Who Sinned?
Who Sinned?…
Patrick Anderson
Many organizations and denominations which carry the label Christian, are riven by disagreements regarding some aspects of sexuality. Notably, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) recently joined the ranks of denomi-networks in seeking some resolution to two mutually exclusive viewpoints held by its members.
First, some members believe in total acceptance and integration of lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-queer (LGBTQ) persons in every aspect of the work the Gospel, particularly as missionaries and ministers. Second, other members believe their understanding of the Bible precludes LGBTQ persons from certain roles of service, especially as missionaries and/or ministers.
From a practical standpoint, the two sides are not compatible. Truly, these two “masters” cannot be simultaneously served. Nor is this the first time Baptists have found themselves embroiled in cultural impasses.
Baptists and Slavery
In the 19th century, Baptists in America disagreed so vehemently on the issue of slavery that the denomination split along north (anti-slavery) and south (pro-slavery) lines. Southern Baptists and all other church denominations in the south defended slavery. They used cultural and rational arguments and, to no small extent, Holy Scripture to justify the subjugation of dark-skinned people by light-skinned people. The role of sin in the dark-skinned condition was also justified by the stories of Noah’s son Ham. White supremacy was understood to be normative, and preferable. After the south lost the war and for decades into the 20th century, white Baptists in the south shared the shameful belief in and practice of white supremacy with the other white Christian groups—Methodists, Presbyterians and the rest.
Baptists and Gender Equality
Late in the 20th century, faced with the cultural shifts regarding the role of women in society, Southern Baptists took a strong stance against women in ministry. By the end of the century, in 2000 the SBC had codified this stance in a new statement of faith that in part maintained that “the role of senior pastor is reserved for males only,” and “wives should graciously submit to their husbands.” Although not as seismic a split as that caused by the slavery controversy more than a century earlier, the public stance taken by the SBC to oppose equality for women in ministry led in no small part to the departure of some churches and individuals and the formation of the Alliance of Baptists and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
Neither the issue of slavery nor the role of women in church and society can be held up as shining examples of rational or even civil discourse among Baptists. Slavery disputes led to all-out, literal war—a war between mostly white northerners and white southerners resulting hundreds of thousands of them on both sides killed and untold numbers more maimed. Slavery ended, but the underlying value system which sustained slavery persisted. In both instances—slavery and the roles of women—arguments were made on the basis of culture, biology and the Bible.
Southerners defended slavery of dark-skinned persons as a cultural norm. White southerners were frightened at the prospect of a cataclysmic cultural change that would recognize dark-skinned people as equal to light-skinned people. Such a shift would bring about the collapse of their culture. What would happen if black people suddenly saw themselves as equal to whites? What if they wanted to drink from the same water fountains, utilize the same public bathrooms and waiting rooms, go to the same schools, hold public office, or (gasp!) you-name-it?
Likewise Southerners, Baptists especially, have seen the subjugation of women as a cultural norm, holding onto an almost exclusively male-dominated culture. They look on the decisions to suppress women in leadership with no evident chagrin. They fear women. What would happen to our culture if women wore the pants in the house? How could women lead in a man’s world? What would happen if women were to decide they could hold executive positions in business and government? What if they were to think they could not only preach, but be police officers, fighter pilots, soldiers, or (gasp!) electricians, carpenters or plumbers? Biological differences surely must prove that men are superior and women are inferior.
A belief in biological differences between male and female underlie the theological stance in much the same way as perceived biological differences between black folks and white folks were used to justify slavery. White people believed black people were inferior intellectually, morally, and physically. They could not think, do right or swim. Women are considered inferior to men as well. They are too emotional, too timid, too irrational. The “causes” of gender and color differences became pivotal for many defenders of the status quo. Women were to be treated as inferior to men because of the SIN they committed through Eve in the Garden of Eden. Dark-skinned persons were to be treated as inferior to light-skinned persons because of the SIN committed by Ham after the great flood.
New Issue, Old Arguments
Today, the cultural issues revolve around sexuality, particularly the acceptable roles of lesbians, gay persons, bisexuals, transgendered and queer persons (LGBTQ). Again, cultural, biological and religious arguments are heard. What would happen if persons of the same gender want to get married? Adopt babies? Purchase property? Go to the same bathrooms? Publically display their affection? The culture would collapse and civilization as we know it would end.
But, it is in the realm of biology where much of the debate has centered. What causes a person to be LGBTQ? Is it a matter of nature or nurture? Is it a behavior which is learned (and therefore can be unlearned) or is a person “born that way?” The scientific reality has shown that simplistic either-or arguments are not adequate to explain the complexity of humans.
Scientific studies provide convincing evidence of a genetic component in behavior and orientation. But to argue that behavior is the result of biological determinism does not close the book on the subject. What about the moral or legal aspects within civil society? We cannot merely say that people act the way they do because they are born that way and cannot help themselves. If we equate genetics with behavioral determinism, then we eliminate all responsibility and sanctions for any behavior, a position that most of us would not be willing to accept, LGBTQ included.
We can say that choice is not the only factor in a person’s sexual identity, that genetic and other biological factors are in fact dispositive. But genetic or natural traits do not absolve us of responsibility for actions. Sexual desire runs the gamut of human experience and there are numerous individuals that have inbred or learned desires related to children, animals or even dead bodies that we simply do not condone as a society.
The biological determinism argument does not work as a mandate for full acceptance of all sexual diversity. If so, we would need to condone any and all sexual desires. If we claim a biological cause for behavior, we are left to excuse any number of behaviors which science has found to be biologically influenced (notice, not caused) including aggression, addiction, impulsivity, and any number of behaviors. Science accepts the fact that neither nature nor nurture, but a complicated confluence of the two, is responsible for sexual orientation and gender identity.
The roles of nature and nurture are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they are intimately connected and interdependent. It is the biological organism in interaction with the environment, which produces behaviors. The moral component to all behaviors is not exclusively dependent on either nature or nurture.
Some Christians denounce any and all non-heterosexual, monogamous-in-marriage behavior as aberrant, unnatural and sinful. That is the basis within the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship’s current policy excluding LGBTQ from serving as missionaries or ministers. It is a morality statement. Somebody sinned, and some continue to sin, and the result is that LGBTQ persons are damaged goods—disqualified from holding certain roles.
That is similar to the approach the disciples took with a man blind from birth:
As (Jesus) passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” Having said these things, he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man's eyes with the mud and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing (John 9:1-7).
This episode in the life of Jesus reveals elements of knowledge and emotion. The disciples’ question (who sinned?) reflects a prevalent ideology of the times—that sickness, disability, or any infirmity are the result of sin. Demon possession was the explanation for various forms of mental illness or autism or any number of recently diagnosed conditions. SIN was a catch-all explanation for all sorts of conditions in the first century.
But, I cannot help but understand the disciples’ question about the man born blind as an empathetic inquiry. “How can this be, Rabbi?” It is the eternal question about suffering. Jesus responded in kind, supplementing his philosophical verbal answer with an act of ultimate mercy, an empathetic response.
People tend not to be persuaded by logic and facts alone. Many are persuaded primarily by emotion, tradition and the opinions of those around them. Objective facts that support our perspectives are helpful reinforcers of our opinions; but to get us to consider others’ opinions, or to convince others to consider ours, depends to a large extent on people’s emotions and our common humanity.
The factor that has changed many persons’ attitudes toward LGBTQ is having actual contact or relationship with someone in that community. Most church people, I think it is fair to say, have never knowingly encountered a transsexual person. Not many church people are aware that babies born with both ovaries and testicles occur once in every 2000 births, making that population larger than the Jewish population in the world. Such gender complication produces ambivalence about gender identity which presents that population with a serious existential dilemma.
As church folks discover nieces and nephews, grandchildren, brothers and sisters who are LGBTQ, their attitudes change rapidly. The existence of LGBTQ fellow church members, co-workers, neighbors, teammates and relatives is more commonplace that many church folks thought a decade or two ago.
Just as we modern Christians shake our heads and roll our eyes at the disciples’ question to Jesus, or to the defense of slavery, or the subjugation of women…so, I believe, we will all one day respond to the present generation’s animus to and subjugation of the LGBTQ community. As with all questions of ethics and morality, the ways we treat fellow humans and our understanding of the Gospel leave us with the responsibility to engage in the conversation with all of the church and fiercely hope for a widely-held new understanding.
As Jesus said, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
I think the answer to “who sinned?” is found in the mirror.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
