Gayest Jesus Ever
So, I want to say something about why I’m using the lectionary. First of all the lectionary, is a set of prescribed scripture readings that follow a three year calendar, and were intended to be used by all churches. Theoretically, people who attend a Catholic service, and a Methodist service and an Episcopalian service on any particular Sunday, would all hear a sermon based upon the same scriptures. Now, in reality, this doesn’t happen exactly- not all preachers/ministers/priests stick to the lectionary, but some do.
My reason for using it is three-fold: First of all, because it s easy. I don’t have to work very hard to decide what I’m going to talk about each week. And by following it, I have scriptural references that align to the general church calendar, and all of the Bible is basically covered over three years. Secondly, I can potentially be less often criticized for selecting only those scriptures that “fit” my agenda. Now, in all honesty, I expect I’ll receive this criticism anyway, but it isn’t as applicable as if I hand picked only a few scriptures that easily fit the category of “gay friendly.” And lastly, what appeals to me most, is offering a new and different perspective upon a scripture that many people think they already know. If at least one person looks at a scripture and realizes that there may be more in it that they had previously considered, then I’ve been successful. So, it is a good thing, if someone sat in church on Sunday and heard one interpretation of a scripture, and then they listened to my podcast and were prompted to consider something new in the same scripture! Agree with me or not-but be willing to consider the possibilities.
There are many problems with using the lectionary, and most if not all are quite valid. There may be times where looking at scripture NOT a part of the lectionary would be useful. So, it isn’t a hard and fast rigid rule. Just a starting place. The composition of the lectionary, like the entire Bible itself, was human (male specific) determined . In that sense the lectionary, is one male-centered editorial decision based upon an deeper male dominated editorial decision.
I don’t mean to suggest (well, I’m open to discuss this…) that the Bible is human authored. I know for many people of faith it is a critical cornerstone of their faith to believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God. It may or may not be. But either way, men, at differing times in history have made choices about which of those words were to be included and which were to be kept out. Men (human and biologically male) decided which were valid and which were not, even if all were the Word of God in the first place.
What are your thoughts on the lectionary?
9
Sep 09
Texas Church Sponsors Pro-Gay Christian Billboards
Saw this on Twitter and had to write about it! Thanks to @QueerJohnPA and @lgbtlife for posting.
WouldJesusDiscriminate.com
Please read the article linked, I’m not going to show any quotes from it, but it is a good read. I’m more interested to share my own reactions to these billboards.
First, I’d like to say that they are really gutzy, and I really give them credit for putting themselves out there like that. The message- that Jesus and the Bible is more welcoming and inclusive than some think it is- is a valuable message to share. But if their goal is to get people, especially Christian believers to rethink their negative judgements of gays and lesbians, I’m not sure how successful this is going to be.
If I have any real beef about the project, is the way it uses scripture. Consider Matthew 19: 10-12, (displayed here from the NIV)
Now, this is a very interesting passage, especially following the earlier passages of Matthew 19, but how can anyone interpret it to say that “Jesus said some are born Gay.” Jesus didn’t say that unless the Greek for Eunuch(????????) is exactly the same as Greek for Gay (????????????), which it isn’t. And frankly as a gay man, I’m not sure how I feel about being called a Eunuch.
WouldJesusDiscriminate.com
There is a wonderfully beautiful story to be told about the love between these two women, although I’m hard pressed to say that they became one flesh. Here’s the same problem as the Matthew example. By trying to distill it down to a few passages, and then claim this is what it means, can’t possible provide any real teaching. It can only set the stage for a dispute about does it mean this or not. The tactic of pulling individual verses and claiming to know exactly what it means, that is the problem, not the solution to the problem.
WouldJesusDiscriminate.com
The last billboard is probably the saddest example, for this is truly a rich and meaningful story.
How they get from “a centurion and a servant” to “a gay couple” is truly remarkable, if not deplorable. If you go to the web site there is a full explanation of each passage.
The reality is that there may have been men who loved men and women who loved women in that time and place, but our contemporary understanding of Gay simply does not apply. There were no gay couples, where a couple is understood as an equal partnering of 2 men or two women.
Faith and tradition are things that many will defend and protect even beyond reason. To mess around with someone’s understanding, especially when they feel pretty sure they know what it means, is to invite a defensiveness and promote an unwillingness to be open to other interpretations. To place contemporary constructs (ex: born gay, gay couple) into a biblical era is just as bad as those who go the other way.