Watching Lincoln in the same week as arguments are heard about gay marriage is confusing and challenging in a great way. I have so many unformed thoughts that i need to sort through, but some have emerged as being articulate enough to be shared:
THOUGHT 1: Even though I object strongly to its defensive tone, I refer you to this article for its rationale on why my struggle and the struggle of those in the LGBTQ community should NEVER be equated. They are not the same, and to claim equality isn’t a good idea. Note: I am saying nothing of his theological stance, since he doesn’t rigorously argue it in this article.
THOUGHT 2: If I am still groping and clawing my way towards the dignity that a constitutional amendment was supposed to secure for me almost 150 years ago, then it cannot be overstated that the government, no matter how big or small, will never be able to legislate morality, regardless of what you think morality is. And if you follow Jesus, you should be utterly thankful for this, for it is the choices of our brothers and sisters to defy the government’s
definition of our spiritual identity in the first 2 centuries after Jesus rose from the dead that gives us the privilege of having a faith in the first place. I do not, nor will I ever need, a government’s permission to follow Jesus.
THOUGHT 3: In case you want to begin to understand what I think about the issue at large: Jesus’ challenge to the religious authority of his day, as well as his invitation for (socially categorized) sinners, was existential (the quality of our acting, feeling, and living) far more than it was axiomatic (what can be proved) or ontological (understanding the nature and essence of God).
But if you haven’t chosen into real community and fellowship with people, especially those with whom you fundamentally disagree or have conflict, then you can’t really understand their existential commitment to Jesus (or anything else). Understanding the axioms of someone’sfaith or what they think about their faith is shallow compared to experiencing firsthand the real-life implications of their spiritual allegiance. And until the larger public
dialogue comes from a place of relationship (which, at this point, implies a lot reconciliation and forgiveness), then all statements (“Biblical” or otherwise) will be shallow and insufficient in light of the scriptural narrative’s standards for community and commitment to people.
THOUGHT 4: I don’t know how reasonable this is, but as a Black evangelical man, I find it borderline manipulative and dehumanizing for anyone to use my ethnic identity (and, thus, the history of my people) to further a theological debate. Whether it’s people re-posting this article on Facebook, or its original post on The Gospel Coalition website, it troubles me that the oppression of Black people is being reduced to another rung on a ideological ladder. Can someone just care about our oppression and restoration without it being another “point” on a scorecard for an issue?
kim:eubanks 