Evangelicals Concerned Inc.
“The Gospel vs. Scripture?” An interview with Walter Brueggemann by Julie A. Wortman, Voice of Integrity, Winter, 2003. “Telling Our Stories: Good Words Offered About Good Sex” by Anonymous; “Being Normal May Hurt Us All” by Frank Faine; “Sexual Ethics on the Margin Shaped by Personal Experience” by Jim Sauder, Dialogue, Fall, 2002.
by Dr. Ralph Blair
Voice of Integrity, a voice of Christian social conscience” among
Episcopalians. He gives a perceptive analysis of church controversy
over homosexuality and the Bible.
Witness
editor/publisher Wortman asks about rites of blessing for
committed same-sex relationships. Brueggemann notes that this must be
viewed “in the context of how the church has handled the Bible in
many other ethical questions.”
He doubts “that anybody – liberal or conservative –
really reads right out of the Bible” in any controversy.
“I think we basically bring hunches to the Bible that arrive
in all sorts of ways and then we seek confirmation.”
He grants that he reads the Bible under “the arc of the
Gospel [that] is bent toward inclusiveness,” citing Luther to the
effect that “you have to make a distinction between the Gospel and
the Bible” or biblicism. With
a sound hermeneutic abreast of current needs, he compares gay men and
lesbians to “the vulnerable” who were championed by the prophets
and he sees that “the very loud heterosexual community is as
exploitative as any of the people that the prophets critiqued.”
He detects a “moralistic judgment that people like this are
not entitled to well-being” and understands this to be “rooted in
resentment.” By analogy
to a coal mine canary, he concludes that “the most vulnerable … is
always the test case about whether we are following Jesus.”
Dialogue is published by the Brethren
Mennonite GLBT group. Editor
Ruth Moerdyk claims that “Traditional norms and rules seem
increasingly inadequate to many.”
So she presents “a few ideas [on] what should replace
them.”
Sadly, there’s nothing remotely Brethren or
Mennonite in these stories mired in the narcissism of queer theory. The stories of early Pietists and Anabaptists were about
self-surrender to Christ. In
Dialogue, the stories are
self-centered self-affirmations.
“What are [sic]
sexual ethics?,” asks an anonymous contributor.
His answer: “As a queer man, the queer community usually
takes priority.” His next priority: “my lover.”
Then he notes: “My accountability as a Christian also ranks
high.” This
sequence of convenience does not reflect serious Christians
discipleship. He says
that “good sex is casual sex. We
need to be much more casual about sex.” He rejects an “overwhelming analysis of every anticipated
action. … Let sex be sex.” He
says he’s “probably said enough to prompt denunciations” and
closes: “Now it’s your turn.
After all, it’s only sex.”
So this reviewer takes his turn to say: There’s no such thing
as “only sex.” The
minimizing betrays an uneasy conviction that there’s more to it than
Anonymous admits.
Faine, a student at Chicago Theological Seminary,
reviews Michael Warner’s book, The
Trouble with Normal – a “queer” attack on the “gay
marriage” that Warner thinks apes heterosexist culture.
Faine likes Warner’s “illuminating case to resist embracing
normalcy as a way to deconstruct the politics of shame.”
But he objects to Warner’s (politically incorrect)
“male-centered” emphasis. He
also notes that Warner offers “few details” for accomplishing his
“more positive self-definition and self-understanding.”
Again, here’s the same naďve wish to put all authority in
the self-defining self.
Sauder is a former director of BMC. He begins with his dogmatic base: “my own paradigms …my
own internal authority.” Either
oblivious to or rejecting the readily available frames of reference
worked out in the crucible of centuries of human experience, he
insists that: “Without readily available frames of reference, you
have to trust your own experience.”
Without examining whether or not everyone’s own internal
authority is trustworthy, he advises his readers to “trust their own
internal authority.” Unaware
of to his arrogance, he decrees his
standard for all readers. He
probably takes for granted that the internally authorized lifestyle
choices of his readers will
match his own. Would he
be as ready to urge homophobes and preachers of “ex-gay” advocacy
to “trust their own internal authority?”
He goes on: “I do not see BMC as a place
concerned about defining a moral code, but rather as a place to
respect the personal authority that people from the margin bring to
their quest for a personal, authentic moral questioning.”
But isn’t he
defining the basis of a moral code for his readers?
He sides with Warner and his fellow essayists, saying that
“the majority touchstones don’t represent our reality or,
necessarily, our best interest.”
He insists that he and his cohorts get to define “the divine
however they define the divine.”
It’s all about “how the minority culture sees life.”
But even as he denounces what he calls the majority’s “one
size fits all” ethic, he imposes his own “one size fits all”
ethic. Not content with
the “Golden Rule,” he offers the reductionism of a “Platinum
Rule.” It’s “do
unto others what they would have done unto them.”
Concluding with the disclaimer that he’s merely urging
“the exploration of the questions,” Sauder imposes his own answers
of self-centeredness that, he claims, brings “new life abundant.”
But isn’t abundant life what Jesus already offered in his own
self-sacrificing life?