There is No Longer. . .

Galatians 3:28 - There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:10 - (you) have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator. In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all.

These texts, often cited in discussions over inclusion, are remarkable in what they deny those who have become followers of Christ: every form of primal social identity. They deny every form of identity into which one is born or has no choice. The first puts this in terms of binaries, with the binary of male and female going back to the creation of humanity. The latter denies the relevance of all social identities because there is a “the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator.” And Christ, the creator of this new self, is all in all, leaving no room for other identities. There is an affirmation of personhood, but restoration through the “New Adam” winds back thousands of generations of human differentiation to a truly primal human identity deeper than even different sexes. 

The flip side of winding back all primal identities is that for Paul the church is defined by new identities, identities derived from the gifts of the Holy Spirit and thus created by God appropriate to the new human person in Christ and the new community of worship and witness. (I Corinthians 12)

What this means, quite frankly, is that the Church does not exist to affirm primal identities. It exists to form a new identity in Jesus Christ. 

In the Christian world conceptualized by the Pauline ideal it is easy to see how one overturns slavery and finally removes bars to women fully participating in all aspects of ministry. In Paul’s idealized Christianity, apart from possessing the particular gifts of the spirit, morality is the only legitimate way of differentiating those who and should not lead the church.

Yet while Paul understands that the different primal identities are now overshadowed by the new identity in Christ he doesn’t say that they are immoral in and of themselves. It is no sin to be a woman or a man, a Gentile or a Jew.

And for Paul they remain socially and politically relevant, even within the church. 

The apostles in Jerusalem recognized the reality of a political distinction when it appointed Greek overseers of the distribution of communal funds to Greek widows. It's fine to say there is neither Jew nor Greek in Jesus Christ, but human suspicions of the other also shape community life. In short, even in the church there are politics, or more bluntly, the church is a political institution. And this means that while the church doesn’t exist to affirm our identity it remains obligated to do so. 

This same recognition of political realities is found in United Methodism today, with its singling out of ethnic minority local churches and its efforts to insure representation by ethnic minorities, age-range groups, and women. Past injustices and persistent structures of inequality demand, no less today than in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, that consideration be given to primal differences that ideally should make no difference. 

Since the modern restoration of humanity's political rights all questions of personal worth, and thus justice, are cast in terms of primal identities elevated, denigrated, or denied. In modernity the political self, the self that becomes the subject of its own history, has become the most important self. Because if you are not the subject of your own history you become merely an object of someone else’s.

The crux of the conservative attack on LGTQI political rights in the US is the denial that this group possesses a primal human identity, and thus a right to political representation. LGBTQI persons may have individual rights, but conservatives grant them no legitimate communal claims. And since they are small in number and largely diffuse geographically and demographically they are necessarily politically marginal, and as politically marginal are stripped of a right to representation. For conservative groups they should continue to be objects of political power. 

However, it is now clear that whatever rear guard actions maybe attempted by groups like the Heritage Foundation, in the contemporary United States and much of the rest of the modern world the LGBTQI community is recognized precisely as a community, and as a minority community that has suffered systematic discrimination. It is also recognized as a politically relevant community, especially with its progressive allies. 

This is not true of ecclesial politics in the UMC. The UMC recognizes ethnic minorities, women (and men), and age based groups as legitimate foci of communal political interests. But while LGBTQI persons are recognized individually as having worth, they do not have the claim of political representation and consideration that other groups have, and thus remain objects in ecclesial power struggles. They are not recognized as possessing a primal human identity, but instead are dismissed as both irrelevant and sinners. 

This puts the UMC out of step with the dominant modes of political representation in US society, even if it aligns with much of the global church. I believe it is this, far more than the issue of ordination and marriage per-se, that makes our political discussions so fraught. 

But there is another critical consideration. 

Modern science has introduced a new category, sexuality, as a basis for different primal identities rather than just “sex.” There is widespread recognition in the modern world that this primal form of human identity takes more forms that previously acknowledged places demands on both society and church. Both must broaden understandings of moral sexual relationships and the potential for leadership. 

But is this demand to broaden understandings of primal identities really so revolutionary? 

On the wall of Bridwell library is a long chart showing the origins of all the nations of the earth from the children of Noah. The chart has been well thought through, and thoroughly researched from the standpoint of scriptural representations of the origins of primal identities. It is also nearly complete rubbish. First it contains no hint of the complexities of human evolution, and falsely assumes a Middle Eastern origin for the human family. Its models of the diffusion of humans across the earth - based on Biblical genealogies, are almost complete fantasy. And of course it promulgates racist understandings of the descendants of the sons of Noah. 

And that is why contemporary Christians see it as a curiosity, one as tinged with racism just as ideas about gender roles promulgated in Methodist literature 100 years ago were shaped by misogyny. 

It is past time for Christians to recognize that the scripture, taken as a whole and read with the apostolic church, is an absolutely reliable guide to God’s nature and God’s saving grace. And we need to recognize that the scripture is a guide to understanding primal human nature only in so far as it tells us what ancient peoples sincerely believed. 

The LGBTQI community members represent primal forms of being human. Like all primal forms they are being shaped into the image of Christ. And like all primal forms they have a right to represent themselves in the politics of the church, and take their place, where God so gifts individuals, in the ministry of the church.  

In closing I note that in an August 2016 article (https://peopleneedjesus.net/2016/08/25/the-birth-pangs-of-united-methodism-as-a-unique-global-orthodox-denomination/) my colleague Billy Abraham suggested that in debates about human sexuality "what is at issue is a fourth schism in the life of the church in its complex march through history.” He says this because he sees at stake what he asserts to be "the total repudiation of authentic and canonical Christian teaching” that strikes at the Christian doctrine of creation. But surely this is for political effect more than a serious academic argument. Indeed it is little more than a reiteration of a century or more of anti-modernist discourse and its fear that science will erode the authority of the church.

Yet it isn’t an attack on the doctrine of creation to assert that sexuality is a form of primal identity.  Or at least it is no more of an attack on the doctrine of creation than to admit to evolutionary theory and modern models of the cosmos. The Ptolemaic system was at one time authentic and canonical Christian teaching. So was the subordination of women and their exclusion of women from ordination. And “the dominical teaching of the church on sexual morality and marriage” subjugated women to men and didn’t allow divorce and remarriage (See I Corinthians 11) But that has clearly changed for United Methodist Traditionalists. 

All that is under attack in the acceptance of LGBTQI ordination and marriage is the continuing refusal of a portion of the church to accept the limitations of scripture in describing human nature, and their defense of a particular moment in the ever changing landscape of Christian orthodoxy. 

That said, no doubt traditionalists will hold firm. They see it as their duty to challenge, as Dr. Abraham does, any effort lightly dismiss the authority of scripture or to slight the authority of the church councils. But here they are fighting the wrong battle. When it comes to defining primal human nature scripture, as traditionally interpreted has already shown itself unreliable, while its authority in not only revealing God’s nature but impressing it on God’s people is as unquestioned as the Creeds in articulating the Christian understanding of the same. 

Put another way: in God’s providence the modern world has put natural revelation back in its proper place in shaping the life of the Church. Given that Nature has the same author as the Bible, should we not respect its voice?