In the last several years, religious communities, especially my own Episcopal Church, have been roiling in heated controversy around the issues of human sexuality. It was particularly contentious when the Episcopal Church ordained an openly gay Bishop. Defying the decision, some parishes split from our denomination to establish their own churches. One African Bishop, when a gay man offered to shake his hand, turned his back on him. Not our finest hour.
Understandings of human sexuality vary widely and opinions run from “what’s the big deal” to “abomination.” Creationists tend toward Biblical literalism while liberals lean more to metaphorical interpretations. The issues include how we are to view lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender persons (LGBT). Are they sinners in God’s eyes, an aberration or are their sexual proclivities a product of genetics? Is marriage a contract exclusively between men and women or might it include same sex unions? These issues are now being openly discussed.
Opponents of LGBT’s sexual orientations frequently cite the Bible’s Leviticus 18:2 for divine justification: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind.” If a Biblical text ultimately decides this matter, advocates for exclusively heterosexual marriage have a strong case. This text is unequivocal and historically the traditional point of view in the West. Liberal interpretations point out that love, loyalty and commitment, also divine imperatives, are the essence of a marriage contract, not gender. Pew research finds that opposition to same sex marriages is greater among political and religious conservatives. A 2015 Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that 59% of Americans support allowing same sex marriage.
The problem as I see it is that America’s spiritual roots lie in the Judeo-Christian tradition that has historically been antagonistic to any sexual expression outside of marriage. The historical context for the present controversy is essentially hostile to the emerging understanding of who androgynous people are and their rightful place in the human family.
We’ll not find answers for a long time. In my opinion, the real challenge is not so much who’s got it right about sex, but how we can remain kind and gentle with one another as we’re searching for answers. The record is not encouraging.
I read an enlightening paper on homosexuality recently. It explored how many of our own Native Americans understood it. Professor of Anthropology, History and Gender Studies at the University of Southern California, Walter L. Williams, writes about how American Indians understood their androgynous (gays and lesbians) brothers and sisters. Native American communities regarded them as persons especially blessed because they were believed to have “two spirits;” the one male and the other female. The spirit world was significant to the Native American character as their cosmology was centered around it. Gays and lesbians were consulted about matters of the heart and spirit and were sought after as teachers because of their wisdom. A male with feminine proclivities might be incorporated in tribal life by working along with women in agriculture and childcare. The women with a male orientation worked side by side with males in hunting and warfare. What’s striking to me is how gays and lesbians were extended a revered place in the life of such a strongly heterosexual culture. The Spanish and English explorers called gays, “sodomites,” clearly betraying the harsh Judeo-Christian condemnation of androgynous people we have with us today. French explorers, on the other hand, called gays, “berdache,” which means, “intimate male friend.” The French, of course, when it comes to sex, keep a laissez faire attitude.
I wonder if Christians might be kinder and less judgmental with each other by going native rather than quoting scripture.
Being kind and gentle amidst controversy isn’t easy and requires spiritual maturity.
I recall hearing of an inspired idea some Christian schools developed to cultivate in children peaceful and kindly attitudes for settling conflicts. The formula, dubbed, WWJD, stood for “What would Jesus do.” The letters were inscribed on bracelets, which the children wore and could readily see. If a child was in a conflict situation he was encouraged to look at the bracelet and ponder how Jesus might resolve this situation in his legendary non-violent and gentle way.
In one story, two boys linger at the table in the school lunchroom. A remaining piece of cake sits uneaten in the middle of the table. Both eye the cake for a minute and then each lunges for it. A teacher sees the situation and quickly intervenes. She asks the boys, “What would Jesus do.” The boys sit sullenly, and after a while one boy points to the other and asks, “Why don’t you be Jesus?”
What would Jesus think? I suspect he’d smile benevolently while patiently trusting that one day we will all eventually get it: I don’t mean the cake, but the meaning of love and generosity in religious life.
Columnist George Merrill is an Episcopal Church priest and pastoral psychotherapist. A writer and photographer, he’s authored two books on spirituality: Reflections: Psychological and Spiritual Images of the Heart and The Bay of the Mother of God: A Yankee Discovers the Chesapeake Bay. He is a native New Yorker, previously directing counseling services in Hartford, Connecticut, and in Baltimore. George’s essays, some award winning, have appeared in regional magazines and are broadcast twice monthly on Delmarva Public Radio.
..
Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article
We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.