The Gift of Gayness

The Gift of Gayness

Exodus International Closes, Thank God

Exodus International Closes, Thank God

Rev. Dr. Durrell Watkins

Alan Chambers, the head of Exodus International has apologized for the misguided and devastating teachings of his now erstwhile organization. Exodus International was an evangelical "ministry" that told same-gender loving people that their innate sexual orientation was disordered and could be "cured" by prayer and "reparative therapy."

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1973 and since 1998 has said that reparative therapy is dangerous and harmful; but Exodus International didn’t embrace solid science. They also had little regard for progressive theology and contemporary biblical scholarship. Instead, they confused heterosexism and homophobia with faith and spirituality, and many lives were badly hurt by Exodus International's teachings.

Gay people being taught to hate themselves and that God would reject them eternally simply for their sexual orientation often compounded their pain by lying about their sexuality, and all too often, when hopelessness and despair overwhelmed, some of them attempted suicide, and those attempts often succeeded.

The pain, the damage, and the lies perpetuated by Exodus International can't be undone. Hopefully, for many people, the pain can be healed, but the lost years, and in many cases, the lost lives, can't be restored.

Some will not accept Alan Chambers' apology. They will say that it is too little, too late, or possibly even insincere. But I think we have no choice but to accept it. Was it too little, too late? Obviously. Was it more than any of us ever expected? Absolutely. Did it undermine the pseudo-science and oppressive theology that have tormented LBTG people for years? Probably. Hopefully.

In any case, acknowledging that Exodus International was mistaken and then apologizing for the harm Exodus did is all Alan Chambers could do at this point. For doing what he could, I am grateful. He has to live with the knowledge that some are not alive because they couldn't live with the self-loathing imposed on them by Chambers' organization, and that is a heavy burden to bear. But it is his karma. What he didn't have to do, but responding to the better angels of his nature finally chose to do, is admit his error and apologize for it. Having done all that he can at this point, we must now summon the courage to respond with grace.  And, even as we accept this much needed apology, let’s continue to work to build a world where people can learn to love themselves for who they are, and where the sacred value of all people is affirmed!

 

Dr. Watkins is the senior minister of Sunshine Cathedral in Ft Lauderdale. www.sunshinecathedral.org

 

 

another Q/A (from some brochure that i've used forever)

Q&A with Daniel Helminiak

(Dr. Helminiak is a former Roman Catholic priest with a PhD in Systematic Theology and another PhD in Psychology. Daniel Helminiak is the author of What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality)

Q: What was the point of the Bible texts if not to condemn homosexuality?

A: It is not easy to summarize briefly the body of research on homosexuality in the Bible. But these are the interpretations that some scholars are proposing:

 

• The story of Sodom in Genesis 19 is about offense against the sacred duty of hospitality. That is how Ezekiel 16.48-49 and Wisdom 9.13-14 interpret this text. The attempted male rape only heightens the atrocity of this offense.

 

• Leviticus 18.22 does forbid male-male sex as an "abomination." But the word simply means an impurity or a religious taboo — like eating pork. As in the case of Catholics who used to be forbidden under pain of mortal sin to eat meat on Friday, the offense was not in the act itself but in the betrayal of one's religion. The ancient Jews were to avoid practices common among the unclean Gentiles.

 

• Romans 1.27 mentions men having relations with men. But the terms used to describe them are "dishonorable" and "shameless." These refer deliberately to social disapproval, not to ethical condemnation. Moreover, according to Paul's usage, different from the prevalent Stoic philosophy of the day, para physin ("unnatural") would best be translated "atypical" or "beyond the ordinary." So it bears no reference to natural law.

And it can imply no ethical condemnation because in Romans 11.24 God is said to act para physin. Paul sees gay sex as an impurity (see Rm. 1.24), just like uncircumcision or eating forbidden foods. He mentions it to make the main point of his letter, that purity requirements of the Jewish Law are not relevant in Christ Jesus.

See L. William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex.

 

• 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 and 1 Timothy 1.8-10 list arsenokoitai among those who will be excluded from the Reign of God. This obscure term has been translated "homosexuals" but its exact meaning is debated. It certainly does not include women but only some kind of male sexual offenders. If it does refer to men having sex with men — which is dubious — it must be interpreted in light of the abuse and licentiousness commonly associated with male-male sex in the Roman Empire.

See Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality.

 

• Finally, Genesis 1-3 shows Adam and Eve created for mutual companionship and procreation. These accounts use the most standard of human relationships to teach a religious lesson. The point is the love and wisdom of God, who made all things good and wills us no evil. Nothing suggests the biblical authors intended a lesson on sexual orientation.

 

Q: Hasn't there been constant opposition to homosexuality throughout Christian history?

A: Recent and detailed historical scholarship questions that claim. Although one could find some opposing voice in every century, there was no common opposition to homosexuality in Christian Europe until the late 12th century except for a period around the collapse of the Roman Empire. Indeed, for nearly two centuries after Christianity had become the state religion, Christian emperors in Eastern cities not only tolerated but actually taxed gay prostitution. In 7th century Visigoth Spain, a series of six national church councils refused to support the ruler's legislation against homogenital acts.

By the 9th century almost every area in Christian Europe had local law codes, including detailed sections on sexual offenses; none outside of Spain forbade homogenital acts. By the High Middle Ages, a gay subculture thrived, as in Greco-Roman times. A body of gay literature was standard discussion material at courses in the medieval universities where clerics were educated.

Opposition to homosexuality, as in Augustine and Chrysostom, rested on reasons unacceptable today: "natural-law" arguments based on beliefs about supposed sexual practices among hares, hyenas, and weasels; a philosophical Stoicism that was suspicious of any sexual enjoyment; a sexism that saw a degrading effeminacy in being the receptive partner in sex. All-out Christian opposition to homosexuality arose at a time when medieval society first began to oppress many minority groups: Jews, heretics, the poor, usurers. A campaign to stir up support for the Crusades by vilifying the Muslims with charges of homosexual rape also played a part in Christian Europe's change of attitude toward gay and lesbian sex.

See John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.

Is it a sin to be gay? (Hint: the answer is "No")

Q&A About the Bible & Homosexuality (selections from a brochure by Rev. Durrell Watkins, D.Min.)

 Is it a sin to be gay?

“Sin” means to miss the mark (an archery and hunting metaphor). To “be” anything is a matter of ontology (of “is-ness”). So to discover that one is something and to be honest about it can never be missing the mark.

Did Jesus condemn homosexuality?

Jesus condemned precious little. One of the few things that he did condemn was the tendency of religious people to participate in condemnation! Jesus seemed to have a great deal of patience with almost everything other than self-righteous people who tried to enforce religious rules in a way to oppress or control others.

When was Jesus sympathetic to homosexual persons?

First of all, let’s not force a Euro-centric, 19^th century view of same-gender love/attraction onto the first century, Palestinian Jesus. The word “homosexual” would not have been part of Jesus’ vocabulary, and our understanding of homosexuality might not have even existed in Jesus’ world! However, you may recall that in the 8^th chapter of Matthew’s gospel (and the story is repeated in the 7^th chapter of Luke’s gospel) Jesus heals a centurion’s servant. The original hearers of that story would have assumed that the servant was the centurion’s lover. From what we know of 1^st century Roman culture, we know that such relationships were not uncommon. And for a person of such high rank to be so concerned about a servant that he would approach a faith healer of lower status and another religion in a desperate attempt to help his servant suggests an intimacy far greater than one would expect between a military officer and his “servant.” How did Jesus respond to the centurion? He praised his faith! His relationship was not condemned or even questioned.

You said there may be a couple of times when Jesus was friendly toward same-sex expressions of love. What is the other example?

In Matthew 19, Jesus defines “eunuchs” in a much broader sense than we normally hear. He says that, there are those who are castrated, which is the usual definition. But he also says there are 2 other kinds of eunuchs. He said some “choose” to be eunuchs (living a life of celibacy) and that others are “born” eunuchs (people who by nature, or from birth, are sexually different).  He also said that not everyone would accept his broad and inclusive (and non-judgmental) definition of eunuchs, but he said, “whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” Jesus was giving an example of sexual diversity…He did not suggest that anything was wrong with any of the “eunuchs”, and he certainly did not propose an “ex-eunuch” program. Some of us are “different” from the majority, and Jesus seems to suggest that it’s OK, and that everyone who can accept such diversity needs to accept it! His teaching reminds us of Isaiah 56 where the prophet places these words in the mouth of God, “The eunuch need not say, ‘I am a dry (barren) tree’…I will give them in my house a monument and name which will be even better than having children; an eternal, imperishable name…For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” In any case, Jesus never condemned same-sex love or attraction.

But aren’t there bible verses that say it is a sin to be gay?

Not exactly. It depends on how you read the bible. The people who wrote the documents that in time became our bible were products of their time and culture. They had specific agendas and were writing to particular communities, usually in response to definite events. None of them had any idea that 21^st century Americans would be reading their work. In fact, none of them knew there was a North American continent or that the world wasn’t flat. And so, we do read statements in the bible that support slavery, that assume women are in some way inferior to men, that seem to suggest God takes sides in bloody military conflicts. Today, we do not accept that women are in any way inferior to men. Today, we believe slavery to be one of the greatest evils of human history. Today, many of us believe that war is almost never the will of God. Do we read the bible with an awareness of its historical and cultural and linguistic contexts? Or do we cling to isolated verses that seem to support one prejudice or the other? How we choose to read the bible will determine if we believe the bible promotes homophobia.

What About Sodom & Gomorrah?

Some people will suggest that Genesis 19 condemns homosexuality. It is the story of Sodom & Gomorrah, where a gang of violent men threaten to rape two strangers. The strangers happen to be angels (and presumably male), but the obvious “sin” of the story has nothing to do with the genders of the characters. Rape is always brutal, inhuman, horrifying, terrible and wrong. No one could disagree with that. There isn’t any love or even healthy attraction in the story. Degrading or hurting someone by forcing them to perform any sexual act against their will demands our outrage. But that has nothing to do with gay people finding joy in their mutual relationships.

Doesn’t Leviticus say it’s wrong to be gay?

Leviticus discourages certain behaviors, but its writers have no clue that sexuality might be biologically predisposed or that it might be a psycho-social orientation. So, no, Leviticus doesn’t condemn any contemporary notion of homosexuality because it is not aware of any such notion. The book lays out many prohibitions for an ancient community. Those prohibitions include wearing certain types of fabric, eating shellfish and pork, even getting tattoos! Leviticus 19.26 even says it is wrong to eat rare meat! Isn’t it funny that people who think Leviticus justifies their anti-gay prejudices have no problem eating seafood or rare steaks or adorning themselves with body art?

Are there any other biblical passages to consider?

Not many. Out of the entire bible, 66 books (a few more if you’re Roman Catholic) written by many people covering a period of more than a thousand years, we’ve already discussed half the passages that are routinely used to shame, condemn, harass, or terrorize gay and lesbian people! The other three passages come from books attributed to St. Paul in the New Testament (most notably, 2 verses from the first chapter of Romans, which is almost always taken out of context and even misquoted; the context for the Romans 1 passage is idolatry, not sexual orientation). Each of those passages, when taken in their cultural, historical, linguistic, and literary contexts can be deconstructed in ways that are actually quite liberating for same-gender loving people!

The bible is not…meant to condemn love, mutuality, or any life-affirming situation. 

     © Durrell Watkins 2004, 2009

Biblical Arguments Against Marriage Equality Don’t Hold Up

Biblical Arguments Against Marriage Equality Don’t Hold Up
Rev. Dr. Durrell Watkins

Those who invoke the bible to defend their heternormative and homophobic views need to understand that the bible can be understood in more complex ways than would make them comfortable. There are biblical heroes who form non-traditional families of choice, there are couples who have covenantal relationships outside the cultural definition of marriage, and there are plenty of examples of people practicing polygamy (but none as enthusiastically as “wise” Solomon with his 700 wives, 300 concubines, and a legendary one night stand with the Queen of Sheba!). What constitutes a relationship, a family, or even a life-long covenant in the Jewish and Christian scriptures is not as cut and dry as the opponents of marriage equality would like to believe.

What people who use the bible as a weapon to protect their privilege and marginalize others need to know about the bible is that rather than being a memo dictated by God, it is a collection of writings by many authors spanning three continents and more than a thousand years. It is a very complex and diverse collection of writings.

Other things people who would bash others with the bible should know include:

1.      The bible is not the bible in the bible.

The biblical canon was closed centuries after the life of Jesus. The church existed for generations before there was a Christian bible. And even still, the bible one accepts differs slightly depending on if one is Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Mormon, or Jewish. Whether there is one testament or there are two or three and how many books are in those testaments depends on which tradition within Christianity one embraces.

2.      The bible is a human document.

Some believe the bible is divinely inspired, others do not, but either way the actual writing was done by humans, the reading is done by humans (and readers make meaning), and how the words are used are determined by humans. With or without the notion of a divine presence nudging people to record their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and desires, the obvious fact remains that the work of biblical writing, reading, interpreting, and application is the work of human-beings, and humans don’t always agree.

3.      There are no original texts.

The original documents, that is, the first pieces of paper (or papyrus) upon which the biblical authors wrote no longer exist. The oldest scriptural documents extant today are hand written copies of hand written copies (which leaves quite a bit of room for human error).

4.      Biblical ethics and knowledge don’t always withstand the test of time.

Biblical writers accepted slavery, child abuse, war, and the secondary status of women without question. Biblical writers assumed the earth was flat, never knew of the Americas, and had never heard of the law of gravity. Aerodynamics, quantum physics, and depth psychology were unknown to the ancient writers. The biblical writers didn’t know about the egg cell or chromosomes, and therefore didn’t even understand procreation the way we do today. Their creativity and genius should not be ignored, and yet, what they did not know was a lot. We learn more as time goes by; we are not limited to what people knew millennia ago.

5.      The biblical texts were not written in any modern language.

The biblical texts were written in ancient languages (sometimes without any punctuation), so translation issues must always be considered. Our bible is a translation of copies of copies of copies of texts handwritten in ancient languages in ancient, pre-scientific cultures. It’s still fascinating and beautiful and useful, but not if used as a weapon to defend bigotry and discrimination.  

I can’t think of any legitimate reason to deny equality to any member of our society; but when people use religion to deny that equality, I become particularly angry. Religion at its best should help people experience hope and joy, and believe in their sacred value. Religion at its best should celebrate love (not condemn it). Religion at its best should help people experience liberation rather than perpetuating oppression. I can’t think of any reason to deny equality to any member of society, but religion provides the weakest excuse of all for denying equality.  

Marriage equality one day will be the law of the land. I am one of those hoping that such a day comes very soon; but even before that day, my wish is that those who oppose equality would no longer do so in the name of religion.

Rev. Dr. Durrell Watkins is the Senior Minister of Sunshine Cathedral in Ft Lauderdale.

Sunshine Cathedral is a progressive and inclusive ministry affiliated with Metropolitan Community Churches and the International New Thought Alliance.
www.sunshinecathedral.org

The Bible & Gays

The Bible and Gays

Durrell Watkins

There are four questions I am most often asked about spirituality in relation to LBGT people. My ministry is within a church that is rooted both within the Christian tradition and the Gay Rights movement. However, I am a spiritual humanist and a religious pluralist and while I speak from a primarily Christian viewpoint, the message that I try to offer is universal. Here are the questions and my answers.


Is it a sin to be gay?

“Sin” means to miss the mark (an archery metaphor). To “be” anything is a matter of ontology (of “is-ness”). So to discover that one is something and to be honest about it can never be missing the mark. Self-discovery and expressing one’s truth with integrity is hitting the bull’s eye!

Did Jesus condemn homosexuality?

Jesus condemned precious little. One of the few things that he did condemn was the tendency of religious people to participate in condemnation! Jesus seemed to have a great deal of patience with almost everything other than self-righteous people who tried to enforce religious rules in a way to oppress or control others.

Was Jesus ever sympathetic to homosexual persons?

The word “homosexual” would not have been part of Jesus’ vocabulary. However, in the 8^th chapter of Matthew’s gospel (and the story is repeated in the 7^th chapter of Luke’s gospel) Jesus is said to have healed a centurion’s servant. The original hearers of that story would have assumed that the servant was the centurion’s lover. From what we know of 1^st century Roman culture, we know that such relationships were not uncommon. And for a person of such high rank to be so concerned about a servant that he would approach a faith healer of lower status in a desperate attempt to help his servant suggests an intimacy far greater than one would expect between a military officer and his “servant.” How did Jesus respond to the centurion? He praised his faith! His relationship was not condemned or even questioned.

Also, in Matthew 19, Jesus defines “eunuchs” in a much broader sense than we normally hear. He says that, there are those who are castrated, which is the usual definition. But he also says there are 2 other kinds of eunuchs. He says some “choose” to be eunuchs (living a life of celibacy) and that others are “born” eunuchs (people who by nature are sexually different). He also says that not everyone would accept his broad, inclusive, and non-judgmental definition of eunuchs, but he says, “whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

Jesus was giving an example of sexual diversity - some are different because they’ve been surgically altered. Others are different because of personal choices to not marry or to remain celibate (e.g. monks and nuns). And still others are different because they are born different, that is, they are innately different. Jesus did not suggest that anything was wrong with any of the eunuchs, and he certainly did not propose an “ex-eunuch” program. Some of us are “different” from the majority, and Jesus seemed to think that was OK and that everyone who can accept such diversity needs to accept it! His teaching reminds us of Isaiah 56 where the prophet places these words in the mouth of God, “The eunuch need not say, ‘I am a dry (barren) tree’…I will give them in my house a monument and name which will be even better than having children; an eternal, imperishable name…For my house shall be called a house of prayer for ALL peoples.” In any case, Jesus never condemned same-sex love or attraction.

But aren’t there bible verses that do condemn homosexuality?

It depends on how you read the bible. The people who wrote the documents that in time became our bible were products of their time and culture. They had specific agendas and were writing to particular communities, usually in response to definite events. None of them had any idea that 21^st century Americans would be reading their work. In fact, none of them knew there was a North American continent or that the world wasn’t flat. And so, we do read statements in the bible that support slavery, that assume women are in some way inferior to men, that seem to suggest God takes sides in bloody military conflicts.

             Today, we do NOT accept that women are in any way inferior to men.

Today, we believe slavery to be one of the greatest evils of human history.

Today, many of us believe that war is almost never the will of God.

 

Do we read the bible with an awareness of its historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts? Or do we cling to isolated verses that seem to support one prejudice or the other? How we choose to read the bible will determine if we believe the bible promotes homophobia. And how we choose to read it actually says more about the reader than the text.

Out of the entire bible written by many people covering a period of more than a thousand years, there are only about half a dozen sentences that are routinely used to shame, condemn, harass, or terrorize gay and lesbian people! Each of those rare, isolated passages, when taken in their cultural, historical, linguistic, and literary contexts can be deconstructed in ways that are actually quite liberating for same-gender loving people! Love and even mutual attraction are never condemned in scripture.

The bible is against rape, exploitation, and harming your neighbor (and rightly so!). It is not a collection of books meant to condemn love, mutuality, or any life-affirming situation.

Now, reflect on these passages from the bible that some of us believe accurately sum up the divine message for the human family: “God is love and WHOEVER lives in love lives in God and God lives in them!” – 1 John 4.16; “For I know well the plans I have in mind for you, says the Eternal, plans for your welfare, not for woe! plans to give you a future full of hope.” – Jeremiah 29.11; “By the grace of God I am what I am.” – 1 Corinthians 15.10; “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.” – Galatians 5.22-23.

There is no law against love and we are all one. This is the message of the bible. It doesn’t tell us who to hate; it tells us how to love. We can be sure that LBTG people are as capable of living love-filled lives as anyone else.

Free Progressive Spirituality Short Videos

Gay By God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHZvL4FQSmA&list=UUi1vfps751gSRdDZIIzhkvw&index=19&feature=plcp


A Gay Friendly Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUAew9zwW_c&list=UUi1vfps751gSRdDZIIzhkvw&index=28&feature=plcp


Is Jesus Relevant for LBGT People?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTWJLhc47Ro


Does God Like Gay People?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ajtkjj2wWQ


Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner (?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOWckl38qjw


Can We Agree to Disagree About Same-Gender Love?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnhCZtdO8ls


What is Holy Communion? (The most recently recorded episode, posted April 15, 2012)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwIjIZr8jw4&list=UUi1vfps751gSRdDZIIzhkvw&index=1&feature=plcp


Can Progressives Pray?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpEdzXwF25g&list=UUi1vfps751gSRdDZIIzhkvw&index=10&feature=plcp


Could We Ever Be Lost?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaJa5IEM0dU&list=UUi1vfps751gSRdDZIIzhkvw&index=27&feature=plcp


Letting God Be Bigger Than Our Prejudices
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXY0HEaaJag&list=UUi1vfps751gSRdDZIIzhkvw&index=36&feature=plcp


The Danger of Biblolatry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnbtFgkwe-g

Progressive Theological Discussions on You Tube

Can We Follow Jesus Without Worshiping Him?
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/28/2HF5NcQZKVE


What Does It Mean To Be Christian?
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/12/SCwEY8yDnBY


Do Progressive Christians Believe in Jesus?
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/40/rQhosYQSroM


God Within: What Do We Mean?
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/20/TOzWWhWm5EM


Could We Ever Be Lost?
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/13/WaJa5IEM0dU


A Gay Friendly Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/14/LUAew9zwW_c


Can We Agree to Disagree About Same Gender Love?
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/54/PnhCZtdO8ls


The Danger of the Closet
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/42/gdxKVYosB9Q


Is Jesus Relevant for LBGT People?
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/39/GTWJLhc47Ro


Does God Like Gay People?
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/37/9Ajtkjj2wWQ


God Is Not a Bully!
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/27/ZySBHFASRQE


Queering the Trinity
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/8/OtYYEsp1l3Q


Queer Bible Study
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/71/JqzAGelxe_8


Integration of Sexuality & Spirituality
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/76/KTOsRSflKO4


The Danger of Biblolatry
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#p/u/41/tnbtFgkwe-g


For more topics, visit www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral

Social Justice Sermons

http://sermons.sunshinecathedral.org/2011/happiness-is
"Happiness Is..."
A frank look at homophobic violence throughout the world, along with a call to action, affirmation, and words of hope.

http://sermons.sunshinecathedral.org/2010/we-will-not-be-silent
"We Will Not Be Silent"
Another social justice sermon

Don't Blame Homophobia on God

Don't Blame Homophobia on God
(a rant by Durrell Watkins, M.A., M.Div., D.Min.)

A fundamentalist defender of homophobia recently quoted the bible verses below and added the rhetorical question, “How much clearer could the bible be?”

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” – 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 (NIV)

1. 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 is not “the bible.” It is a statement, made by the Apostle Paul in mid-first century in a letter he wrote to a particular church about particular issues in that community. That letter, MUCH later, was included in the bible. We are talking about one sentence from an ancient letter from a man who assumed the world was flat to a community other than one any of us find ourselves today. This is hardly a council of the gods of Olympus voting unanimously to dehumanize all same-gender loving people for all time!

2. Regardless of what Paul believed, are we not (even as faithful people) free to disagree with him? We (surely!) disagree with the biblical statement, “slaves obey your masters.” Many (though sadly not all) disagree with the statements, “women remain silent in church” and “wives submit to your husbands.” One of the commandments (about which the bible could not be much clearer) is to avoid idolatry. I won’t make an idol of Paul or of the bible or of homophobia. I won’t confuse Paul’s culturally shaped opinions with God’s own prejudices! To do so would be to try to limit God to the words of Paul, and that would be idolatry (and by the way, idolaters are in the list that someone believed to be so “clear”).

3. The passage, or rather the fragment from a much larger missive, in question was written in an ancient language that has been translated (after being hand copied many times). Translations always involve the choices and even biases of the translator (which isn’t a criticism; it’s just how it works).
For example, the translators of the version of the bible quoted above chose to use the words “homosexual offenders” to translate the ancient Greek word in the text. However, the world “homosexual” is rather new (coined in the 19th century), so it would not have been Paul’s choice in any language!

Moreover, even given the translation used above, the text doesn’t say “same gender loving people.” It doesn’t even say, “those who experience same-gender attraction.” It definitely doesn’t say, “those who find themselves in consensual, adult relationships.” It says, “homosexual offenders”. What is an “offender”? Does that mean “rapist”? Does it mean a heterosexual person who “offends” his wife by cheating on her with a man? Or, given the context of the passage (“male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders”), does it mean male prostitutes and those men who pay for their services? The passage is ambiguous, not clear. There are many possible understandings other than blanket condemnation of LBGT people.

There are only about 6 biblical proof-texts (which prove almost nothing) to which homophobic religionists cling to justify their fear of same-gender love and attraction. And yet, fear (and the hatred that results) seems so inconsistent with the God that is said to be “Love.” In fact, even St. Paul said, “Those who love their fellow human-beings have fulfilled the law” (Romans 13). Judging, condemning, hating, vilifying in the name of God…that seems to me to be using God’s name in vain (whoops! There goes another commandment). In the end, I suppose everyone has a right to his or her prejudices. But own them; don’t try to blame them on God.

--Rev. Dr. Durrell Watkins
http://www.kweerspirit.com/

My Innate Dignity and Sacred Value are not up for debate

I have recently encountered an infuriating example of homophobia. When told that my existence is utterly distasteful, I chose to vehemently disagree. The response then was for the person who had decided that I was unloveable because I share my love with someone of the same-gender in a mutually agreeable, joyous, adult relationship to quote some bible verses at me and then try to end the discussion by saying, "We'll have to agree to disagree."

I found this an odd and particularly odious tactic. Someone insults me (and the person I love most) and tries to say that it is simply a matter of belief, and it is my responsibility now to be gracious and simply find the view (against me) to be as valid as any other. If I can't smile when being attacked, then clearly there must be something horribly wrong with me! (Of course, I shared these very thoughts directly...I'm all for the meek inheriting the earth, but sometimes, i find myself wanting to thump a few Philistines with the jawbone of an ass...metaphorically, of course. I'll pray about this apparent lack of serenity when under fire).

I will disagree with someone who says a verse here or there from an ancient text proves that I'm pond scum, but I will not agree that our disagreement is merely two opposing but equally valid views. The one thing I am completely unwilling to compromise on is my acceptance and celebration of my sacred value.

We can have a loving, gentle, good natured difference of opinion about oil, coal, taxes, US policy on Cuba, legalization of marijuana, the speed limit, if there is a god and what name that god might prefer to be called...but when it comes to ME, i really must insist that I'm a wonderful part of the glorious diversity of the world...just as i am. I'm afraid there aren't any proof-texts that will ever persuade me I'm not a good person. Here endeth the rant.

Theological Discussions

A Progressive View of "The Way, the Truth, & the Life"
Panel: Rev. Durrell Watkins, MDiv/DMin & Rev. Robert Griffin, MDiv
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#play/uploads/3/k-nr9ejn7o8


Where Do We Go When We Die?
Panel: Rev. Durrell Watkins, MDiv/DMin & Rev. Robert Griffin, MDiv
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#play/uploads/0/3MHEolRsbWQ


Is the Bible the Word of God?
Panel: Rev. Durrell Watkins, MDiv/DMin & Rev. Robert Griffin, MDiv
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#play/uploads/28/RZEe0o2q4_E


Why Don't the Miracles of the Bible Happen Today?
Panel: Rev. Durrell Watkins, MDiv/DMin & Rev. Robert Griffin, MDiv
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#play/uploads/25/OZROxedIJlc


Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality?
Panel: Rev. Durrell Watkins, MDiv/DMin & Rev. Robert Griffin, MDiv
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#play/uploads/27/w_fGE05nzz8


What is Progressive Christianity?
Panel: Rev. Durrell Watkins, MDiv/DMin & Rev. Robert Griffin, MDiv
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#play/uploads/24/Kb-ctsKbvPw


How Can I Be Good Enough?
Panel: Rev. Durrell Watkins, MDiv/DMin & Rev. Robert Griffin, MDiv
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#play/uploads/1/qgzWdXmk71w


Why Healthy Religion Must Confront Heterosexism
Panel: Rev. Durrell Watkins, MDiv/DMin; Rev. Robert Griffin, MDiv; & Rev. BK Hipsher, MATS
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#play/uploads/19/J3nhm7sr6HY


A Progressive View of Salvation
Panel: Rev. Durrell Watkins, MDiv/DMin; Rev. Robert Griffin, MDiv; & Rev. Brent Hawkes, MDiv/DMin
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#play/uploads/14/UrH9V7XEwWs


Integregation of Sexuality & Spirituality
Panel: Rev. Durrell Watkins, MDiv/DMin; Rev. Robert Griffin, MDiv; & Rev. Elder Don Eastman
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#play/uploads/13/KTOsRSflKO4


Can Gays Pray?
Panel: Rev. Durrell Watkins, MDiv/DMin; Rev. Robert Griffin, MDiv; & Rev. Michael Diaz, MDiv
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#play/uploads/12/GPjsdnrC1NE


Gay Images of God
Panel: Rev. Durrell Watkins, MDiv/DMin; Rev. Robert Griffin, MDiv; & Rev. Michael Diaz, MDiv
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#play/uploads/10/SOTfmPtRQW0


Queer Bible Study
Panel: Rev. Durrell Watkins, MDiv/DMin; Rev. Robert Griffin, MDiv; & Rev. Mona West, MDiv/PhD
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#play/uploads/8/JqzAGelxe_8


Affirming Gay Outreach
Panel: Rev. Durrell Watkins, MDiv/DMin & Rev. Robert Griffin, MDiv
http://www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral#play/uploads/5/QINPS3Y4Qa8


There are more topics at www.youtube.com/sunshinecathedral.org

A response to recent remarks made against the Ft Lauderdale Gay Community

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 22nd, 2007

A response to recent remarks made against the Fort Lauderdale Gay Community (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-821naugle,0,1222411.story?page=1)


Homophobia is not Love
by the Reverend Durrell Watkins, M.A., M.Div.

We read in the Christian bible “Slaves obey your masters…” and “Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.” I do not believe that either of these biblical passages justifies the evils of slavery or misogyny, and I do not believe that finding these sentences in the bible “proves” that God condoned slavery or that God privileges men over women. In my theology, any text that dehumanizes people cannot stand alone as if it were a message from on High to be uncritically embraced. Similarly, when the bible is quoted to promote prejudice against gay and lesbian people, I must object.

The mayor of Fort Lauderdale continues his anti-gay verbal assaults. But what concerns me even more is that religious leaders are suggesting that the mayor is somehow speaking for God! It’s an age-old trick for a group to say that their enemies are also God’s enemies, but I hope in the 21st century none of us will fall for that anymore.

Those who dare to suggest that God shares their homophobic prejudices claim they are motivated by love. The targets of their inflammatory speech, however, probably disagree. You see, you can’t judge me to be a sinner and then claim to love me. You can’t use language that dehumanizes me and claim it is for my good. As the saying goes, “Please don’t spit on my boots and call it rain.” There may be a lot in this world I don’t know, but the difference between being loved and being condemned is easy enough to figure out.

Those who are spewing the homophobic rhetoric lately may believe they are right, and they are certainly entitled to their opinions, but they can’t believe that what they are doing is kind or loving. You see, according to the very bible they use to justify their anti-gay rhetoric, “Love is patient and kind…[and] never rude…” (1 Corinthians 13:4-5).

Let’s be clear - the venom being spewed at the gay community in Fort Lauderdale is not about love, righteousness, or even public safety. The recent attacks are just what they appear to be: unkind, prejudicial, divisive remarks meant to justify homophobia; and homophobia is not love.

/End/

[Rev. Durrell Watkins is the Canon Precentor and Canon Pastor-elect of Sunshine Cathedral MCC in Fort Lauderdale. He is a graduate of Union Theological Seminary in New York City and is in the doctoral program at the Episcopal Divinity School.]


Rev. Canon Durrell Watkins, M.A., M.Div.
Sunshine Cathedral
http://www.sunshinecathedral.org/

The Madness Continues

So I'm at a protest rally today. Why? Because the mayor made ridiculous, insensitive, and inflammatory comments about the gay citizens that make up part of his constituency.

Of course, there were a handful of misguided people shouting that God was proud of the mayor's homophobia and that God actually shared the mayor's disdain for queer people. I was one of several speakers challenging the mayor's homophobia and the crowd gathered was large, orderly, energetic, and receptive to the rallying cries. But looking back over the day's events, I am once again disturbed that in the 21st century anyone not otherwise medicated and under constant surveillance would publicly utter the words, "God calls homosexuality an abomination."

Of course, the people saying this are quoting a verse from the biblical book of Leviticus. Many of them don't know where it comes from nor are they aware the same book condemns the clothes they wear and the food they eat. Their ignorance of what the text says beyond the little catch phrase that they use like a poisonous dart is disturbing enough, but I'm more stunned to realize that anyone pretends to believe that the bible is somehow God's memoir.

Now, let's be clear...I love the bible. In fact, I love the bible for a living, and I have spent my entire life exploring the depths of the mystery of life that many call "God." And yet, for all my devotion, I have not imagined in adulthood, or at least not since VERY early adulthood that God in any way authored any part of the bible. Inconsistencies, contradictions, and scientific inaccuracies notwithstanding, it just doesn't seem sane to imagine that God is in the publishing business. Of course, as blasphemous as it may sound, I also don't believe the earth is flat or that leeches are state-of-the-art medicine.

I don't care that people who aren't terribly in touch with their own sexuality are frightened by mine (as they perceive it). I do care that they have deluded themselves into believing that their sexual hangups amount to divine revelation. That is a level of crazy that keeps me up at night...at least long enough to write about it in my blog. Sadly, the homophobic madness continues.

Examining the Texts Homophobic Christians Are Fond of Quoting

Leviticus 18.22, Leviticus 20.13, Romans 1.26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 are probably the most often quoted passages used against LBGT people. The story of Sodom & Gomorrah in Genesis 19 and 1st Timothy 1.10 are also often used. Earlier today someone from Texas emailed me asking me to refute the homophobic ways these texts are often used. Below is my response:

Deconstructing (and possibly redeeming) these passages is a purely academic exercise for me. I do not do it out of a need to be validated by the bible. The bible, as much as I love it and as central as it has always been to my life, is all the same in my opinion a collection of human documents. I do not give the bible final authority over my life nor do I believe it to be divinely authored. Still, the bible is part of my consciousness, part of my spiritual DNA, and studying it/wrestling with it/deconstructing and reconstructing it have all enriched my life significantly and it remains for me sacred literature if not "divine" literature.

The humans who wrote the bible were often wrong about history, science, and even ethics, and yet, in all their frailty and faults they bravely and honestly tried to find meaning in life and they sought to understand their relationship to the Source of life, often called "God." It is their courageous and honest searching that empowers and encourages my own search. I don't read the bible because it is infallible; I read it because the people who wrote it were asking important questions and many of those same questions are my questions, so it remains an important and relevant text for my life.

Now, for the passages in question (more briefly than they deserve, but its the best I can do at the moment):

1. Genesis 19 - The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a strang text to use as an argument on any moral issue. Lot (the "hero" of the story) is willing to sacrifice his daughters to a rape gang. From the moment we see that, the story loses any moral authority we may have assumed it had. By the end of the story, our "hero" again behaves in reprehensible ways by commiting insest with both of his daughters. A story of attempted rape followed by incest where the "protagonist" is willing to be an accomplice in his own daughters' rape and later commits incest with them is hardly a story that can be credibly used to condemn same-gender love or attraction!

Of course, mutual attraction or consensual mating rituals are no where in the story, so again, to use a story of such horrific violence to condemn the consensual, adult relationships that occur between persons of the same-gender is at best ridiculous and at worst nefarious. Finally, the story ends at the conclusion of the chapter by telling us that the Moabites and the Amonnites are the descendants of the incestious unions between Lot and his daughters...and THAT I believe is the point of the story. The story isn't meant to condemn same-gender love, but is rather a bizarre sort of fairy tale insulting the writer's perceived enemies, the Ammonites and Moabites. The writer accuses them of being entire races born from incest. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah shows what strang series of events could lead a father to be isolated in a cave with his daughters and why they would initiate sex with him so they could procreate. The attempted rape of angels, the willingness for Lot to sacrifice his daughters, the unfortunate death of Mrs. Lot all lead to where/when/why Lot and his daughters had their unholy unions. A myth to be sure, but a myth meant to make the insult that "our" enemies are innately damaged and flawed because they are the products of incest seem plausible.

2. Leviticus - these passages are just annoying. They come from a legal code of an ancient (and now defunct) theocracy. They are in a book that doesn't allow women in the house of worship for weeks after giving birth, that forbids tattoos, that condemns the wearing of mixed fabrics, that forbids the eating of shellfish and pork, and so on. I've never met a single person who takes any of Leviticus as a divine mandate for their lives...except when it comes to the two isolated passages that can be used to justify homophobia.

3. Romans 1...actually a fascinating passage. In in St. Paul says that people who worship "idols" have earned a strange curse from God...God will confuse their nature and they will behave sexually in ways that they otherwise wouldn't. For Paul, homosexuality isn't the sin, its the punishment for the sin (of idolatry)!

Of course, I disagree with Paul, but what is funny (and tragic) is that a passage that clearly condemns idolatry is used to make an idol of heterosexuality. Secondly, if it is bad to have one's nature changed, as Paul suggests, then wouldn't it be bad for someone who is as a matter of ontology "gay" to then "change" his/her nature and become heterosexual (as if it were even possible)?

Still, Romans 1 condemns idolatry and says that some who commit that sin have been cursed with being turned gay (they were presumably straight before that). It's an odd passage that paints a strange picture of God, and one that does not have any contemporary understanding of human sexuality!

The other two Pauline passages I mentioned (one Pauline and one deutero-Pauline, no credible scholar believes any longer that Paul wrote the letters to Timothy) seem to be condemning temple prostitution.

The bottom line is that mutual attraction, consensual relationships, or commited partnerships are never condemned in the bible (they aren't even mentioned), and if they were condemned, we've a learned a thing or two in the last few thousand years and we would be free to disagree (Joshua makes the sun stand still, but we don't believe the sun travels? The book of Revelation mentions specifically the 4 corners of the earth, and yet a round earth has no corners. The two creation myths that open the bible contradict each other on almost every point...one wonders WHICH creation story the "creationists" believe to be literal. Paul sends the run away slave Onesimus back to his oppressor, Philemon...an act which surely horrifies modern readers.. I for one don't believe that a 90 year old Sarah had a baby, and I don't know of a single fundamentalist who believes Leviticus' dietary prohibitions apply to them).

Finally, I just don't believe the bible is a good enough excuse to hate anyone. We disagree with other parts, why not disagree with the (only) 6 passages that seem to be homophobic. And, on closer inspection, even those passages don't address honest, mutal attraction or sexual orientaiton as we understand it today.