The 7 Real Reasons You’re Not Affirming of the LGBTQ+ Community

Tags

Catholics, Church, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, LGBTQ, Orthodox Christians, queer, The Christian Right, tw abuse, tw homophobia

The standard for a sermon or “biblical statement” against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals is the use of seven segments of Scripture, which include: Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-10, and Jude 1:7. These scriptures have already been exegeted and understood not to be against the community but rather excuses. I have given some rebuttal against using such segments of Scripture for a non-affirming stance, and you can find more information in Rev. James V. Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Sexuality (more technical) and Matt Vines’s God & The Gay Christian (more summarized).These seven excuses, though, can be found in seven deeper reasons (unrelated to Scripture) for not affirming the LGBTQ+ community. They come from social constructs and psychological discombobulation, which I will describe and explain at present.

1) Pre-Millenial Eschatology (Tribulational End Times Ideology).

The followers of pre-millenial eschatology are those, who are always waiting for the world to end, which maybe tomorrow or twenty years from now in some minds. Non-affirming Catholics do not agree with such ideology, but most evangelicals and fundamentalists believe in some sort. In the older generation and very pro-homeschooling churches,  most believe in dispensational pre-millenialism. Another explanation is – the rapture! Left Behind! They may follow the teachings of John Hagee, Tim LaHaye, and other huge conspiracy Christians. The ideology is actually newer than Mormonism, though. In the late 1800s, it is believed to have originated from a dream of someone’s and later more research was found on the subject to support this supposed dream.

Other pre-millenialists are historical pre-millenialists, who proclaim that Christians will not be raptured, but they will undergo tribulation and persecution for the sacrifice of Christ. Most followers of this ideology are possibly reformed Calvinists and fans of IHOP (International House of Prayer). This was my actual second eschatology.

I was raised in a very deeply, rapture-believing church, who preached about the rapture possibly happening tomorrow and the anti-Christ coming to kill all, who were left here. It was a deep fear I had. I actually believed that I might have been the anti-Christ, the torturer of the world at one point because of this fearful ideology. I could tell you the signs of the times, how it would happen, and how people were going to die, yet I knew little about the love of Jesus. My mind was mostly fueled for a faith in keeping myself from getting left behind. Not love. Not peace. Israel was to be attacked, and the world would come in total chaos. The past hundred years with Israel has been the main fuel to such ideology because it is very deeply Zionist in nature.

The biggest detriment to the LGBTQ+ community from such ideology was/is that it was/is very close-minded. Everything that was/is not “Jesus-y” was/is possibly evil or a vessel of the anti-Christ. Homosexuals were a very huge vessel. There were the constant statements of “the gays are the sign of the times!” or “Rome fell when homosexuality took over!” or any such heterosexist-anti-Christ related interconnection. The anti-Christ was even possibly gay, himself. (Wonder why I thought I was the anti-Christ, now?)

It was not only outspoken against homosexuals, but feminists, communists, Catholics, evolutionists, and any other non-evangelical ideology. It still is (to a degree).

When I got into college, I was confronted by IHOP ministries, and their belief in historical pre-millenialism because I was starting to understand charismatic theology more. Mike Bickle, the pastor of IHOP, was/is a widely-known charismatic theologian, so I listened to his sermons that were supposedly prophetic of the end of the world. Bickle was not as insane about homosexual conspiracies, but it was very well known that they were an evil and/or sign of the times.

The pre-millenial eschatology that has ridden the evangelical church with widespread homophobia (literally) is a great epidemic to the Western world. In countries across the world, foreigners will tell you about this rapture/armageddon event rather than about the gushing, graceful love of Christ. It is a Western ideology that has closed the Camusian walls of the absurd and kept the fundamentalist world on their toes. Forget about “perfect love casting out all fear (1 John 4:18).”

2) Creationism.

Young-Earth Creationism is another ideology that limits the possibilities of affirmation for the LGBTQ+ community because of it’s lack of trust in scientific data. Creationism is the epitome of a conversation with a Christian that will say “science is not always right.” Define science. Scientific evidence that comes in hundreds of thousands of pages over the last century? Or scientific statistics? Or a narrative describing the sovereignty of God to humanity thousands of years ago? Most Creationists will even scowl, roll their eyes, or possibly protest to anyone teaching a small phrase of “millions of years ago.” It’s a trigger warning.

Because of little trust in science, a lot of creationists will disregard any scientific evidence supporting the natural biology of a gay man, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender person. It is a deep belief in biblical literalism that stems from the growth of the Reformation and then the evangelical revivals in the early 1900s. This biblical literalism is quite mind-blowing when you note that the first collectors and readers of the Bible took more criticism and a lot less literalism than this current generation.

Science shows that queerness is found in animals. “But we’re not animals.” – a creationist comeback. Science shows the younger a brother from a pack of brothers the more likely he will be given female hormones (which will later make him gay). Science shows queerness in both members in a pair of twins. Science shows similarities between brain patterns of gay men and straight women and also between lesbian women and straight men. Science shows too many “Xs” in a genetic pattern causes gender dysphoria and/or intersexuality. One geneticist could go on and on, but creationism builds on the idea of secularism or atheism taking over the world. It builds on “evil” taking over the world. It is what the devil may want you to think.

Without a respect for science, the greater neglect for love toward the LGBTQ+ community.

3) “Anti-Liberal”/The Christian Right.

Fox News was the regular TV channel at dinner in our congregation’s homes. Meanwhile, I’d be spitting “idiot” or “dummie” at the random “liberal” that would appear on maybe a segment of O’Reilly or Hannity. Elisabeth Hasselbeck was my hero for standing for the Christian Right on the View in high school. Deep inside though, I knew that the “liberals” were more like me. I knew the wacky artists and the Obama voters were in love with compassion. I could not let the gays have their rights for the sake of….I didn’t want to permit them to go to hell. I could not let illegal immigrants come into the states…..because it was breaking the “law of the land.”

The Christian Right is a feed me/feed you, circular scenario. A pep rally for toxic ideology and racist/homophobic/sexist/xenophobic statements with the sacrilege of Scripture to justify it.

Gays can’t have rights because America is a “Christian nation”……though, we support the genocide of the Palestinian peoples by the nation of Israel for the sake of eschatology! Gays can’t have rights because America is a “Christian nation”…..though, a load of deists created the Constitution of the U.S. with a clause stating the country’s “separation of church and state.” The ideas of gays even infringing on the purpose of a “Christian nation” is ridiculous, as I stated with the debunking of using seven verses to state the “homophobia of God,” yet this is a continuing example of the circular arrangement of the Christian Right’s ideology.

The Christian Right is funded by white, well-to-do Christians (Evangelical and Catholic) to feed each other money and toxic ideology for the sake of selfish exploitation and manipulation, not God.

4) Peer Pressure.

As I described with the former three ideologies, they each have a possibility to peer pressure. Everyone has the choice to be homophobic/heterosexist, but in some situations, it is more of a numbing and/or pressured experience.

Growing up in a homophobic environment, it took twenty years to be openly gay. The last six years were a slow process out of such homophobia. In high school, I entered theatre with a lot of fellow queer classmates. It started a process to be “ok” around queers and even be friends with them (at a distance). After I graduated high school, I went to an art camp, which required living with other queers. My notions about faith and queers started to be tested even more as they became close to me even more than my friends formerly. Two years later, I started becoming friends with Christian libertarians, who rejected the idea of America as a “Christian nation” and believed in rights for queers because it was a freedom. I later came to understand and agree with the same idea, especially after I made friends with more Christian libertarians at college. A year later, some Christian friends come out gay, and I come to an uncomfortable situation of realizing there was no getting passed my own homosexuality.

One may be born into a very homophobic environment or keep themselves surrounded by such, but it is all about environment. The less pressure, the more freedom to think and love, of course.

5) Patriarchy. 

Most Evangelical and all Catholic/Orthodox churches are patriarchal in nature – male-led, male-centered, male-identified, and male-empowered. Patriarchy fights for the appearance of masculinity and the eradication of femininity, therefore these churches are usually only led by males in various vocations. The system is the fuel for the rest of the patriarchal structure of society because of its sacrilegious justification of the Bible.

Mainline Christian and some Evangelical churches are a very different sort. Episcopalians, Presbyterians of U.S.A., United Churches of Christ, and various other churches ordain women as priests, head pastors, and/or other vocations. There is the ethic of egalitarianism in these churches, which deeply destroys patriarchal powers. In these same churches, they have later come to be affirming of the LGBTQ+ community. Examples include transgender priests in the Episcopal Church, lesbian pastors in the Disciples of Christ Church, and bisexual theologians in various churches.

Unlike their fellow Christians, these egalitarian Christians gave way to their affirmation of the LGBTQ+ community years after giving rights to women as leaders in the church. This is the reason for the disconnection of gay Christians and leaders of most evangelical and Catholic/Orthodox churches. The Orthodox Church is possibly the most anti-gay, high-church denomination in the world, yet they even call their biggest leaders “patriarchs.” Efforts have been made for the Southern Baptist Convention to affirm same-sex relationships in their churches by various leaders, yet nothing has came of it, which is linked to the fact that their female members are not even allowed to preach at Sunday church. The Catholic Church has been doing well to be coming slowly into affirming of same-sex relationships, but they are still very lacking, which can be linked to the fact that the pope is only and always male.

The first step to getting a congregation in the right direction toward affirmation of the queer community is an egalitarian ethic of straight men and women in church and church leadership. The Assemblies of God denomination and Methodists (especially) are in the right process toward that possible affirmation.

 

6) Strict Doctrine on Sin.

 

Before I came out, the drawing line in the sand was right in front of affirming the LGBTQ+ community. I was leaving my Calvinist notions and adopting midly liberal thoughts from Charismatic Christians, but affirming queers was cutting it close to heresy. It was a test for me and a church or a person. Tell me your thoughts on the queer community and that would test how legitimate you were as a Christian or theologian. This is a testing device used by other people, too, but it may not be as close to the line as mine was. It may be behind pre-marital sex, or it may be way behind voting for Obama.

In some Catholic churches, it is taught that homosexuality is a mortal sin. In Orthodox churches, it is taught that homosexuality is a detestable sin. In most evangelical churches, it is taught that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender persons are sinners and in need of purification and conversion. The leading cause of suicide by members of the LGBTQ+ community comes from a particular perspective on sin, which is derived from these doctrines of these churches. To get beyond this doctrine, one has to exegete and analyze these doctrines clearer and read and discern the nature and love of Jesus in the Gospels. Jesus will give you a clearer and unaffiliated vision.

7) Fear.

The core root and overall reason for any non-affirming perspective is fear….a fear of possibly being wrong about so much else…a fear of hell…a fear of losing support…a fear of change.

It’s easy to end a short argument with “…but the Bible says.” It’s easy to agree with your supportive leaders of religion, politics, and economic status. It’s easy to be white. It’s easy to be straight. It’s easier to hide.

If you change your mind on queers, what about creation? What about women? What about illegal immigration? What about America? What about your money?

God still says, “they will know me by your love (John 13:35).”

 

 

Advertisements

What is Gender? (an essay I had to write for my gender class)

Tags

binary, feminism, gender, ideology, patriarchy, queer, radical feminism, social justice, sociology

How does one come to establish their identity? How does one find their identity? Is it found through a spiritual experience, researching, by nature, or what we are taught? The human experience focuses on a continuum of lessons in a lifetime, which all come back to reflect oneself in one universe. From the beginning, though, people are incorporated into different sects, functions, roles, and ideas once they are born. The people that they come from, biologically or adoptively  – their parents – give them their certain sketches of who they are. It takes their own growth to choose or not to choose and accept these identities. “Pink or blue?” is the question for at least a year for a mother with a new child. The color is even chosen a few months before the child is even born. Humans, of course, are not obsessed with the colors pink and blue, but the new child’s genitals. Is not that odd and even disturbing? These genitals supposedly give way to the child’s “sex category” for the parents to start preparation of the cliché “engendering process.”

There may be a lot of confusion in the past paragraph just stated. “There is three different parts of our sexual identity? A sexual trinity?” may be a qualified curiosity. There is sex, sex category, and gender. Sex is the biological part of a human, which is traditionally prescribed by one’s genitals, hormones, and bodily processes regarded as male or female. The differences come from very early labeling of differences between humans as “female” and “male.” Once one is finalized into a label, they are given a sex category. It comes under certain given characteristics that one is traditionally one or the other, but there can be twists and turns in thisregard because of certain intuitive conceptualization on questions of sexual identity. Gender involves one’s sex category and understanding oneself in a place of everyday application to roles, clothing, display, esteem, and other traits. The labels of “feminine,” “masculine,” “genderfuck,” “transgender,” “agender,” and “genderqueer” and conceptions of sexual orientation come into play.

The tripartite sexual identity of each human, which includes sex, sex category, and gender, is itself a social construct, created through social means to give reference to differences among people in a population. Race, sex, and gender are all socially constructed concepts, but the reality of them is tangible because of their appraisal in society. To ignore such concepts is to create more erasure for minorities that have worked hard for the power of their identities, and the ignorance also creates sociological ricochet. To ignore a concept of social construction, would be to ignore the depravities given to certain groups under a given category that may need the appraisal of such concept to give them respect and equality. The ignorance of the privileged to such social constructs as “unreal” or “in need of erasure” only gives more oppression to the underprivileged.  In understanding gender, there must be acceptance of it as a social construct, but also that it is something that encompasses one’s whole sexual identity and can be allowed to (negatively or positively) permeate one’s whole entire identity. Gender is brought forth in one’s expression, personality, and displays, which seems beyond traditional or “essential” streams of thought. Thankfully, “trans*” means “beyond” in Latin. The fact that gender is a social construct does not mean that one is limited to think of it only involved in one’s social world, but it is also involved in the psychological world stemming from the biological. Gender flourishes from a mind’s perception of self, which may be different from an earlier recognized, biological sense of self in reference to what young teens refer to as “no-no squares.”

According to the “natural” or essentialist approach to gender, one is assigned roles, ideals, and expressions according to given genitals. This follows a binary of “feminine” and “masculine” traits given to a “male” or “female” or in this case a “penis-possessing male” or “vagina-possessing female.” Are there not times where humans have both types of genitals? These possibly are intersex people or people that are given the common yet derogatory term of a “hermaphrodite.” The amount of people still possessing both is rare. Especially in this capitalist, white, male-centered society, there is a limit to gender fluidity. It is common for a doctor to detach one of the two genital organs from a “newborn” infant before a parent can give any permission. Does this not sound unethical? Some argue that the infant would be seen as a monster or freak, and others that it challenges the normative, binary way of thinking. First, who is to know that the child ever has both sets of genitals? Second, who is really entitled to make such a disruption to a child that would not be of any real healthful benefit? The child may face different problems than the majority of the population and may shock a few authority figures while changing their diapers, but is not the child going to explore some sort of curiosity to begin with because of how they feel and think distinctly from others? When one is born, our mind is given an identity relating to “masculine” and “feminine” traits and so is our physical body.  At least one percent of the time, though, they are not in correct balance. A transgender identity embarks upon the journey of finding one’s mind, body, and display in a similar pattern with one gender identity whether female, male, agender (without or lack of gender), or genderqueer.

Many may still ask, “How does one actually have a legitimate and understandable gender identity?” It may seem like pure brouhaha to the amateur of this socio-ideology, but it is come to be understood from a knowledge of peace. A person should be exposed to what is possible for their own expression and once they find this peace of mind, they know, and they strive for what they know is to be their fulfilling self. Most people stay the gender that they were ascribed to as a child, which is fine as long as it does not become problematic for peers who are questioning of their own identity and expression.

To the newcomer of such truth about gender, these concepts that make up one’s own identity may seem uncomfortable yet mind-boggling. The student may have heard of only the fallible, binarist tradition of man and woman, while also knowing some people of queer sexualities such as gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals, but for most new students, it makes them look beyond or “transcend” what they have been socialized to believe. The reason for this restrictive and oppressive ignorance is because of the system of patriarchy. Patriarchy is an old tradition that links humanity to a history and process of domination by the male gender. Patriarchy is not men themselves, but it is a destructive ideology that gives cigendered (people who keep their ascribed gender at birth) men superiority over other identities for their own self-centered, man-identified,  man-dominated purposes. To go beyond a cisnormative, heteronormative binarist establishment, a person is rebelling against the “natural” order. The establishment gives men superiority over women, who are socialized as possessions, sex slaves, maids, and second-class citizens. The men are to uphold a standard of only a heterosexual nature that provides naturally gay, bisexual, and other queer identities with a “closet” or psychological incarceration. Men are also socialized to be leaders, keep an unemotional, “masculine” persona, compete with one another for domination and attention, while keeping a loyal bond as a link between each other.

Questions as to where this system was created has been up to much debate in the past several decades. The two largest theories is that it was passed down through our own macroevolution of humanity or that back a several thousand years men became possessive and oppressive in the beginning of the domestication of animals and as private property became a quantity in the human economy. Why is the system being perpetuated still if it is so ancient? This is a great question that holds new, innovative and old, traditional answers. Religion has been an old proponent to the processing of patriarchy. Most religions hold to a holy scriptural assignment to men as the superior gender and the leaders of any social environment because with this practice they “glorify their god(s).” The family dynamic has given a perpetuation of the patriarchal legacy, too. The nuclear family ideal of the man having a wife and children gives to a similar nationalistic attitude to social dominance, while women and children are held within their limits as the possession and/or anchor to such a victorious conquest.

In the late 1800s, the Industrial Revolution arose from England crossing the Atlantic to America. In this time of deep transition, capitalism became magnified and idolized. Men were prompted to become a part of the factory occupation, while women were prioritized within the limits of the household and keeping up with the rest of the family’s needs. Capitalism extended the boundaries of domination within the West with men and their given male privilege having higher depths to proceed over the rest of the gender and sexual identities. With the exceeding accessibility of males to even higher positions came the exceeding oppression of women in socialization. Women would deal with scrutiny for leaving the home, glass ceilings, glass elevators, and less accessibility to the concept of being an equal within society. Not only does capitalism’s power effect women, but it also grows a neglect and abuse to nature as well. The desire for money and prestige comes to destroy the boundaries of animals’ homes, deforestation, and neglect of the environment’s resources such as air and the ozone layer. Nature becomes a quantity to dominate and humans hold a hyper-speciesist (a heightened discrimination towards nature) practice of seeking one’s priorities over other species.

Capitalism is only kept as a subsystem of society because of one of patriarchy’s biggest perpetuating machines – the central government. In regards to the history of a central government, there have been many shifts within the availability for patriarchy to flourish more efficiently. The U.S. government may have more availability in their democratic republic to give more rights to women, but it also gives great availability for patriarchy to dictate society. Even with the notion of women having more rights within a democratic republic, central government is built upon a patriarchal foundation of giving prestige and power to a select group of pawns. Central government gives one group (powerful political leaders) privilege and superiority over another group (the nation’s citizens). With the established male privilege beforehand, it gives more leeway for cisgendered, straight men to hold benefits and priorities from others that differ from their identity. Not only does it depend on gender and sexual orientation, but it also gives a particular race privilege, which are the white cisgendered, straight men. The history of white men killing millions of Native Americans, enslaving millions of black Africans, and scrutinizing Asians and Hispanics gives leeway for current systemic white privilege. Not only does the supposed “democratic republic” give special endowment to white men through central government, but it is especially given to those to what is now our country’s (or empire’s) title as an “oligarchy.”

An oligarchy is ruled by the rich or the corporate sector of a nation. Those who have special ties between the central government and the corporate sector establish themselves to a high standard of privilege that holds benefits and priorities to minorities (according to populace) and establishes a wider establishment in the repercussions upon minorities (as far as entitlement). There are many other perpetuators, but the last great establishment that perpetuates the system of patriarchy is derived from the central government – the military of a nation. The military is the threshold of the masculine appraisal of the patriarchy. Privileged men are given the opportunity of ranks to fulfill their superiority in a physical dynamic. They hold their positions over other men and minorities to create chaos within a global spectrum for the desire of power, greed, and most of all – domination. The need for war and violence within a society is an indoctrinated system given from generation to generation blinding people into a support of the possession of citizens by an ascribed central government. “Serving one’s country” and “dying for liberty” are statements used to deify the government, a large piece of land (or nation), and one’s possession to the privileged rich. The central government of rich bureaucrats indoctrinate their own blindness to their “common” citizens to slave for the military, include minorities as if it is a new right or privilege, give access to men for higher status, and establishes the military as a force to release masculine tension, dogma, and practice onto other countries for more dominance, possible capital, and feudal prestige. As already stated, these vital perpetuators of patriarchy keep the rich cisgendered, heterosexual men above all other groups of people in social, political, and economical inferiority and oppression. They not only affect nature, the poor, and women as possessions, but they also establish an erasure of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, agender, genderqueer, and other queer identities. Minority races such as blacks and Hispanics are kept at a distance and scrutiny as an inferior yet phobia of the white man. Nature becomes a quantity for profit and a victim of ridiculous abuse and neglect. Women become raped, kept at home, limited in gains, and objects for the purpose of domination. The poor become a quantity to laugh at, yell at, blame on, and victim of crime, abuse, and neglect. Queers become an object of utter scorn, worthless, deviant, laughable, unholy, perverted, and victims of abuse and murder. Minority races become a quantity of the poor, a showcase of weird perversion for entertainment, faulty, and also victims of abuse and neglect.

Is the domination and conquest of patriarchy by citizens the correct method to eliminating these distressing injustices? While domination and conquest does murder and kill, the right alternative would be to completely obliterate patriarchy altogether. How can this happen, and what can we do every day for this cause? Citizens for the common good and equality of humanity must start action at the roots of patriarchy and/or the main perpetuators of the system. Citizens must also observe behaviors and attitudes within themselves and their surroundings that promote patriarchy.

First, what do citizens do in defense to these perpetuators? Religion is one of the few systemic perpetuators that hold no need for obliteration. It rather needs to be understood in the right context their scriptures and traditions are speaking. For example, Christians need to understand the context of the Bible in its statements on gender roles and sexuality in the New Testament. There are already denominations that understand the correct context and uphold to the fight for the obliteration of patriarchy, too. The family system also does not need to be obliterated, but it rather needs to be reframed. The older couple of the family of “mom and dad” must give more freedom to an egalitarian establishment between the couple with the freedom of two dads and two moms. The couple must be seen as a dynamic of love for their children, which encircles around each other for their own well-being and strength. Capitalism is a subsystem of patriarchy that is urgent in obliteration as an economic ideal. Green communism, which is stereotyped as a totalitarian governmental system, should be a new alternative to society’s economic standard. It would establish socialistic grounds of passing around equal amounts of means, an obliteration of a class system, a respect to the global natural environment, and less accessible possibility of domination with the idea of private property seen as obsolete. In keeping communism from serving the purposes of the central government and to obliterate the patriarchal legacy of the central government, anarchism must become an alternative to government. A direct democracy with citizens having equal voting rights on all issues and procedures would destroy the power dichotomy that the central government holds over its citizens. Anarchy would establish not only an obliteration of a central government but also a pacifist grounds to society. A militia led by volunteer citizens would be have a possibility to be operable, but its strength would be at a lesser effect than a central government-linked military. With these change of ideals as true and ethical means of running a society, the patriarchy would come at a drastically faster rate of falling. These ideals put into protest, education, and legislation is feasible through the process of time. The protest against the patriarchy must get stronger and stronger.

How do citizens gain more feminists and keep the protest going? The answer to this question will be an everyday practice. Citizens must educate their peers on issues in the classroom and in social environments. “Doing unto others as you would like to be done to you” must become a statement to daily practice. Behaviors and attitudes of patriarchal standards must be rebuked and critiqued often to remind or educate others about the detriment of the system on society. Perpetual protests must be kept as a necessity and a way of social reform. Education is at the core of the movement of radical feminism. The more radical feminism is informed to the public, the more followers that come and the crushing of the patriarchy.

Gender is a given expression through a person’s mind affecting one’s physical body and surroundings through psychological, physical, sexual, and emotional expression that one comes to peace with and creates as a daily manner for living. Gender is limitless, yet common society rules that a cisheteronormative, binarist tradition is the only feasible possibility for gender. This is created by patriarchy, which oppresses anything different from rich, white, cisgendered, heterosexual human males, and is destructive to people and society’s peace of knowledge. The patriarchy shall be and only can be destroyed through the means of radical feminism, which highlights religion reform, family reform, green communism, anarchism, pacifism, and an education of the public. Gender is a human right that all should be free to express in whatever way without oppressing others.