As anyone who has read the Bible, or for that matter, Homer, knows, interest in and concern over sexuality has been around for a long time. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that a [Baptist] Conference on Sexuality and Covenant was convened by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and Mercer University’s Center for Theology and Public Life. What is surprising is that it took so long for some group to step up and sponsor talks on a topic of such universal significance. From family dinner tables to the halls of the Vatican, people are talking about sex. Or if they are not, they should be.
Jim White
|
Still, talking about sex often makes us uncomfortable. Even in the intimacy of the home the “birds and bees” discussion is often postponed until absolutely necessary. Likewise, when Baptists announced their intention to talk about sexuality it created waves of concern. For some the concern was that such a discussion would end up endorsing cultural norms. Others were concerned because they had never heard Baptists say anything about sex except … well, some had never heard Baptists say anything about sex.
Any discussion, to be profitable, has to include the viewpoints of all concerned, and this conference certainly did. The purpose, as the sponsors made clear, was not to endorse, but to listen, and, if possible, to understand.
Surely we can all agree that these are laudable goals. Still, opening a sexual Pandora’s box likely means that we can never quite go back to the way things were. As the lid was lifted on Baptists and sexuality, the prevalence of premarital sex in our culture (even among Christians) escaped. So did homosexuality in the church. No matter how hard and fast we try to slam the lid shut, they are out. And the very acknowledgment of them makes many of us uncomfortable.
But we are the church. We can’t ignore what is happening around (and even within) us. We must bring some spiritual and scriptural light to bear on such important subjects. Homosexuals already sit in our pews and even serve on our staffs, but they do so secretly. Our unofficial, unstated policy has been don’t ask, don’t tell.
As some of the speakers voiced their concerns, however, it sounded as if their solution to the issue is to redefine what is acceptable in favor of being cultural relevant. They argue that people in our culture—particularly young people—are turned off by what they consider to be narrow-mindedness in the church. We need to be more open, they argue.
A dozen or so years ago the United Methodists, having the same concerns, adopted a slogan, “Open hearts, open minds, open doors.” Many believed that this new relevance would have greater appeal. So how has that worked for the Methodists? In the past 12 years their membership has fallen by 8 percent. So much for becoming culturally relevant by accepting cultural norms.
What bothers me is not the conference—clearly, it needed to happen. Nor am I bothered by discussions some of which pushed for embracing actions we have traditionally understood as sinful according to the Bible. I don’t expect everybody to agree. What bothers me about the conference is that Scriptures condemning certain sexual practices were dismissed as proof-texts without ever being examined.
If it is true that we cannot live with our heads in the cultural sand, ignoring what is taking place around us, then it must surely also be true that we cannot simply ignore Scriptures that seem to clearly condemn sexual relations among the unmarried and among homosexuals.
Both those who have traditional views of sexuality and those who have “revised” views must let the Scriptures speak and they must be as willing to listen to them as to the voices of culture. They must intelligently and with integrity listen to the Scriptures before they seek to speak.
Before we traditionalists get too comfortable in our belief that we know with absolute certainty what the Bible says, however, let’s consider what we have done in years past. “The Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it,” is a temping bit of dogma, but things have a habit of becoming unsettled despite our claims.
Take for example the shape of the world. Literally, I mean. The Bible speaks of the four corners of the earth. For many, including the Roman Church in the early days, that settled it. So, when Galileo said otherwise, he was branded a heretic. Today only a few “flat earth” Christians exist.
Or before the Civil War many Christians believed that the Bible clearly taught that slavery was not only permissible but blessed by God. They cited chapters and verses that seemed irrefutably to support their positions. Laws concerning slavery (i.e. Exodus 21:2-6, 20-21) and St. Paul’s sending the newly-converted runaway slave Onesimus back to his Christian owner are only two of dozens of examples cited. Yet today no Christian would seriously contend that it is right to own slaves.
We routinely ignore some biblical admonitions like stoning rebellious children (Deut. 21:18-21) or even that women worship with their heads covered (1 Cor. 11:4-6). Traditionalists need to seek seriously to explain why some parts of Bible are disregarded while other parts (including the prohibitions against homosexuality and fornication) should be followed explicitly.
On the other hand, those who hold that verses condemning this behavior no longer apply must explain how they can ignore those verses and still be “biblical.”
Some would have us believe this is a fundamentalist-liberal question, but unless “fundamental conservatives” hold to even the dietary laws of the Old Testament and worship on Saturday, they have already begun to pick and choose Scriptures to apply. The deeper question is how do we honestly apply the Bible to our lives?
As Baptists, we have always said, “We are people of the Book,” and so we must continue to be. But we must be honest enough to admit that we obey some parts of the Book and disregard others. We must be willing and able to explain why we do so. And we must expect others to do the same.
Sexuality isn’t going away. At least, let us hope not. And in times of changing social mores the church must be able to speak with authenticity, with self-examination, with integrity and with compassion, whatever its specific message.
Jim White ([email protected]) is executive editor of the Religious Herald.