Pages

Sunday, May 05, 2013

Christian cannibals


 

 
First, a lesson I am slowly learning in my life is that it is much easier to disagree with an idea than a person who embodies it. As I continue to grow in my understanding of the place of homosexual Christians in the body of Christ, I feel that it is incumbent on me to listen to their stories and to learn to love better than I do.

In Jesus Have I Loved, but Paul, I did some wrestling with the question of homosexuality. At the end, while coming to a traditional position about male and female as God’s intention for sexual intercourse, I left the door open like this: God can surprise us.

In particular, I pointed to the issue of circumcision in the NT, where a clear commandment, pertaining to participation in the covenant promises of Abraham, was overturned. God told Peter, “I have made this clean.” At least in theory, it might not be the case that the Biblical stricture has the last word.

Langteaux told a story during the podcast, relayed more briefly and somewhat differently in the book, about his own wrestling with God about homosexuality. He demanded of God to let him know whether it was a sin to be gay. As he sat exasperated, he opened his Bible at random. And he turned to Acts 10, Peter’s vision informing him that the old laws of kosher (and, by implication, circumcision) no longer applied.


What it means to love our gay neighbor as oneself. The chapter argues that we advocate for civil equality and protection to secure the same freedoms and benefits for my neighbor who disagrees with me as I would want for myself.

I suggested that we should be aware of the possibility that the Spirit might make such a demonstration today. We are dealing with a genuinely new moment in the history of the church: homosexual couples openly in committed relationships and striving to faithfully follow Jesus. The presence of this reality is something to be interpreted with care—neither hastily condemning due to a great confidence that we are on God’s side, nor hastily embracing due to the same.

Most of us need to listen more. Those of us from backgrounds that are not affirming need to listen to the stories of gay friends, especially Christian gay friends.


I find Kirk’s narrow-minded intolerance deeply disturbing. It borders on bigotry. I mean, homosexual marriage is already old hat.  We need to press forward for the truly marginalized.

First, a lesson I am slowly learning in my life is that it is much easier to disagree with an idea than a person who embodies it. As I continue to grow in my understanding of the place of Christian cannibals in the body of Christ, I feel that it is incumbent on me to listen to their stories and to learn to love better than I do. I left the door open like this: God can surprise us.

In particular, I pointed to the issue of circumcision in the NT, where a clear commandment, pertaining to participation in the covenant promises of Abraham, was overturned. God told Peter, “I have made this clean.” At least in theory, it might not be the case that the Biblical stricture has the last word.

Jeffrey Dahmer told a story during the podcast, relayed more briefly and somewhat differently in the book, about his own wrestling with God about cannibalism. He demanded of God to let him know whether it was a sin to eat people. As he sat exasperated, he opened his Bible at random. And he turned to Acts 10, Peter’s vision informing him that the old laws of kosher (and, by implication, anti-cannibalism) no longer applied.

What it means to love our man-eating neighbor as oneself. The chapter argues that we advocate for anthropophaginian equality and protection to secure the same culinary freedoms and dietary benefits for my neighbor who disagrees with me as I would want for myself.

I suggested that we should be aware of the possibility that the Spirit might make such a demonstration today. We are dealing with a genuinely new moment in the history of the church: cannibals openly in committed culinary relationships and striving to faithfully follow Jesus. The presence of this reality is something to be interpreted with care—neither hastily condemning due to a great confidence that we are on God’s side, nor hastily embracing due to the same.

Most of us need to listen more. Those of us from backgrounds that are not affirming need to listen to the stories of anthropophaginian friends, especially Christian anthropophaginian friends.

4 comments:

  1. Outstanding, Steve.

    Gets the point across wonderfully.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "and striving to faithfully follow Jesus"

    No, they're not.

    If they were "striving," they would abandon their sin. They "strive" as far as "striving" does not demand they forsake their sin. Such "striving" in not striving at all.

    As you excellently showed, this same silly (and I mean "silly" in the 16-17th century meaning of the word) line of reasoning can lead one to accept homosexuality (nevermind what Romans 1 CLEARLY says), cannibalism, pedophiles being in "committed relationships" with ten year-olds, or men marrying animals (after all, bestiality was forbidden in the OT as well- maybe this has changed, too?)

    I can't even interact with people reasoning like this. That this would make sense to somebody is beyond my ability to comprehend.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Faulty logic overturned! I will have to use this humorous/gruesome illustration in the future. It sticks in your brain.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It was difficult not to laugh while reading this incredibly powerful reductio ad absurdum argument. Nicely done.

    Years ago, a friend of mine did something similar with an editorial that appeared in a Providence (Rhode Island) newspaper. Her argument was that obese people suffer similar "discrimination" as homosexuals and should therefore have special rights and protections granted to them.

    ReplyDelete