We Object, Your Honor 1/2
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I thought it would be enlightening to pretend for this blog that we are in an actual court of law. The author of this hate note anonymously taped it to the door of the progressive church. If he had been forced to defend himself and his note, it might not have gone as he had planned.
It’s one thing to call someone a false believer and it’s quite another thing to prove it. That’s what we are going to examine in this blog. The author of the hate note did his deed in secret but we’re going to see if his words can withstand the test of scrutiny. Here’s how!
In order for the author to demonstrate his case against the progressive church he/she must 1) demonstrate that the progressive congregation has a belief or practice that is contrary to orthodox christianity and 2) he must provide the chapter and verse that unequivocally applies to their heresy. A failure to do either one or both of these is a failure to prove his point.
So, let’s begin.
Judge: Bailiff, please read the first accusation for the court. (Bailiff reads…)
On God and Law – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1
Defense attorney: We object to this one, Your Honor on the basis that there is no correlation between “On God and Law” and this verse quoted from John 1. In addition, Your Honor, it is not clear what “law” the plaintiff is referring to here. Is he talking about the laws of our country? Is he talking about ancient Jewish law? If that’s the case, is he suggesting that we are still under Jewish law? Being an evangelical, surely the plaintiff doesn’t believe that. The apostle Paul was very clear that we were not still under Jewish law. In any case, it’s not clear why this verse is pertinent here.
Judge: The court agrees. Objection sustained.
Defense attorney: As to the other point, the plaintiff has not provided any evidence showing that the progressive congregation has broken any laws and therefore has failed to meet either of the criteria on this point. Therefore, this point is flawed and should be thrown out.
Judge: The court agrees. The accusation regarding “God and Law” has failed to meet its required burden of proof and is thus considered invalid.
On God and Law – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word as god.” John 1:1
Judge: Bailiff, please read the next accusation. (Bailiff reads…)
On relationships – “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22
Defense attorney: First off, Your Honor, we wish to point out that the Bible says a lot about relationships; our relationship with God, with each other, with other christians, with our neighbors, with the poor, with our enemies, and with the foreigner in our country. Most of what the bible says about “relationships” can be summed up one word: Love. As in, love the Lord your God, love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies and show loving kindness to the poor and the foreigner in your mist. It also says “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another”. We find it curious, Your Honor, why the plaintiff used this one verse from Leviticus to speak about the Bible’s stance on relationships, while ignoring all the others. We therefore suggest that “On relationships” is an inaccurate label for the accusation in question and should be considered invalid.
Judge: The court agrees. Proceed.
Defense attorney: Before we proceed to the second objection to this accusation, Your Honor, we feel the need to point out that there is another verse in Leviticus that condemns homosexuality. In that verse the punishment for homosexuality was death. Just like Exodus 35 where that the punishment for working on the sabbath was death. It was as wrong then as it is now. Surely, the plaintiff does not believe these verses should also be taken literally and should still be followed. At least one would hope so.
This is very concerning, Your Honor. If the plaintiff believes the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, which as an evangelical he would, then he would believe both verses to be worthy of being followed. In the political environment we find ourselves in this day and age this is a very serious condition and might be considered as a possible veiled threat as well. We urge the court to make note of the possible dangers to the progressive congregation.
Judge: This court is well aware of the violent hate crimes perpetrated against the LGBTQ community. Do we know the identity of the person who wrote this note?
Defense attorney: We do not, Your Honor. The note was anonymously taped to the door of their church.
Judge: Your concerns are duly noted, Counselor. I assume that your clients are fully aware of their rights and protections offered to them under the law.
Defense attorney: They are, Your Honor.
Judge: Good! You may proceed.
Defense attorney: As to the other point, it is accurate that the progressive congregation is inclusive and embraces members of the LGBTQ community. This could be considered unorthodox in evangelical circles. The progressive congregation acknowledges this break from orthodox christianity, as we can see from their mission statement.
Progressive: Most churches in America make an exception to the full embrace of God by excluding LGBTQ-identifying individuals. From our evangelical roots, the full inclusion of LGBTQ people was a radical departure. We set out to embody a “new normal’ of what a church family should look like — LGBTQ and Straight individuals and families worshiping and learning together in shared community
Defense attorney: Your Honor, we would like to propose here is that the verse from Leviticus used by the plaintiff is subject to different interpretations depending on a person’s hermeneutics and should be discounted as invalid. We first would like to submit the writings of a pastor named Colby Martin, who has written a book about these verses in the bible that condemn homosexuality. He believes that those verses have been misinterpreted for centuries.
Colby Martin
Churches in America are experiencing an unprecedented fracturing due to their belief and attitude toward the LGBTQ community. Armed with only six passages in the Bible–often known as the “clobber passages”–the traditional Christian position has been one that stands against the full inclusion of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters. Unclobber reexamines each of those frequently quoted passages of Scripture. UnClobber reexamines what the Bible says (and does not say) about homosexuality in such a way that breathes fresh life into outdated and inaccurate assumptions and interpretations.
Defense attorney: We would also like to present as Exhibit B a conversation with the pastor of the progressive congregation who is herself gay.
There are seven passages, which we sometimes call the clobber passages, and they, at first glance, look like they are condemning homosexuality. But I really don’t think that’s what those passages are about. And it took me a long time to get there.
Clobber verses are six or seven really short sentences or paragraphs from the bible that have been used to clobber gay people, and try to tell them that they shouldn’t be that way. That they should repent. That they should stop being homosexual. There are so many more passages in the bible about poverty, right? And we ignore those and focus on these six or seven. They’re called clobber verses because they’ve clobbered people for so many years.
I did use those to clobber myself. Because for a long time, my hermeneutic, the lens through which I read the scriptures, told me that those six or seven passages should be followed literally. So, when Romans condemns homosexuality, it was condemning me. So, I beat myself up with those passages. I clobbered myself. It took a long time to even be willing to think that I might have been wrong about how I understood the bible.
I found lots of theologians, some Presbyterian, some former Evangelicals, some in the United Church of Christ who were saying that we have been wrong about these passages of scriptures that we’ve been interpreting as a punishment and as an indictment on gay people. I just all of a sudden, found theologians, who really understood the scriptures, who were like, “No, it’s okay that you are gay.”
Defense attorney: Your Honor, what is clear here is that the verse from Leviticus used by the plaintiff is subject to different interpretations depending on a person’s hermeneutics. In the same book of Leviticus there is a verse, and I quote, “You are to keep my statues. You shall not breed together two kinds of cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of materials mixed together.” Your Honor, today I am wearing a shirt that is a cotton/polyester blend. If I were to show up in the plaintiff’s evangelical church on Sunday wearing this shirt, would I be unwelcomed because of Leviticus 19:19? Certainly not!
However, Your Honor, based on Leviticus 18:22, members of the LGBTQ community would be not be welcomed? Adhering to one fragment of Jewish law and not to others is simply unjust. The plaintiff may not use one point of Jewish law at his discretion and disregard others. The accusation regarding “On Relationships” is unclear and has failed to meet its required burden of proof. We therefore request that the plaintiff’s use of the verse should be viewed as flawed and therefore disregarded.
Judge: We are certainly not under Jewish law in this court. While the court recognizes the plaintiff’s freedom of religion, it also acknowledges that biblical scripture is open to personal interpretation and holds no weight in this courtroom. Therefore, the Court considers it invalid.
On relationships – “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22
Defense attorney: Thank you, Your Honor.
Coming Next: We Object, Your Honor (conclusion)
We will scrutinize the remaining parts of the hate message.
(On government, On Jesus is God, and REPENT AND BELIEVE)
From Where I Stand
Dale Crum