used to describe LGBTQ+ people. This acronym is used to refer to the entire group of people who does not fit the gender and sexual norms as generally defined by society. You will notice that I tend to use the LGBTQ+ acronym while others will use shorter or longer acronyms, such as LGBT or LGBTQIAP2S+.

L - Lesbian. A woman who is attracted to other women.

G - Gay. A man who is attracted to other men.

B - Bisexual. A person who is attracted to both men and women.

T - Transgender. A person who identifies as a gender that is different to the sex they were assigned at their birth. Someone who is non-binary does not conform to traditional binary beliefs about gender and would typically fall under this category as well.

Q - Queer or Questioning. A person who doesn’t fit the traditional definitions as laid out above. Many people use this definition to encompass all other categories of gender and sexual differences. While queer was once used as a derogatory term to refer to gay people, many LGBTQ+ folk have reclaimed the word as a catch-all phrase for someone who does not fit gender and sexuality norms. However, many still find the term derogatory so please make sure that they are okay with using the term before referring to them as queer!

+ - The + symbol at the end of the acronym ****seeks to include anyone who may fall outside of the definitions included before it.

While most people use the above acronym, some prefer to be more specific and will include additional definitions in their acronym. The current full accepted acronym is: LGBTQIAP2S+. In addition to the above, we have:

I - Intersex. A person who was born with a combination of male and female biological traits.

A - Asexual. A person who does not experience sexual attraction.

P - Pansexual. A person who is attracted to others based primarily on characteristics other than their sex/gender.

2S - Two-Spirit. A pan-Indian term for an indigenous person, primarily in North America, who fulfils a traditional third-gender social role in their communities.

Ally - An ally is a cisgender, heterosexual person who advocates for LGBTQ+ rights and inclusion.

Pronouns

In the LGBTQ+ community (in fact, in general), it is respectful to use a person’s correct pronouns. Many LGBTQ+ folk and allies will state their preferred pronouns in their profile bios (e.g. he/him/his, she/her/hers, they/them/theirs, etc). Some people will use a combination of the above or some other pronouns that you may be unfamiliar with (ze, fae, per, xe, ve, etc). Your responsibility isn’t to understand (although it would be a bonus if you were willing to do some research when you encounter something you have never heard before). Your responsibility is to respect someone’s identity and request.

Another common complaint from non-affirming folk when it comes to pronouns is that they cannot use the pronouns they/them/theirs for a singular person because they are plural pronouns, but this is a weak excuse as singular they/them/their pronouns have been in the English language for hundreds of years.

Adding your preferred pronouns to your name (regardless of your gender or sexuality) normalizes the process and shows respect for and solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community.

We can go so much further in relationship building and understanding one another when we choose to not be obnoxious and ignorant.

Flags

Each group of the LGBTQ+ community has their own flag. I won’t be able to post them all here, but a quick Google search will show you them all.

The cover image of this post is the most recently updated and accepted Pride Flag. It was designed by combining many of the various Pride Flags that currently exist.

Yellow with circle - Intersex Pride Flag

White, Pink and Light Blue - Transgender Pride Flag

Brown and Black - Queer Black and People of Colour Pride Flag (Also a statement against racism and support of people affected by HIV/Aids).

Horizontal Rainbow Colours - The traditional LGBT Pride Flag. The colours of the flag represent the following:

Red - Life

Orange - Healing

Yellow - Sunlight

Green - Nature

Blue - Harmony/Serenity

Purple - Spirituality

Conclusion

Learning and using the correct terminology around LGBTQ+ issues is a wonderful way to show love and respect to the LGBTQ+ community. Whether you agree with same-sex relationships or not, refusing to educate yourself and use the correct terminology shows a lack of maturity and respect.

Let me end off this post by saying that no-one expects you to be perfect and always know the correct terminology to use in every situation. Most LGBTQ+ folk will appreciate you asking questions, as long as it is done in a respectful way, and it is quite acceptable to ask for someone’s preferred pronouns if you are not sure. We are all learning and growing. All that the LGBTQ+ community asks of you is to be willing to put in effort to learn and apologise when you make mistakes.

A Christian Response to Pride Month

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Sun, 02 Jun 2024 04:00:00 +0000

Note: This post was originally published as a bulletin article with the Jesuit Institute of South Africa on 30/05/2024.

Pride Month brings up many different and often divisive feelings among various groups of people, particularly in Christian circles.

What is Pride Month Really About?

One of the reasons that Pride Month receives so much hatred and pushback is because of misunderstandings of what its main purpose is. Pride Month is not about convincing your children to be gay or transgender. It is not about erasing the reality of cisgender heterosexuality. Pride Month is not about elevating one group of people over another or about being prideful in the sense of being selfish and arrogant.

It should be noted that like any movement, some people do have a tendency of taking things to extremes. The problem is when people focus on the extremes and base their opinions on them as if they are the norm.

Pride Month exists because we, as a society (and often as a church), have given many queer people the impression that they are better off dead than gay. Pride Month is about celebrating the rights that LGBTQ+ folk have earned so far and acknowledging the long road still ahead of us to achieve full recognition, justice and equality.

For me, as an ordained minister in the Methodist Church of Southern Africa, Pride Month is about acknowledging and declaring that LGBTQ+ folk are beloved children of God. It is not about celebrating vanity, but recognizing human dignity in each and every person.

How should Christians respond to Pride Month?

I understand that not all Christians can support same-sex relationships due to their church teaching or their theological beliefs about the bible and God's creation. I am not trying to convince them otherwise. However, I do think that much of the hatred spewed at the LGBTQ+ community by Christians is incredibly unloving and un-Christlike. To picket outside of Pride rallies with signs saying that LGBTQ+ folk are going to hell is not winning any souls for God's Kingdom. To preach a Gospel of hatred and exclusion is antithesis to the way of Christ. Rallying people together to boycott Woolworths because of their Pride campaign is not the godly win that many think it is.

Building a Bridge

Catholic Priest and Author, Father James Martin SJ, has written a wonderful book that describes how Christians can listen to and learn from the LGBTQ+ community in respectful, life-giving ways to all involved. It is called Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT community can enter into a relationship of respect, compassion, and sensitivity. While primarily written for Catholics, I believe it can benefit many mainline and evangelical denominations as well.

What I appreciate most about Father Martin's approach is that he acknowledges that he is dealing with a divisive topic and there are good people who hold deep personal convictions on both sides of the argument. However, he stresses that while people are debating their theology, there are real people who are dealing with the consequences of rejection every single day. As Father James says, “we need to ensure that our discussions should not close the door on people being loved and experiencing the grace of God.”

This book provides helpful tools and suggestions as to how the gap between the Church of Christ and the LGBTQ+ community can be bridged. Father Martin suggests that both the Church and the LGBTQ+ community have roles to play in this endeavour.

The truth is, we can all learn much from each other and the best way to do so is by listening sincerely and respectfully, no matter what our personal convictions may be.

“It is impossible to experience a person's life, or to be compassionate, if you do not listen to the person or if you do not ask questions.” – James Martin SJ.

So perhaps this Pride Month, we can commit ourselves to listening, asking questions and learning. We might not change our personal convictions, but perhaps we may encounter God at work in more surprising ways and places than we could have ever expected.

Image Source: Tristan B

Pride Month - Starting the Conversation

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Sat, 01 Jun 2024 05:09:00 +0000

The month of June is celebrated as Pride Month by LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) folk and allies.

Anyone who has followed me over the past several years will know that it is no secret that I have become fully-affirming of LGBTQ+ folk and relationships. This affirmation has raised many concerns from my more conservative friends, family and colleagues. I am pleased to say that I am on more prayer lists than I can count because of my beliefs on this topic!

I have decided that for this Pride Month, I am going to spend some time earnestly discerning and presenting my beliefs with regards to gender and sexuality.

I am not doing this to start arguments or to convince others to agree with me. I am blessed to be a part of a church that encourages challenging conversations to take place. The Methodist Church of Southern Africa (of which I am an ordained minister) has acknowledged that our denomination consists of people (both clergy and lay) with widely divergent beliefs on the topic of same-sex relationships. In light of this, we have committed to being a church that focuses more on what unites us than what divides us and to find ways where each member can continue to practice their faith and ministry according to their personal convictions.

I am quite happy for people to disagree with my beliefs and to hold their own strong convictions. The only time I am willing to put my foot down and enter a debate is when someone’s expression of their beliefs is causing harm, exclusion or oppression of God’s beautiful creation - all of humanity included.

Almost all of the vitriol that I have received about my affirming position have come from fellow Christians and so they will be my primary intended audience during this month. However, I hope that this can be an informative journey for any who would like to join. Perhaps you have felt God’s Spirit leading you to becoming more inclusive and accepting, but you have struggled to reconcile these feelings with the teachings you were given about homosexuality from your elders or churches in the past. I believe these reflections will be beneficial for you as I found myself in a similar position a few years ago. Above all, I particularly hope that those LGBTQ+ folk who are following along (whether Christian or not; whether out of the closet or not) will feel heard, loved and affirmed.

Throughout the month of June, I will be posting articles that share my journey towards becoming a Christian and a Minister who is fully affirming (more on this terminology in one of the upcoming articles).

Some of these articles will include my personal stories and reflections. Others will be based on some of the perceptions that people have of LGBTQ+ people and some of the catch-phrases that Christians use to disregard this particular group, such as Love the sinner, hate the sin and The Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The rest of the articles will focus on the few passages (six) in the Christian bible that seem to address homosexuality specifically and what I have learnt about these passages from my extensive studies and research. These texts have come to be known as clobber passages because of the way they have been used to clobber LGBTQ+ folk in the past, but you might be surprised by what you learn about them when you really dig into the texts themselves.

I will be posting two articles a week with a few more in the first week as we start the conversation and learn some helpful terminology.

I need to state unequivocally that I am deeply in love with God and the bible. My reflections will not be about disproving anyone’s faith or Scripture’s authority. In my years of deep study of theology and reverence of God and the bible, I have come to the conclusion that LGBTQ+ people are deeply loved by God and their diversity is a gift to the world (and the Church) and should be celebrated!

I pray that you would have grace and patience to read these articles with an open mind and a gracious heart. My intention is not to change your personal convictions, but I hope that we can learn more about those with whom we disagree; that we can discover more that unites us than divides us; and that we can start to see all of God’s creatures as worthy of love and care, regardless of our individual beliefs.

If you would like to receive these articles directly to your email inbox, please subscribe to my blog, Harmony of Grace, at the following link: http://eepurl.com/idXuWH.

The Storm Before the Calm

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Tue, 06 Feb 2024 13:39:00 +0000

I was recently caught in a devastating storm in Howick. I was driving home when all of a sudden, the branches from the trees nearby started falling all over the road.

The gale-force winds and hail came so suddenly that I did not know what to do. I decided to pull over and wait it out. I could hear branches hitting the roof of the car and prayed that the more lethal ones would miss me. I was fully at the mercy of the elements. There was nothing I could do to intervene.

A few weeks after the storm, I went to Midmar Dam. Everywhere I looked were signs of the storm that had passed through a few weeks earlier. It was clear that people had been hard at work cleaning up the debris, yet nothing could hide the lingering effects of the storm. There were dozens of trunks on their side, branches holding on for dear life and piles of mud and leaves everywhere the eyes could see.

Even though it was clear to see the devastation that had torn this area apart a few weeks earlier, now in the peaceful aftermath of the storm, I felt that it was more beautiful than ever before. The ruins gave this area a character that it never had before. Furthermore, I could already see new roots taking ground and plants sprouting up.

When we are caught up in the storms that life throws us, we might rightly fear for our lives or the lives of others. We might not know where to turn or what to do. Yet often, if we are patient and persevere, we see good and new life come out on the other side. Even though there may at times be long-lasting scars that change us, new beauty can and will be found when peace is finally realised.

Jesus awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, 'Peace! Be still!' And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm”

- Mark 4:38-39

The Secret on our Doorstep

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Thu, 10 Mar 2022 06:46:00 +0000

I have often written about my attraction to nature, particularly to climbing mountains. I have discussed at length how I feel acutely aware of God's presence with me when I am sitting on top of a peak, looking out over the vast beauties of God's creation.

The problem is that in recent months, I have been swamped. Overwhelmed with meetings, assignments, seminars, and the urgent needs of every oom and tannie in the church, I have had no time to retreat into the wilderness to connect with God in a deeply intimate manner.

Reading Into the Silent Land by Martin Laird has reminded me of a deep truth that many of us (myself included) often forget. We do not need to venture off into the wilderness to connect deeply with God. While these sacred moments in nature help us to become more acutely aware of God's presence with us, God is within each of us and we can connect with God even in the middle of our busy lives.

"We can never get closer to God because God is already within us." - James Blanchard Cisneros

I think the reason that many of us enjoy being with God on the mountains and in nature is that it is easier to empty our minds. We observe flowing streams, listen to chirping birds, smell sweetly-scented flowers, feel the gentle breeze on our skin and it is easy to disconnect from our many distractions and worries.

But the truth is that we do not go to the mountain to find God there; we go to the mountain to find God within ourselves.

"Why do we rush about... looking for God who is here at home with us, if all we want is to be with him?" - St. Augustine

Often, when people claim to feel distant from God, they are actually feeling separated from their innermost self, where Godself resides. The secret therefore, rather than running around trying to find God in the mountains, or the next self-help book, or in your favourite celebrity preacher's next sermon, is to learn to connect to God within your deepest being.

The practice of contemplative prayer has helped me to intentionally spend time in silence, becoming still and connecting with my innermost being - connecting with God.

While I still love the intentional time connecting with God in nature, it has been a refreshing experience re-learning to connect with myself and with God in sacred, silent moments of the day, right in the middle of a busy schedule. I pray that you would find moments and ways to connect with the Divine presence within you.

"Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; If I make my bed in the depths, you are there... For you created my inmost being." - Psalm 138:7-8, 13

Image source: Katerina Jerabkova

Perfection vs Potential

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Thu, 25 Nov 2021 02:00:00 +0000

The word perfection comes with a whole lot of baggage. 

We all know that no-one is perfect, and yet we are told that practice makes perfect. To be a perfectionist is sometimes seen as a crutch, while at other times we are encouraged to strive for perfection.

The founder of Methodism, John Wesley, taught about an idea called Christian Perfection and asserted that followers of Christ could experience this ideal.

In Genesis, we read that God created the world and humanity and declared that it was good. Many claim that this implies that God's original Creation was perfect.

Danielle Shroyer suggests that perhaps "a more appropriate view of creation would be not perfection but potential. God designed the world to develop and function in a certain way, while allowing for creation to live freely into its potential. Sometimes creation will live up to and into its potential, while other times it will renounce it.... Potential reminds us once again that goodness is both an origin and a goal. It is given to us as a gift, but it is also given to us as a calling."

I think that this is a good way to understand God's Creation. All of God's creation, from the earth to the animals to humanity, has the potential to be good as God intended. However, at times, because of our own greed and selfishness, we ensure that we, and the environment around us, do not live up to its God-given potential.

This understanding is in-line with Wesley's idea of Christian Perfection which is not an ideal of which to strive for, but rather an ongoing journey towards holiness, a process of becoming more and more Christlike.

I believe that this is our ultimate potential as human beings - to become like Christ. The more loving and merciful we become, the more we are living into our potential as God's created beings. The better stewards we become of the environment, the more we are helping the Earth and the animal Kingdom reach its potential as God's creation.

"Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus." - Philippians 3:12

Image Source: Vitolda Klein 

Exciting Update!!

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Thu, 18 Nov 2021 11:41:00 +0000

I would like to share some exciting news with you all... I am moving all of my content over to my Patreon page!

Now, the first thing you might be wondering to yourself is: "Does this mean I have to start paying to read your posts? What a rip-off!" Well before you write me off as a money-grabbing scrooge, let me emphatically say that no, you do not need to pay to follow me or see my posts on Patreon.

Go to https://www.patreon.com/harmonyofgrace and click the button shown in the image below to follow my page without having to pay anything at all. You can easily create a Patreon account with your Google, Apple of Facebook Account.

99% of my Patreon content will be completely free to the public so please feel free to follow my page without any financial obligations at all. However, if for some reason you appreciate my content enough to support my work financially, you are welcome to become a paid patron. I will provide occasional, exclusive content for my paying patrons. All of the income that I receive from my Patreon page will be used to produce more exciting content in the future (more info below).

Perhaps you are wondering what to expect if you decide to follow me on Patreon. I have BIG plans for what content I would like to produce in the coming months and years.

1. I will continue to post regular blog posts like the ones that I have been posting to my Harmony of Grace blog.

2. Starting from next week, I will be posting weekly reflections on the Revised Common Lectionary scripture readings.

3. I will be releasing devotional guides/resources at various points in the future (usually around the Christian seasons of Lent, Advent, etc. ).

4. I hope to publish my first book in the near future. As mentioned, any funds raised from Patreon will be used to further this long-time dream of mine. Paid Patrons will receive a free copy once it is released as well as exclusive sneak-peaks at the work-in-progress.

5. In addition to my writing projects, I plan to release other occasional passion projects that I am working on, such as music, podcasts, poetry, liturgy, prayers and video material.

Finally, for those wondering, there are two main reasons why I have decided to make the move across to Patreon.

First, due to unforeseen changes on my Harmony of Grace website, I am no longer able to receive new email subscriptions which is preventing any future growth of my blog.

Second, I have had to juggle posts between so many different websites and apps that cater to different types of content. Patreon allows me to post a wide variety of content to one page and then share it from there.

If you have enjoyed following my Harmony of Grace blog posts and would like to see what else I have to offer, please would you consider following me at https://www.patreon.com/harmonyofgrace. Thank you for your continued support!

A late night stroll down the airport runway.

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:35:00 +0000

"God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers, and clouds and stars." - Martin Luther

I have always been someone that connects with God through the beauty of God's creation.

I regularly try to retreat into nature, but in recent years, these moments have been few and far between.

No matter how busy we are and how much noise we fill our lives with, sometimes we are unexpectedly forced into situations where we will hear God's voice loudly and clearly as if spoken through a megaphone.

Last Friday, I experienced one of these special occasions.

I was attending an art exhibition in Bethlehem with my wife and child. It was held in an airplane hangar at our local airport. While I am certainly not an art connoisseur by any stretch of the imagination, I thoroughly enjoyed walking through the exhibit, appreciating the beautiful paintings and the emotional responses that they brought up within me.

Due to the late opening of the exhibition, a short while after being there, our 11-month-old daughter started getting miserable. This is understandable as it was well past her usual bedtime.

She has always been a difficult sleeper (she has serious FOMO like her dad) so I decided to take her for a walk in her pram to try and coerce her to sleep.

So it was there on Friday night at 9pm that I found myself walking up and down the runway of Bethlehem Airport, praying that there were no late night flights scheduled to land.

One of the benefits of living in a small town is that one is able to fully experience the beauty of a starry night sky, without the pollution of nearby city lights. Walking back and forth on the runway, staring at the beautiful night sky full of stars, I was suddenly teleported to a different world. A place where I was reminded of the immensity and great mysteries of God. A place where I was filled with God's peace and enveloped in Her love.

Sometimes, when we get so busy that we forget to withdraw to the places where we connect most intimately with the Divine, God provides a way.

"Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing". - Isaiah 40:26

Image Source: Lubo Minar

A Community of Love and Forgiveness - Confirmation 2021

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Tue, 09 Nov 2021 11:01:00 +0000

Last week Sunday was our church's confirmation service where seven young folk publicly pronounced their faith in Jesus and committed their lives to follow in his footsteps, with God being their helper.

It brings me great joy to see young people experience the abundant life that God has to offer and choose to follow the way of Jesus.

The most powerful part of the confirmation service for me is not the confirmees' promises to follow Jesus, but the congregation's response and promise to care for the confirmees. Here are some of the words that the congregation declares together:

"With God’s help, we will surround these persons with a community of love and forgiveness, that they may grow in their trust of God, and be found faithful in their service to others. We will pray for them, that they may be true disciples who walk in the way that leads to life."

It is in these beautiful words that we are faced with the wonderful reality of the church's true purpose - to be a visible presence of the Kingdom of God on this earth - to be a community of love, to care for each other, carry each other's burdens, forgive, uplift and encourage.

The Church is made up of imperfect people and because of this, we often fail to honour these promises, but the confirmation service is an annual reminder that the Church is meant to care for and pray for all of its members, not leaving them to fend for themselves in this world. In doing so, new believers (and old) may grow in their trust of God and be found faithful in their service of others.

"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up as you are already doing." – 1 Thessalonians 5:11

"Carry one another’s burdens; in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." – Galatians 6:2

Community at Confirmation Camp

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Tue, 26 Oct 2021 11:19:00 +0000

This past weekend was our annual confirmation camp where the youth of our church go away for the weekend to prepare for their upcoming confirmation service.

We were extra lucky this year as the farm that we were staying on does not have access to electricity (although I don't think lucky would be the word that our youth would use when describing that fact). But it was a great opportunity to set aside all of the distractions that come with constantly being glued to our electronic devices and focus on connecting with God and each other.

Spending a few days in the wilderness, away from technology and the busyness of life, was truly refreshing for my soul. I have always enjoyed withdrawing to a still, private place for an occasional spiritual retreat, but I was reminded this weekend of the value of good community.

One of the biggest things that the COVID pandemic has robbed us of is regular, deep connection with others. Yes, we can experience community virtually and some might even argue that online church has helped us to connect with each other in ways that were not possible before. As a natural introvert, I can certainly agree with this.

But there is something special about sitting next to another human being and looking them in the eyes as you listen to their stories and share your own. There is something life-giving about breaking bread and sharing a meal together around the same table.

I hope that you are able to experience life-giving community in your own life, whether that is virtually or physically, with family or friends, at your church or your work. Human beings were created for community and we are all better off when we can experience the many benefits that being a part of a life-giving community can give.

"Let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching."
- Hebrews 10:24-25

The Circle of Life

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:21:00 +0000

Many people tend to think of life in rigid, binary terms. For example, something is either good or bad, right or wrong, male or female, etc. In our churches, we are quick to create rules that define what is acceptable and what is not; or we create walls that allow certain people in while keeping others out.

Even when it comes to theology, we try to put our beliefs about God into neat little boxes. Throughout history, humans have invented neat theological phrases to try and define God. While these are certainly helpful at times, they can sometimes get in the way of our growing understanding about God and the world.

One of the ways that we define God is by referring to the Holy Trinity of Father, Spirit and Son. This is a helpful way of understanding God as an interpersonal, relational God who is present in three persons.

However, one of the problems that comes with this model is that we tend to associate the Trinity with a triangular, pyramid shape. This creates a hierarchal model that usually puts God the Father at the top with Jesus and the Spirit in a subservient position below. This gives us a false understanding of the Trinity.

Alternatively, the early church fathers claimed that the closest metaphor we can get for the three persons of God is a circular dance of communion. It's not hierarchical at all. I personally prefer this metaphor. It helps us understand that all three persons of the Trinity are in constant communion and perfect relationship with each other, rather than one ruling over the others.

I think that a circle is a more fitting image when describing much of life. It is true that life is not always straight lines or neat squares and triangles as we would sometimes like.

Perhaps we could think of God's kingdom too as an ever-expanding circle. People are constantly being sucked in to this great story that we are a part of. No-one is excluded except those who choose to keep themselves out.

I love the way that Randy Woodley puts it:

"Life is a sacred circle. When we gather in a circle, the praying has already begun. When we gather in a circle, we communicate with each other and with Great Mystery, even without a word being spoken."

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in."
- Isaiah 40:22
Image source: Beth Macdonald

Do the rich deserve love too?

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Tue, 12 Oct 2021 10:59:00 +0000

In recent years, I have become very outspoken against many types of injustice in the world, particularly those perpetuated by the wealthy and the Church.

I believe that this is necessary work justified by my understanding of Jesus and Scripture. Jesus constantly challenged the religious elite and the greedy rich while fighting for the rights of the poor, marginalized and vulnerable.

We also know that Jesus told his followers to love their neighbours, even those who they consider to be their enemies. So how do we confront those perpetuating injustice while still loving them?

Reading the gospel story of Zacchaeus the tax-collector in Luke 19, I was reminded that while God clearly shows a preferential option for the poor throughout the bible, no-one is exempt from God's love and grace - even those who we feel called to challenge.

In this beautiful story, Jesus takes time to visit and eat with Zacchaeus, a man who was rich, greedy and guilty of stealing from many - the exact type of person that Jesus often chastised and used as the butt of his many parables.

Jesus' intentional visit with Zacchaeus has reminded me that while it is good to stand up against those who perpetuate injustices in this world, we should remember that they too are beloved children of God and they are never too far gone to become more loving, generous, gracious folk.

After Zacchaeus' meal with Jesus, he got it. He declared to give away half of his money to the poor and repay anyone that he had stolen money from and wronged in the past - all because of one loving encounter with Christ.

Perhaps one of the best ways that we can convince the rich to be less greedy and more caring is by simply loving them as Christ has first loved us.

Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
- Luke 19:9-10

Image Source: Jingming Pan

Saying Grace

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Thu, 30 Sep 2021 09:15:00 +0000

Most Christian children are taught to say grace before meals.

The obvious reason for this is to show our gratitude to God for the food that we are about receive. The practice come from the Latin gratiarum actio, meaning "act of thanks."

I believe that there is more to saying grace than just offering thanks. As we quieten ourselves before a meal, we are acknowledging Christ's presence with us in that moment.

When Jesus shared in the first Holy Communion with his closest friends at the last supper, he declared that they should do the same, as often as they can, in remembrance of him.

Most churches officially participate in the sacrament of Holy Communion once a month or even weekly in some contexts. Some Christian communities share the Eucharist together every day, sometimes even two or three times a day!

While we may not follow the official communion liturgy or practice every time we break bread and drink wine together, perhaps our act of saying grace before a meal can become an opportunity for us to intentionally invite Jesus to join us in a shared meal and to remember what Christ has done for us.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.
- Luke 22:22-24

Image Source: iStock

Look for the Good

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Thu, 23 Sep 2021 05:00:00 +0000

I recently heard Jason Mraz's cheerful new song called Look For The Good.

Here are the words of the chorus:

Look for the good in everything

Look for the people who will set your soul free

It always seems impossible until it's done

Look for the good in everyone

It reminded me of how often we are negative rather than positive; how we so often see the so-called bad parts of a person before we see the good things about them; how we focus on the dangers of a situation before we see the opportunities.

There is a prevalent idea in many Christian circles of original sin. Basically, because of Adam's decision to sin against God in the Genesis creation story, all future generations have suffered the consequences. We are told that we are born into sin and there is no way that we can escape being sinful. Some Christians even claim that if a child dies before they are baptised, they will be condemned to an eternity in a fiery hell... Can you believe it?!

While the claim of original sin may have scriptural backing, it is not the entirety of our story. In fact, it is not even the main part of our story. In my blog post, Where our story really begins, I explained how in the story of creation, before human beings chose to sin against God, they were inherently good beings, created for a whole life in communion with God. I don't believe that this inherent goodness disappeared after Adam's stumble.

I agree that all human beings have a natural tendency to sin and perpetuate evil at times. But we also have an inherent goodness inside of us, reminding us of God's original blessing for humanity and the world.

When we look at people and the world, we should first seek the original blessing inside of them, rather than immediately focusing on what is wrong with them/the situation.

Is this not how Jesus lived? When a woman who was caught in adultery was brought to Jesus, Jesus chose to see her future potential for new life instead of focusing on her previous acts of sin. According to Jewish Law, the woman should have been stoned to death. But Jesus acknowledged her as a human being who made some mistakes and he offered her another chance to experience a new, abundant life of grace and forgiveness.

Throughout Jesus' life, he seemed to focus on God's original blessing for humanity and the world, as opposed to original sin that many of us seem to make our primary focus.

Listening to Jason Mraz's new song has reminded me that if we can learn to see and accentuate the good in the world, just like Jesus did, the world would surely be a sweeter place.

"Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
- Philippians 4:8 (NRSV)

Image Source: Charisse Kenion

How I met my maker in metal music

noreply@blogger.com (Rev Joe Taylor) — Fri, 17 Sep 2021 10:19:00 +0000

Many Christians claim that they first met God in a church or while reading their bibles.

My story is a bit different.

"God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees and flowers and clouds and stars."
- Martin Luther

I was introduced to metal music at a young age. I loved the husky screaming over grungy, melodic riffs on the electric guitar. When I rocked out to Avenged Sevenfold and Killswitch Engage, my soul felt refreshed and overjoyed.

I starkly remember visiting one of my friend's youth events at a strict, fundamental church and being told by a leader there that rock music is from the devil and as Christians, we should only be filling our lives with good and pure things (which according to him was the multi-million dollar worship industry of the time). According to this youth leader, there was no holiness to be found in the rock-music scene and it was our duty as Christians to take Jesus to them!

The problem was that, while I enjoyed some of the worship music that was in circulation at the time, most of it felt manufactured and I struggled to connect with God through it.

One of the best things that could have happened to me was building a friendship with our church's new youth pastor when I was about sixteen years old. He showed me that God speaks to us all unique ways. In fact, if we learn to open our eyes, we can experience God in places we least expect it.

In the gospels, people often wouldn't find Jesus in the synagogues and so-called "religious" places, but rather in the slums, at the wells, with stinky fishermen and even hanging on a cross.

Jesus himself told us that we will find him in the despair of the prisoners, the pain of the sick, the hunger of the poor, and the loneliness of the stranger (Matthew 25).

And yet, unfortunately, Christians seem to be famous (or rather infamous) for who they exclude, rather than who they include.

"For in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible - all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
- Colossians 1:16-17

If we claim that God is in everything, why do we think that we have the right to decide who or what carries the image/presence of God?

When I was still young, I noticed something good and true in metal music that started me on a journey towards other things that were good and true. It was only later that I realized that God didn't lead me from evil, devil music to a place where I could meet God. Rather, God was right there with me in the honest, screamo lyrics and sweaty mosh pits.

As I have grown in my faith, I have noticed this truth carry into other parts of my life. We do not need to take Jesus to the sinful, the lost and the broken. We can meet with Jesus who is already present there and bring out the good that is already in that situation.

I truly believe that one of the greatest parts of living in a relationship with God is being able to experience Christ in all people and all things.

Image Source: Luuk Wouters