Racial liberation and the gay marriage debate

One of the interesting side-plots in the whole gay marriage debate - especially since President Obama publicly announced his support - involves the disposition of the black church towards the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general. James Cone announced his feelings loud and clear here. Of course this position comes as no surprise. Many within liberationist (both racial and gender) circles have been associating the causes of racial justice, gender justice, and sexual justice for years. Desmond Tutu, for instance, has said, “We struggled against apartheid because we were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about. It is the same with homosexuality. The orientation is a given, not a matter of choice. It would be crazy for someone to choose to be gay, given the homophobia that is present.” The reasoning is this: The Gospel is a message of liberation. The Kingdom is upside down - humbling the powerful while giving power to the powerless, chastizing the elite while comforting the marginalized. This is the guiding principle of liberation theology. And, despite the many flaws (and there are many) of liberation theology, it must be granted that the kingdom IS truly upside down and counter-cultural. We can (and will) argue and debate about how to best implement or practice this kingdom principle - but the principle itself is biblical and powerful.


Here is the question however: Does scripture regard issues of race and gender in the same way that it regards issues of sexuality? Because homosexuals are relatively powerless. They are certainly marginalized. Should the arguments applied to racial or gender liberation be applied to sexual liberation as well? The answer from scripture is clearly "no." William Webb's redemptive movement hermeneutic illustrates this point pretty well. This is why most who associate sexuality with race and gender will choose to make arguments based on the fallibility, ignorance, or outright homophobia of ancient people especially Paul. Paul was just mistaken or perhaps he was closeted himself. If he would have been as enlightened as we certainly are, he would not have said those nasty things about homosexuality (or the dozens of other sins that we energetically try to justify in our own lives). Of course no one wants to be labeled a bigot or closed-minded. And this is unfortunately becoming the popular assumption. If you are against gay marriage, you are against civil rights, you are closed-minded, hateful, and probably dangerous. You might as well be one of those rednecks from the deep south spraying water hoses at black teenagers during the civil rights protests in the 60's. Classic straw man - falsely associating a person's beliefs with those of another, more despicable person for the purpose of dismissing or underminding their arguments. Clearly we are called to love and reconciliation. And clearly, we shouldn't treat homosexuality as some sort of "unforgiveable" sin (1 Cor. 6:9-11)! But if we are interested at all in taking scripture seriously on this topic, we must acknowledge that it does in fact call this "sin." It is just not regarded in the same way as race or gender. And to attempt to bully black churches (or anyone) into this position just because of their race (and their politics) is, frankly, insulting.

More Nationalistic Hermeneutics

I know that I can always count on the "local Bible store in the mall" for some wonderful Christian tchotchkes and some fantastic examples of the Bible handled poorly. My issues with this banner are: 1) It totally ignores the context and the historical situation of Numbers 10. 2) This exercise of prooftexting is done in the service of an unapologetically American nationalistic theology. 3) It reduces the message of scripture down to mere sloganism - as if the purpose of scripture was to supply us with endless witty sayings for our T-shirts, church signs, and decorative wall art. 4) If a cult group did this with scripture we would be justifyably indignant and the "local Bible store in the mall" would never dream of selling it.

Trayvon Martin and the media's tribalistic hermeneutic

(This brief video clip shows both the edited and the unedited versions of the 911 call of George Zimmerman on the night that Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. The producer of the NBC segment has recently been fired as a result.)

Hermeneutics from everyday life. It is getting more and more difficult to get to the truth of any matter due to the rampant politicization of every event (be it tragic or sublime). The tribalistic hermeneutic drives the media's (and therefore also our own) interpretation and understanding of virtually everything. There is no truth. Only spin. So Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman become useful pawns to support whatever narrative we would like to protect. (It needs mentioning that both the left and the right are equally guilty of this.)

And of course what is true of the Trayvon Martin case is also increasingly true of biblical hermeneutics in a tribalistic society as well. We choose or interpret the data in ways that support our narrative. Interpretations are politicized and weaponized against those outside of our tribe. What gets lost in the process? The voice of the Other speaking (often very uncomfortable and often very liberating) truth into our lives and into our communities.

More Nationalistic Interpretations

Where do you even begin with a picture like this? The shocking equivalency of an American soldier to Jesus Christ? The misunderstanding and oversimplification of why and what Jesus died for? The in-your-face nationalism? I am a fan of this nation (much of the time) and of the American military (in general). I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with citizens of the Kingdom desiring the well-being of the nation that they happen to live in. I also don't think that fighting on behalf of your nation in the military is necessarily wrong and can be praiseworthy. I have several very good friends who are in the military and whom I admire greatly for their service and also for their faithfulness to Christ. But this is just ridiculous and border-line offensive.

The importance of historical hermeneutics

To ignore what can be learned by attending to scriptural interpretation for most of church history--including, if not especailly, by broadly orthodox Christians who were not American evangelicals--is foolish and arrogant. One need not be bound to accept every biblical interpretation rendered in every age of the church to nonetheless benefit enormously from the long experience and possible insights of Bible-reading, theologically reflecting believers across two millennia.

Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 155.

heremeutical trajectories

Although the Bible is clear on central matters of the faith, it is flexible in many matters that pertain to the day-to-day. To put it more positively, the Bible sets trajectories, not rules, for a good many issues that confront the church...Different [people] in different contexts will enter into these trajectories in different ways and, therefore, express their commitment to Christ differently. This flexibility of application is precisely what is modeled for us int he pages of Scripture itself.

Peter Enns in Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 141.

Is the doctrine of inspiration deistic?

Of course the Bible as described above is the primary testifying, mediating witness to Jesus Christ. Of course the Bible comes to the church in writing and therefore enjoys a durability and some level of material objectivity over time (leaving aside the problems of copying and translating). But something is nevertheless wrong with the idea that all presence, communication, fellowship, exchange, and commerce between God and humans always and only transpire somehow through the paper and ink of the Bible. That is an overly rationalistic, modern approach to faith and life. John Webster rightly notes, "Accounts of scriptural inspiration are not infrequently curiously deistic, in so far as the biblical text can itself become a revelatory agent by virtue of an act of divine inspiration in the past."

Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 119