The God of the Heterosexual?
Reverend Nathan C. Walker is the minister of the First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia and co-editor of the forthcoming book “Whose God Rules a Theolegal Nation?” with foreword by Tony Blair and contributing chapters by Martha Nussbaum, Alan Dershowtiz, Robert George, Richard Cizik and two-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee Joseph Grieboski.
Whose God should rule the country? The God of the heterosexual or the God of the homosexual? I vote neither.
On February 11, 2008, Representative John Wright of the Oklahoma House of Representatives was offended when guest chaplain Pastor Scott Jones, an openly gay United Church of Christ minister, acknowledged his male partner in a prayer from the legislative floor.
Wright moved to strike the prayer from the record, a motion not affirmed by the majority of his colleagues: 64 voted to include the prayer, 20 opposed and 17 abstained. The very act of questioning the identity of a minister implies that legislators have the power to determine who is worthy of the Constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. Although the religious beliefs of the 20 who opposed to were not used as public rationale to strike the prayer, legislators need not exercise one’s own beliefs explicitly to engage in theolegal practices.
Yes, “theolegal” practices: a new way to describe how public officials use theology to make, apply or administer law. The very act of denying a citizen the right to free expression of religion based on one’s identity is an example of theolegal behavior. Theolegal officials, such as Wright, use their power to fortify their own beliefs and erode the rights of those who do not meet those creedal tests. This is a dangerous and piercingly unpatriotic practice.
For Representative Wright and those who voted against the prayer, the intention was to legally establish the God-of-the-heterosexual as the only permissible expression of faith. In doing so, they stood on the side of fear and exclusion. Thankfully other officials responsibly stood on the side of love and inclusion.
I was pleased to hear that the majority of legislators did not support Wright’s motion, demonstrating that not all officials, many of them unabashedly religious, agreed with the proposed theolegal practices. More than ever, we need officials who will responsibly unify and advance our communities, not divide us because of our identities. My hope is that citizens of all walks of life, whether religious or not, will elect officials to serve all the people, not only their God.
We think Nate’s blog is especially timely right now because of equal marriage initiatives in New York and in Washington DC. What do you think?
While I am sure that each of us whose life is guided by a faith tradition acts even unconsciously in accordance with that tradition, all of us who grew up as Americans knows that the constitution was set up apart from any faith.
It is our duty to ourselves as religious individuals, to our fellow citizens and other residents of the country, and to our country as a political entity, to live our lives in such a way that we do not hinder other people’s free and responsible expressions of their livelihood and of their faith.
The constitution of our country is written in such a way as behooves legislators to propose, discuss, and enact law in such a way as to promote the health and welfare of the country without promoting, demanding adherence to , OR discouraging any particular religion, or religion in general.
So I never “touched” ‘the god of the heterosexual vs the god of the homosexual’. I just realized why: that’s like saying there is one god for tall people and another for short people; one god for blonds and anther for brunettes.
One’s sexuality is biological, not open to choice at adulthood.
I cannot conceive of more than one divine being, although I can conceive of many aspects of the divine. I believe that each of us is one ‘face’, if you will, of The Divine. Because of that we are constrained to treat each other with respect that we would give any embodiment of The Divine.
The more interesting question for me is the one re separation of church and state. Why is the religious leader even being asked to give a prayer at a government event and venue? He shouldn’t be.
Thanks to Nate for his post. I was not aware of the event that he described in our House of Representatives. We often look at issues of church and state through the lens of the First Amendment. For those of us who are federal officers, as is the Honorable John Wright, we are additionally bound by Article Six. Article Six is often overlooked in conversations about church and state – it says, “…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The motion to strike the chaplain’s words from the record seems rather close to a religious test of his office.
The question posed is: “Whose God should rule the country? The God of the heterosexual or the God of the homosexual?”
Currently i would probably vote for the god of the homosexual, to the degree that this is the god that understands being the outsider, excluded, abused, and hated for love. I wouldn’t vote for the part that is bitchy, pessimistic, and angry. But the god of the heterosexual is the god of hegemony, the one that needs to keep control, the god of patriarchy. Of course, both ‘gods’ are distortions, because they rise from a particular (i.e. limited) understanding of reality. I’m not sure I would want to be subject to either god. For one thing, I consider both to be idols since they are created in the image of my perception, whether heterosexual or homosexual.
I believe G’d is both inclusive and transcendent. G’d is not divided as to who or what G’d is for: G’d is for us all to the degree that we are caring, loving, and true. (A reference to the 1 Corinthians 13 of the Christian Apostolic Writings is worthy here.) In my view, one principle that binds the theological understanding of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity (including both orthodox and radical reformation schools–so including the Unitarian-Universalist Movement–to the degree that one is discussing a theistic/deistic understanding of G’d, and not an a-theistic form, which is even more complex to discuss specifically, and for which I have no referent) into one is the unequivocal understanding that G’d is One. (I sometimes use “The One” as a descriptor of the one G’d.) And G’d watches out for the outsider. And sometimes the outsider is in unexpected places, sometimes even on the inside! This is the G’d of the heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, and other sorted and varieties of sexual that may be out there!
I guess ultimately I am for The One who is beyond naming, but who is for me, and you, and them. I still think 1 Corinthians 13 is a good jump-off point! More can be said, but I’ve said enough already.
Peace!
I am wondering what other values constitute an appropriate moral action. Perhaps one could include consensual acts between adults. The Jesus thing throws me a little, because the only historical document that records Jesus’ words is the Bible, and while many tolerant things are spoken by Jesus, and he definitely turned upside down the hegemony of certain value systems, e.g., ritual uncleanness, ritual purity system, et al, he also said things that would NOT be in keeping with ‘Standing on the Side of Love’s’ values, or so it would seem to me, e.g., he told the consenting women caught in adultery to “go and sin no more,” i.e., stop having consensual sex outside of marriage. It seems intellectually fair to say Jesus would ‘exclude’ those who want to have sex outside of a monogamous relationship – ‘exclude’ that is from ethically sanctioned behavior. So it seems to me that “Jesus” (the historical documented Jesus) would need to be described as “bigoted and exclusionary;” if we fairly apply the standards of tolerance advocated by ‘Standing on the Side of Love’.
Please don’t misunderstand me, tolerance is desperately needed in today’s world; we need a more inclusive tolerant society, but those who so focus on tolerance as a kind of all-pervading value, need to be careful not to commit a reverse kind of bigotry, i.e., claiming those whose ethical perceptions include other virtues other than tolerance and consensual behavior are hateful and bigoted people, simply because their moral judgments are different; obviously, if we are to possess academic integrity (which I think is a virtue), Jesus is the kind of person whose ethical sensibilities include far more than ‘tolerance and consent’. Yes…no?
In response to the other Nate’s comment posted 11.27.08 at 10:10 am:
Thanks for your posting, warning tolerant people not to become what they set out against. I call this liberal fundamentalism: when in the name of open mindedness we become closed minded.
However, that does not mean that systematized legalized discrimination should be tolerated. It cannot be accepted under any circumstance.
As noted in the Charter for Compassion, we must “return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate.” Why is this so important? Because the Golden Rule is at the heart of all religious traditions, calling us to treat one another as we want to be treated.
This is a great lesson we can teach a theolegal country: a nation that has been using the beliefs of the majority to erode the rights of minorities. In this way, no one person’s God rules; rather the universal values that transcend all religions and nation states, such as compassion and justice, guide our evolving democracy. When this is achieved, the strategies of the conservative and liberal fundamentalism are silenced by our collective commitment to preserve justice and equality for all.
Peace,
Rev. Nate Walker
First, yes I am a Christian. Second, I do not hate PEOPLE who are homosexuals, lesbians, etc. However, you have twisted 1 Corinthians 13 to mean what you want it to mean. I sometimes pray for folks who are homosexuals, lesbians, and who are “gender confused”. The reason being this:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” – 1 Cor. 6:9-10 ESV
And yes, I know the Word says “Do not judge others”, and I am not judging others in any part of this comment.
I’ve been told things like “You can’t believe that the Bible is accurate. It was written by men thousands of years ago in different languages!” No, I don’t know Greek, Hebrew, or Latin, and I don’t have to in order to know that the Holy Bible is accurate. Those who mock, revile, and persecute me for my faith and my beliefs prove biblical accuracy over and over again! It was spoken by Christ Himself that I would be persecuted, and even hated for following Him. I’ve experienced that a number of times. Yet I’m not supposed to believe that the Holy Bible is accurate?
If I am mocked, reviled, or persecuted on this site for believing the Holy Bible and what it REALLY says, then I welcome it, as it will only serve to cement my belief in the accuracy of the Word.