The Pangea Blog
Dear Reader…
Growing up, I was taught that there are certain ‘things’ that a person has to do to earn favor with God. Don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t watch certain movies… don’t! In other words, a large part of Christian discipleship was focused on the negation of ‘things’ rather than the freedom that comes from being released from the captivity of religion. The great “don’t” that my Christian community focused on when I was giving my life back to Jesus as a teenager was secular music. Now, I do have to say that forsaking secular music was a good thing for me at the time because it allowed me to set my mind on “things above.” However, eventually I started looking at my other friends musical genre choices and it became easy to cast secret stones of judgment. The negation had led to a religious mentality of picking who was “in” and who was “out.” This is because I chose an overall perspective of faith that is described in Religious No More, (by Mark Baker) that is called a “Bounded Group.” I drew an image like this in my book as I read this section…
There are several things to point out about this first image. Notice that there is a clear wall that has been built to contain those who are “in” and to exclude those who are “out.” The space between the dividing wall is where religious ideals are, and for many people this is where God dwells. God is held captive within the walls of religion and as long as we stay inside these walls (remember: “Don’ts”), then we are part of the elite “in” group. In this view, everything we do must be focused on how to protect the “wall” that has boxed religion/God in, so that we have security in our categories.
This Bounded Group mentality is what is at the core of the religious right politics concerning issues of homosexuality. The boundary wall approach, plus a traditional reading of the 6 or so relevant texts, creates a clear way of knowing who is “in” (heterosexuals) and who is “out” (gays). This brings much security and stability to people who want to know what behaviors constitute Christian discourse. The problem here is, even for those of us who hold to a “traditional” view of homosexuality, it leaves no room for people who may be hermaphrodites or gays who are attempting to be celibate. This view would say that homosexuality does not fit into the walls of our religion or definition of God, and therefore they are all part of the “out” group. This does not allow for ambiguity of personal circumstances. This is why I like the approach that is demonstrated by another image I doodled in my book: Centered Group approach…
This approach is all about one’s orientation (no pun intended) towards that which is in the center… God. Each arrow represents a person who is on a spiritual journey. If they are moving relationally toward God in Christ, then the arrow points in the direction their God-quest is on. Each arrow has traveled a different distance in relationship to the center, and no one (in this life) has fully arrived at knowing the vastness of God. Some arrows are pointing away from God because they have chosen a path that leads the opposite direction. So, in the case of homosexuality and the church, this approach leaves room for those who may be wrestling with how their sexual and spiritual identity interconnect. If their eyes are “fixed on Jesus” (Hebrews 12), then they are part of the “in” group. (Please do not read this statement as an “argument” for a more progressive reading of the relevant texts [because that is not the point of this post at all], but rather as something even the conservative reading ought to be wrestling with). This is based fully on relationship and NOT on religious practices!
Now here is the HUGE caution that must be mentioned: is there a danger that the centered approach does not define boundaries or that it can become an “anything goes” approach? Well, here is what I have been thinking about. If this is truly a relationally centered approach, then does is it not follow that out of that relationship our Christian ethics will naturally flow? Isn’t this the pattern we see played out in the book of Acts, especially regarding the Gentiles. They had to tear down old ‘religious’ ideals because their orientation towards God through the Holy Spirit was telling them to do so. This completely differed from their traditions and the Law of Moses, but their common center was moving them toward a new ethic. So, the more I am centered on Christ, the more that relationship is going to create a natural discernment process to know what actually moves people towards the center (God), and what turns them in the opposite direction.
So much more I could say, but I want to limit the length of this letter so I will make a brief final thought. We looked at Luke 15, and the part of the story that griped my attention was the end that deals with whether or not the older brother will actually go into the party. Now, this is interesting if we observe that the religious leaders (bounded group mentality) were being paralleled to this older brother. Jesus ends the story without concluding what the big brother will choose to do. In other words, Jesus leaves the “ball in their court” and expects that the Pharisees will choose to finish the story by either entering the metaphorical party or staying outside… and thus, they may choose to be the “out” group. This is a message that I need to hear, because sometimes my judgment mechanism is triggered and I need a reminder that the party is open to anyone, and centered on a relationship with the Father. All other things will fall into place in the Spirit’s timetable.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In