The (Deeper) Gender Trajectory of the Bible

This is the third post in my blog series on same-gender marriage. For an outline with links to the whole series, click here. The views expressed in this series are my own and do not represent those of my denomination, conference, or local church. 

           Both of the churches in which I have served as a pastor – the Free Methodist Church and the Mennonite Church – ordain women as pastors. [E1] I absolutely support this practice. Many of the best pastors I know are women, and I am proud of both of these Christian bodies for recognizing their spiritual gifts and calling. However, I find it inconsistent that these churches affirm women in ministry while simultaneously prohibiting same-gender marriage. After all, the argument against same-gender marriage points to the passages in the New Testament that clearly condemn same-gender sex as indisputable evidence that it is against God’s will. However, there are also passages in the New Testament that clearly prohibit female leadership in the church. [E2] So how do these two denominations justify the ordination of women when there are clear Bible verses that speak so strongly against it? By claiming that there is a trajectory in Scripture that points toward gender equality.

What does that mean – a “trajectory in Scripture”? It means that God has always desired for men and women to be treated equally, but this revelation was too much for God’s people to accept all at once. So instead of offering a single command that says, “You shall treat women equally in all areas to men,” the Bible shows the Holy Spirit steadily moving God’s people ever closer to the ideal of gender equality. We can detect this movement working throughout the Bible, and it doesn’t stop when we get to the last page. We are God’s people today, the inheritors of the great Scriptural tradition, and God’s Spirit continues to move us closer to the ideal of gender equality, even beyond the point where the New Testament left off. Those of us who study the Scriptures can discern this trajectory and choose to follow it by supporting women, despite the fact that there are some passages even in the New Testament that still carry the residue of patriarchy. [E3]

I find this argument persuasive. It is a beautiful and powerful way to understand the authority of Scripture. [E4] So why not make the same kind of argument for same-gender marriage? Because – conservatives argue – there are many verses sprinkled throughout the Bible that critique patriarchy or affirm female empowerment, but the same is not true with homosexuality. There is not a single verse that points toward same-gender marriage.  [E5]

I disagree. On the contrary, I believe there is a clear trajectory in Scripture that points toward the acceptance of same-gender marriage, but we have failed to see it because we have been looking through the wrong lens. We have been searching for Scriptures that affirms homosexuality on the basis of sexuality. No such passages are to be found. However, as I argued in the last post, the prohibition against same-gender marriage isn’t ultimately based on sexual desire or behavior. It’s based on gender norms – the idea that your gender should determine how you should behave. There is indeed a trajectory in Scripture that points toward the rejection of gender norms. It is the very same trajectory that the Mennonite Church and Free Methodist Church have claimed points toward the affirmation of women in ministry.

However, these two churches have not fully understood the trajectory that they claim to follow. If we look more closely, we will find that the Scriptures do not point toward the ideal of gender equality but rather toward the overturning of gender norms. This deeper trajectory still upholds the “egalitarian” practice of ordaining women, but it goes further than that and opens the door for same-gender marriage (and other radical changes) as well.

So let’s consider the deeper meaning of this Scriptural trajectory by looking at status of gender [E6] in each of the four parts of salvation history: creation, the fall, redemption, and glorification.

CREATION – CELEBRATING GENDER DIFFERENCE

In the beginning, when God created the human race, God didn't make us all the same. First and foremost, we have different bodies - different types of bodies, in fact. We are gendered creatures. [E7] Our different bodies give us different experiences, different abilities, and different limitations. We have different genes shaping us, different hormones running through us, and these influence the way we think and feel and what we desire, producing a number of different perspectives and ways of being in the world. Genesis tells us that God created us this way intentionally and proclaimed it to be good. This is especially clear in Genesis 1:27: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” 

Throughout the centuries, Christian theologians have highlighted this verse as one of great significance. Not only does it affirm that we have different bodies, but it discourages us from viewing one body type as superior to another. It declares that we all are made in the image of God. This not only tolerates but celebrates gender difference

However, there are some people who read this verse in a more narrow way. Rather than viewing this as a celebration of our gender difference, they view it as the establishment of two gender norms or ideals: the male and the female. To put it another way, they read the "and" in Genesis 1:27 as an "or," so that the text seems to say, "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male or female he created them." In their minds, the concepts of male and female are introduced here not only to indicate that each of us was created to be either one gender or the other, but that we ought to conform to our that gender's ideal form. In other words, if God created me as a male, that carries the implications that I ought to live like a male by doing things like marrying a woman (as opposed to another male) and taking a leadership role in my relationship with her. I do not find this interpretation convincing. [E8] I believe that Genesis 1 is simply celebrating the ways that we are different, not trying to suggest that we ought to be a certain way. However, the second interpretation is both possible and a common way to read this text, so we have to consider its validity. 

Which interpretation is better - the one that claims Genesis 1:27 is celebrating gender difference or the one that claims it is establishing gender norms? Perhaps the best way to solve that is to evaluate the way in which Jesus himself understood this passage. Many conservative scholars have pointed to Matthew 19:3-9 as evidence that Jesus interpreted Genesis 1:27 as the establishment of gender norms. [E9] In that passage, Jesus debates with the Pharisees about divorce, and he makes the following comments: "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' [Gen 1:27] and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh' [Gen 2:24]? So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." By taking Genesis 1:27, which describes the difference between men and women, and combining it with Genesis 2:24 - which describes a man and a woman getting married - Jesus seems to be indicating that men and women were designed to be married to each other, which would exclude the possibility of same-gender marriage.

However, the Bible passage doesn't end there. Conservatives usually fail to mention the verses that immediately follow these comments (Matthew 19:10-12), where Jesus continues the discussion of gender with his disciples. His disciples realize that the "gender norm" interpretation of Genesis would actually put them in violation of Scripture. For many of them decided to dedicate their entire lives to following Jesus rather than 'obeying' Genesis 2:24 and adhering to the traditional gender norm of being a husband and father. [E10]

In his response, Jesus makes it clear that he was only promoting the permanence of marriage, not gender norms in relation. He expresses this by saying: "Some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by others, and some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God." Wait... who are eunuchs and what do they have to do with this conversation? Eunuchs were people who appeared to be 'male' but who did not have fully functioning male genitalia. As Jesus notes here, this could be either because they were born intersex [E11] or it could be because they were castrated. Either way, they were well-known and widely seen as a 'third gender' in the ancient world, who were neither male nor female. [E12]

By affirming that some people are born as eunuchs, Jesus is clarifying the meaning of Genesis 1:27: God didn't just create two types of bodies, males and females, but there are other genders such as eunuchs that are part of the created order as well. He goes on to argue that "some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God" - which mans that people may (appropriately) choose to reject gender norms once they become part of God's new society, God's kingdom. But now I am getting ahead of myself. For now, I just want to consider how the first part of Jesus' response, "Some are born eunuchs," shapes our interpretation of Genesis 1:27. I believe that it proves that this passage was meant to be a celebration of gender difference and not an establishment of two gender ideals to which all of us must conform.

However, as we read further in the Biblical story, we do see two gender norms emerge - the male and the female - and we encounter verses that instruct us to adhere to one or the other. Where do these come from? They were created in response to the Fall.

THE FALL – THE EMERGENCE OF GENDER NORMS

            The world that we experience today does not reflect the world that God intended to create. It has been marred by evil and sin. This is expressed in Scripture through the story of the Fall. In Genesis 3, Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden tree, deviating from the will of God, and in so doing, they bring a number of curses on humanity, curses that were not a part of God’s design. Christian egalitarians point out that patriarchy is introduced in the Bible as a part of this curse. Specifically, Genesis 3:16 says, “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Undoubtedly, this is one of the worst ways in which the Fall impacted gender. But it is not the only way. In truth, the most basic way in which the Fall impacted Adam and Eve is that it turned them against each other. They began blaming each other, distancing themselves from each other, and in response, God spoke to each of them differently. God gave one set of roles or expectations to Adam and another to Eve. This is the first time this happens in the Bible. Although the difference between males and females was recognized before, this is the first time that their gender became a principle that determined their behavior. [E13] It marks the emergence of gender norms.

            After the Fall, these gender norms gain momentum, [E14] and many of them become translated into commandments. Men who lack “proper” genitalia were not permitted to enter the public assembly. (Deut 23:1) Women were forbidden from wearing male clothing, and men were forbidden from wearing female clothing. (Deut 22:5). Men were forbidden from having sexual relationships with men and were only allowed to have sexual relationships with women (Lev 18:22). As time went on, the line between men and women became more defined and regulated, with different expectations assigned to each group.

            Although the Bible promotes these norms, it also acknowledges that they are not ideal. The daughters of Zelophehad complain that they should not be deprived of inheritance because of their gender, and God agrees that this is unfair (Numbers 27:1-7) Barak, a military leader of Israel, wants Deborah – the clear spiritual leader of the nation – to assist him. She agrees but notes that this will take him down a road where he receives less glory, as he will be dishonored by a female. (Judges 4:4-9) [E15] Even in Jesus’ time, these gender norms are getting in the way of what God wants to do. For example, when Jesus tries having a conversation with a woman, she questions the appropriateness of this: “Sir, you are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (John 4:1-9) [E16] The gender norms were in effect, but they did not shape the world in the way that God intended for it to be. Fortunately, God had a plan to undo the damage of the curse by abolishing gender norms in Jesus

REDEMPTION – ABOLISHING GENDER NORMS IN CHRIST

            It is frequently observed that the way Jesus treated women was radical for his time. As I already mentioned above, he talked to them in social settings where such a conversation was seen as undignified. He included women among his disciples, which was a radical move at the time. [E17] He entrusted women with important responsibilities. For example, the very first person to whom he appeared after his resurrection was a woman, and he asked her to spread the good news. [E18] Christian egalitarians often look at these verses and say, “See! Here is evidence that Jesus believed in the equality of men and women.”

            But equality doesn’t quite describe what Jesus was doing here. He didn’t insist that there be an equal number of male and female disciples. He never made any explicit statements about women having equal status or qualifications as men. Instead, he simply acted as though gender didn’t matter. He disregarded gender norms, and in so doing, delegitimized them. [E19]

            Upon his resurrection from the dead, the early church followed suit. They appointed female deacons and apostles. [E20] They put men in positions of service and submission. [E21]. They incorporated eunuchs fully into their Christian fellowship [E22] As a result of these practices, a saying emerged in the early church, which Paul referenced on a few different occasions in his letters, most explicitly in Galatians 3:28, “In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” [E23] This statement doesn't say that Jews and Greek, males and females are equal. It says that the differences are erased. It abolishes gender norms.

These words were spoken in a world that was still dominated by gender norms. Jesus’ followers knew that people would still have certain expectations of them based on their being a slave or freeperson, or a male or female. But within their own community, within the body of Christ, these distinctions were no longer given legitimacy. However, this was such a radical ethic, that the church has spent the past two millennia unpacking what it means. We are still seeking to understand and follow the gender trajectory.

The Mennonite Church and Free Methodist Church (and many others) are right to open the doors to female preaching, leadership, and ordination on the basis of this verse [E24]. However, they should pay closer attention to verse that most clearly justifies this practice. For it does not say that men and women are equal. Instead, it proclaims that there is no male and female in Jesus Christ. Why does that matter? Because the abolishment of gender has implications that go beyond the equality of gender. It means that people who don’t fit the ideals of either gender can find a space in God’s kingdom as well. It removes the barriers that kept eunuchs from being fully included in God’s community (overturning Deut 23:1), as well as the barriers that prevented transvestites from dressing in the clothing associated with the opposite gender (overturning Deut 22:5), as well as the barriers that kept homosexuals from marrying someone of the same gender (overturning Lev 18:22). Galatians 3:28 does not mean that we lose our gender, [E25] for this is part of what makes us unique and worthy of celebration. But it does mean that our gender no longer dictates how we should be treated in the church.

GLORIFICATION – DIFFERENCE WITHOUT DETERMINATION

            Jesus began the process of redemption, but it was not complete by the time of his ascension. He sent out his disciples to spread the good news both through their preaching and by modeling a different way for humans to relate to one another in the church. He acknowledged that this process would take time, but that the Holy Spirit would guide us into a deeper and deeper understanding of the society that God envisions: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak on his own, but he will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” (John 16:12-13)

This is a process – one that is slow and painful for many – but it does have an end in sight. The Bible speaks about a future in which God will make things right, one that completely reflects God’s will, which is variously called “eternal life,” “heaven,” or “the last days.” What role will gender have in this future state? According to the prophet Joel, “In the last days, I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy… Even on my male and female slaves, in those days, I will pour out my spirit.” (Joel 2:28-29) Here we have a vision of God’s spirit being poured indiscriminately on God’s people, without regard to their gender. Notice, gender difference will still be there, but it will not be determinative of how we live. We will be free to live in accordance with God’s Spirit.

Here we have a vision in the story of the Bible for the affirmation of gender difference but the removal of gender norms. Some may still wonder, “But what about the New Testament verses that still impose gender norms?” – which is a fair biblical question. I’ll address that in my sixth post. Others may wonder, “But what is so harmful about gender norms? Why must they be removed?” – which is a fair theological question. I’ll address it in my next post. But I want to conclude with a note of prayer: that we as a church have the courage to live into God’s radical vision for humanity, even though it upends the world that we know.

End Notes

[E1] This can be found in the Mennonite Confession of Faith,Article 15 and in the 2007 Book of Discipline. I don’t have ready access to the latest Book of Discipline, but I’m sure this has not changed.

[E2] 1 Timothy 2:11-15; 1 Corinthians 14:33-34

[E3] For one example of the gender trajectory argument, see this article by Gail Wallace. 

[E4] Of course, there are many Christians who do not find this persuasive and who do not allow the ordination of women. They are not likely to be persuaded by my argument, which assumes the validity of this approach to Scripture as a starting point. But I am ok with that. Right now, my primary concern is to appeal to these two churches – my “mother” church and my current Christian fellowship – so that we can better reflect the will of Christ. I’d be willing to have conversations with Catholics, Orthodox, Reformed Christians or any other complementarians about this, but we’d likely have to start by taking a step back and talking about Biblical authority and interpretation in more general terms first.

[E5] For example, in his article, “Listening and responding to voices of inclusion,” Harold Miller writes, “We pass over the New Testament passages on slavery and women because there is a clear grace-energized trajectory within Scripture toward inclusion of the marginalized, viewing all persons — slave and free, women and men — as valued in Christ…However, there is no such gospel trajectory leading us away from sexual mores.” 

Also, Robert Gagnon writes, “ There are indeed a host of injunctions in the Bible that the church today does not heed; so why be such a stickler for this one?... The problem with this line of reasoning is that, in cases where the church deviates in its moral practices from portions of the Bible, one can usually find a trajectory within the Bible itself that justifies a critique or moderation of such texts… As for women’s roles in the church and in the home, the contemporary church does take, on the whole, a more enlightened perspective than can generally be found in the Bible. However, there are so many positive exmaples of women in leadership positions in the Old Testament (e.g. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Esther), of women involved in the ministry of Jesus, and of women serving as co-workers with Paul in the proclamation of the gospel (Romans 16 among other texts), that the Bible contains within its own canonical structure the seeds for liberating women from oppressive male structures (cf. Gal. 3:28: ‘there is no male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.’”) (441-443)

[E6] As I evaluate the Biblical story at a deeper level, I will be introducing terms that are unfamiliar to many people including gender difference and gender norms. To some, this may feel as though I am imposing external concepts on the text  in order to make the Bible say what I want it to say. Certainly, this is not my intention, but there is always some risk in manipulating the text when we use new terminology to evaluate it. Nevertheless, I find it necessary to introduce new terms because our analysis of gender is so imprecise that most people have no idea what to make of the Bible verses that make the most radical gender claims.

What, for example, is a verse like “There is no male and female… for you are all one in Christ” saying? Is it denying that gender exists? Surely not. Is it promoting equality? That doesn’t quite sound right either. We simply lack the language to accurately name what’s going on here. The terms I am bringing into the text give the tools we need to talk about this in a more nuanced way. This is something that the church has been doing throughout its history, from the earliest debates that used the Greek concepts of homoousious and hypostatic union to describe the nature of Christ, ultimately leading to terms that we all use such as “Trinity,” to terms such as transubstantiation and consubstantiation to help us make sense of what happens to the communion elements, etc. At every point, there are people who object to the introduction of new terms, but in the end, I believe they help us understand the text more deeply. (This coming from a Mennonite who does not believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation, but still appreciates the clarity they provide on the debate.)

[E7] There are some who would argue that I ought to say that God created us as sexed creatures rather than gendered creatures. In so doing, they draw on a distinction distinction between sex and gender, with the understanding that sex refers to the most fundamental biological characteristics that make us male or female, while gender refers to several additional characteristics that society has taught us to associate with maleness or femaleness but which are not inherent to it. Indeed, the Mennonite document Human Sexuality in the Christian Life draws on this distinction early in its writings about gender and sexuality (2.2.1) and depends on it throughout the rest of the text.

However, a few years after Human Sexuality was put together, first philosophers and then scientists began questioning the idea that you could separate sex and gender so neatly. In science, the question centered around the question, “What precisely determines whether one is a male or a female?” There are at least three possible answers: by our external sex organs, our internal sex organs (e.g. reproductive systems), or our sex chromosomes. For the most part, people who have the male or female feature in one of these categories have the male or female feature for all three. However, there are a significant number of people who have a mixture of male/female characteristics, and scientists don’t know what to assign them. For example, there is a condition called persistent mullerian duct syndrome in which a person is born with external male genitalia and yet have a uterus and a womb.  For those who believe that everyone is male or female, this poses a problem: which one are they?

Philosophers argue that science itself cannot answer this question. Science can show us the various traits that we associate with men and women, but it is human societies that determine what ultimately makes people male and female on people. In other words, the idea that “sex” is determined by science and “gender” is determined by society breaks down.

Some philosophers take this argument further. Not only do they deny that gender categories exist in nature, but they argue that they are inherently oppressive and that we shouldn’t use them. I don’t go this far. I recognize that gender is more complex than the male/female dichotomy suggests, and I am in favor of introducing more nuanced language to describe gender difference but not of abandoning differentiating language altogether. To do this would be to implicitly deny the goodness of gender difference, which is a key aspect of the Bible’s testimony about gender. So, one of the subtle changes I make instead is to consistently use the term “gender” rather than “sex,” because the former term is less dualistic and normative than the latter.

[E8] To me, these two interpretations of Genesis 1:27 can be compared to two different reactions that a traveling couple has when come across a sign in front of a community center that says, “This Saturday, celebrating our common heritage. Blacks and whites are invited to attend.” Upon seeing a sign like that, one person might say, “Wow – this town is encouraging diversity. Good for them!” However, the other might say, “What a racist sign! Why would they go out of their way to exclude Native Americans, Asians, and other people who don’t fit the black-and-white dichotomy from this event!” Technically, the second speaker has a point. The sign only says that black and white people are invited. On the other hand, it does not say that only black and white people are invited.

Whose interpretation is better? How can we resolve this dispute? I would argue that the rest of the sign offers context. The emphasis is on celebrating and a common heritage. It’s quite possible that the creators of the sign weren’t thinking of Native Americans or Asians when they made the sign, but I don’t think they were actively excluding them.

Likewise, I don’t think the author of Genesis 1 was thinking about intersex people and others who don’t fit the gender norms when that person wrote “…male and female he created them.” However, I also don’t think Genesis is actively excluding them either, for it doesn’t say anything like “…only as male and female did he created them” or “either male as female he created them.” Moreover, the rest of Genesis 1 provides context. It is a celebration of difference, especially in the parts that celebrate all the different kinds of plants and animals that God created. So I submit that the spirit of this text is celebrating difference, not establishing norms.

[E9] Or they may point to its synoptic parallel in Mark 10:2-12.

[E10] During his earthly ministry, Jesus himself was seen by some as violating the gender norms of his day because he did not get married or have children. By not being a good “family man,” he was not living the way that men were designed to live. This is a concern that comes up in several places in the gospels, such as Mark 3:31-35 and here in Matthew 19. Ben Witherington, a “conservative” Bible scholar, explains this gender norm and Jesus’ rejection of it quite well in this short video. 

[E11] Intersex is a medical term used to describe people who have a mixture of male and female biological characteristics as the most basic levels and therefore cannot be assigned on a scientific basis to one or the other.

[E12] Antiquity scholar Mathew Kuefler writes in his book, The Manly Eunuch, “[Eunuchs] represent a reality larger than themselves; indeed, they symbolize… gender ambiguity.” (6)

[E13] Of course, nature itself puts limits on our bodies, and these often put us in different roles. For example, men (defined by the current medical criteria) do not have a uterus or vagina and therefore cannot give birth. Only women can. That’s not oppressive; that’s just nature.

However, once you move from saying that [some] women can give birth to saying that women are supposed to give birth, you move from acknowledging a fact of nature itself to establishing a gender norm.

A similar move occurs with same-gender attraction. It is true that the majority of people are attracted to members of “the opposite sex.” But once you say that this is the only people whom they should be attracted to, you are making a move that goes beyond what God and nature actually dictate.

[E14] But they develop in different ways in different societies, which provides evidence that they are not derived from God’s design.

[E15] Actually, the woman that he will be dishonored by is not Deborah by Jael, but there is a reason that this story emerges under the jurisdicition of the only female judge of Israel. It is expressing the tension that emerges from the violation of gender norms that Deborah’s leadership implies.

[E16] This, of course, touches on both the issues of ethnic identity and those of gender.

[E17] See Luke 8:1-3. Again, Ben Witherington addresses this well in this video.

[E18] This was especially significant because women were not seen as reliable witnesses in the ancient world. For an excellent scholarly exploration of this concept, see this article. 

[E19] By saying this, I do not mean to indicate that it is inappropriate for us to discuss the inequality of men and women. In settings where women are treated as inferior, it is important to name this and explicitly note that “men and women are equal.”

However, one might question whether the ideal of equality can ever be reached. For example, in the 1890s, several US states tried to create a segregated social system for whites and people of color that was “separate but equal,” but the Supreme Court finally acknowledged was functionally impossible in 1954. Similarly, in her paradigm-shifting work, Gender Trouble, Judith Butler argues that the existence of separate categories “male” and “female” ensures that women will be locked in the inferior position, and so the category must be undermined.

But I would argue (and I think Butler would agree) that if we abolished gender, we would find ourselves under the control of a different power structure. Where I diverge from Butler is that I don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing – we should not consider power to be bad in and of itself. The question is rather the structure itself is fair. Jesus, I believe, was introducing an alternative power structure, one that treated people with the dignity that they deserved, and this was much more at elevating women than simply proclaiming, “They are (separate but) equal to men!” This alternative structure will be the focus of my next post.

[E20] See especially Romans 16:1-16, in which Paul lists several of his male and female partners in ministry, describing Phoebe as a deacon, Prisca (i.e. Priscilla) as his co-worker in the ministry, and Junia as an apostle.

[E21] Many of Jesus’ instructions for his disciples violated the gender norms – especially for males – of the time, including the invitation to singleness, the call to servitude, and the willingness to be physically beaten. We don’t notice these as gender-defying instructions today because the Christian Church of the fourth century and beyond worked hard to re-define the gender norms of the Roman Empire so that they better aligned with Christian values, a process that is laid out masterfully in Mathew Kuefler’s book, The Manly Eunuch.

[E22] Acts 8:26-40. The fact that this act violated a gender norm can be seen in the eunuch’s question, “What is to prevent me from being baptized?” (v. 36) He knew that it would have gone against the grain of social expectations, but he also knew that – if the abolishment of gender norms was taken seriously – there is “nothing to prevent this.”

[E23] There seems to be a scholarly consensus around the idea that the teaching contained in Galatians 3:28, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is longer slave or free, there is no male and female, for all of you are on in Christ Jesus” was not created by Paul himself. Instead, it seems to be a saying that circulated widely in the Christian Church, and Paul here appeals to it in order to make his case against the Judaizers. Evidence for this comes from the fact that Paul cites different versions of it in Colossians 3:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. However, these verses do not contain the reference to women, probably because this was the category that Paul himself had the most time “abolishing.” More on this in Post #5.

[E24] BT Roberts, the founder of the Free Methodist Church, wrote about the significance of this passage in his book, Ordaining Women, saying, “Paul settles the question. ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.’ – Gal. 3:28…  Make this the KEY TEXT upon this subject, and give to other passages such a construction as will make them agree with it, and all is harmony. The apparent conflict is at an end. The fetters are taken off from woman, and she is left free to serve Christ in any position she may be qualified and called to fill. Why should this not be done?” (p.36-37)

[E25] The way that Paul uses Galatians 3:28 in the context of Galatians makes it clear that he was not trying to eliminate diversity of ethnicity or gender. Indeed, he uses this saying to stop Judaizers from forcing Gentiles to follow the Old Testament law, in much the same way that I am trying to use it to stop conservatives from forcing homosexuals to follow the Old Testament law. Now, I know this principle comes up again in the New Testament – most significantly in Romans 1, and I will deal with that in my fifth post. But taken on its own terms, I think the clearest statement we can make about Galatians 3:28 is that it was not trying to eliminate gender difference, but it was rejecting gender norms.

Reframing the Question in Terms of Gender

 This is the second post in my blog series on same-gender marriage. For an outline with links to the whole series, click here. The views expressed in this series are my own and do not represent those of my denomination, conference, or local church.

My two-year-old daughter is at a stage in life where she likes trying on different clothes. One day, I was working on my computer when she asked if she could go to her room to change into a dress, and I said that would be fine. So she disappeared from my view, and after a minute or so I hear her say, “Dad, this dress doesn’t fit.” I wasn’t quite ready to stop what I was doing, so I told her to try a different one. She obliged. But then, a couple of minutes later, she called out from her bedroom, “Dad, this dress doesn’t fit either.” I told her to try yet another, and again she obliged. But a third time, I heard her say, “Dad, this doesn’t fit either!” and she was clearly getting exasperated. So I went into the room and discovered the problem: she was trying to put them on by stepping into them and pulling them all the way up to her shoulders, but the neckline was too small. The only way to wear these dresses was to put them on over your head. Fortunately, this meant that we were able to find a dress that fit her, once she put it on in the right direction.

Similarly, I believe that the Christian church has yet to find a theological understanding of homosexuality that “fits.” For the past fifty years or so, several options have been tried, but they all seem to come up short either in their faithfulness to Scripture or in the positive impact they are supposed to have in the lives of gay people. [E1] I submit that this is because we have been coming at the question “from the wrong direction.” The primary questions that frame the debate tend be some version of these: “Is homosexual behavior sinful?” or “Is homosexuality a part of God’s good creation?” The problem with these questions is that they don’t get to the heart of the issue at stake. The primary issue at stake is the meaning of gender. Our sexual ethics only make sense once we have clarified the role that gender is supposed to play in our lives.
This may seem like a meaningless distinction on the first reading, but when you really think about it, it runs counter to the way we’ve been conditioned to think about same-gender attraction and marriage for the past forty years. Although questions about sexual attraction and behavior have always been present in the church to some extent, the church was forced to confront with the question of gay rights in a thorough way for the first time in response to the sexual revolution in the 1960s and 1970s. This movement challenged not only the legal restrictions against same-gender sex but also the moral teachings that the church had always raised against it. Naturally, when the church responded to this challenge, we answered in the same frame in which the question was posed to us: by treating homosexuality as a subcategory within the broader issue of sexuality. In the Mennonite Church, this analysis began in the 1970s. Our church responded to this "crisis" by commissioning a study on sexuality, called “Human Sexuality in the Christian Life.” [E2] This study was explicit that it was not just a treatise on "homosexuality" but one on human sexuality in general, and that frame dominated the way that questions about same-gender attraction and sexual behavior were engaged.
From that time until the present, the theological debate about homosexuality within the Christian community has been consumed by questions about sex rather than gender. For example, it delves into questions about where our sexual desires come from, how we are expected to manage them, etc. But I believe that all of this is only tangential to the core issues at stake. On this score, I find myself in alignment with Mark Yarhouse, a conservative [E3] Christian theologian and psychologist, who states, “Ultimately, does the cause of same-sex attraction fundamentally change the Christian sexual ethic? No. We are called to live the way that God reveals is good for us in terms of sexuality and sexual behavior.” [E4]

Yarhouse is right. Our ethics should not be determined by the strength of our desires. Instead, our desires should be evaluated in terms of our ethics. So how do Christian conservatives evaluate same-gender ethics in the Bible instead? Some conservative scholars suggest that we ought to shift the focus from "homosexual desire" to “homosexual behavior.” This is the approach followed by Robert Gagnon, the leading conservative Biblical scholar on the subject. In the introduction to his book, he says, “The focus of this book on ­same-sex intercourse or homosexual practice, as opposed to homosexual orientation, is a reflection of the Bible’s own relative disinterest toward motives or the origination of same-sex impulses.” [E5]  

Gagnon gets us a little closer to the actual issue at stake, but unbeknownst to him, he still is held captive by the sexual frame of the sexual revolution rather than the way the Bible engages this issue. How is that? Because he is right that the Bible does not address "homosexual desire," but neither does the Bible use terms like “homosexual practice” or “homosexual behavior.” Those are modern terms that frame the behavior in terms of the desire. More importantly, that language suffers from being too imprecise. The term "homosexual behavior" subtly conflates two separate factors: a sexual behavior and the gender of the person performing it. To say that "same-gender sexual behavior" is immoral leaves one wondering - what is immoral about it - the behavior itself or the gender of the people engaging in it? Which of these factors is the Bible concerned about?

Let’s start by considering the sexual behavior. What actions do we actually have in mind when we are evaluating the morality of “homosexual behavior”? In many cases, the sexual behaviors that gay couples practice are similar or identical to the sexual behaviors that straight couples practice. Consider oral sex, as an example. If it is unnatural for two people to engage in any kind of sexual activity other than vaginal intercourse between a male and a female, then we would expect the Bible and the Church to condemn all oral sex, whether it is being practiced by gay couples or straight couples. But neither the Bible nor the Church make an issue out of this because it is not the key issue at stake. [E6]

The other factor that is implicit in the phrase “homosexual behavior” is the gender of the people engaged in that activity. [E7] That is where the Bible's real concern lies. Listen to the actual wording of Leviticus 18:22, the first prohibition against same-gender sex in the Bible. It says, ““You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.” For better or worse, this passage assumes that the audience – the “You” – is male. It then forbids the male reader from “lying with” another man as one lies with a woman. The prohibition is not concerned with the action, “lying with someone,” for it implies that it is appropriate to perform the same action with a woman. The emphasis is on the gender of the sexual partner. In other words, it is not the sex act itself that is forbidden, but it is the gender of the people who engage it that is of primary concern.

What does this mean? That we have been going about this whole thing backwards. Just like my daughter couldn’t find a dress that “fits” because she was trying them all on “feet first,” so have we struggled to make sense of how the Bible’s ethics could apply to the healthy and godly same-gender couples that we see in our society. We have been searching for a more “liberal” sexual ethic in the New Testament, but there is none to be found. If anything, the New Testament holds followers of Jesus to higher sexual standards than the Older Testament. However, the New Testament does have some pretty radical things to say about gender. That is where our conversation should begin, and it makes all the difference.

So let me propose an alternative question. Rather than centering our debate around the imprecise concept of “homosexuality” or even “homosexual behavior,” let’s ask the question, “Do Biblical ethics allow for two people of the same gender to have sex in any setting?” Better yet, let’s ask a more important question – whether Biblical ethics would permit two people of the same gender to get married, with the understanding that sex would be a part of the marriage package. I believe that it does. Here is my basic argument as to why:

I.               The Bible reveals that God did not intend for human behavior to be determined by gender norms.

II.             The prohibition against same-gender sex is a gender norm (i.e. a restriction/requirement imposed solely because of the gender of the people involved).

III.           Therefore, those who accept the authority of Biblical revelation should not make blanket prohibitions against same-gender sex, but should remain open to the possibility that God may call two people of the same gender into the covenant of marriage and bless their sexual intimacy in that context.

In this post, I have argued the minor premise, that the prohibition against same-gender sex is a gender norm. That is to say, it is primarily about gender and only secondarily about sex. I am sure that many of you will have doubts and questions about the major premise – that the Bible reveals that God did not intend for human behavior to be determined by gender norms. Already the objections come to mind! I’d ask you to hold them just a little longer. My next(and longest) post will seek to address just that – what does the Bible have to say about gender?

End Notes

[E1] I should acknowledge at this point that there are many gay people who have chosen to follow a conservative interpretation of the Bible’s teaching on same-gender intimacy and who have been relatively “successful” with it.  I put successful in scare quotes because this all depends on how you define success. They have not been successful in changing sexual orientation. This extensive study by the American Psychological Association evaluated a number of “gay converstion therapy” programs and concluded that they rarely work. However, people who enter these programs may be able to reduce their sexual drive in general – if that is considered a good thing – and form meaningful relationships with others who are going through a significant experience. Of course, this last piece should be applauded and encouraged, but it doesn’t really have any bearing on the question at hand.

On the other hand, there are testimonies of people who have come out of a promiscuous gay lifestyle, accepted a conservative Biblical interpretation on same-gender intimacy, and have felt that they made the right decision. Indeed, many of them came to a saving relationship with Christ in the conversion process. These are testimonies that I take very seriously, and I praise God for their experience of salvation and freedom. However, I would submit that it was the promiscuity that was hurting them, not the fact that the people with whom they were promiscuous were of the same gender. I’ll address this more extensively in my sixth post.

Additionally, I recognize that among the gay people who accept a conservative reading of Scripture, there are several who have been able to find someone from the opposite sex to whom they are attracted to some degree, marry them, and enjoy healthy marriages. If these marriages truly are healthy for both parties, then I do not want to say anything to undermine them. However, in my personal interactions with such people, I have found that even in the best of circumstances, they still feel same-gender attraction and they still have to live with the sense that there is something “wrong” with them. This is a daily oppressive assault to their dignity, and it ought to be challenged. For many people who are in these marriages, this becomes unbearable, and it is not uncommon for them to leave their marriages and their faith at the same time.

Finally, let’s not forget that there are many gay people on the other side who have been deeply wounded by the conservative interpretation. Some of them have left the church and will never come back. Others have joined affirming or welcoming congregations. Still others suffer silently with their pain – often dealing with severe depression in the meantime. This is not the focus of my Biblical series, but I’ll offer one link to gay voices who’ve had this experience.

[E2] The text of this study, Human Sexuality in the Christian Life, can be found here. When I say it was produced by the “Mennonite Church,” I am speaking somewhat anachronistically. My current denomination, the Mennonite Church USA, came into existence in 2002, when two smaller denominations – the (Old) Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church merged. These denominations were already talking about merging in the 1980s when the document was produced, and so the study was done jointly, by members of both groups. For all intents and purposes, it’s the same church.

[E3] When I use the terms “conservative” and “progressive” in this blog series, I am using them in a very narrow way, with conservative indicating that they do not believe that God permits same-gender marriages and progressives having the opposite view. On the one hand, I hesitate to use such broad categories in such a limited way and I was I knew of a better one-adjective description that I could use. On the other hand, it seems to me that this issue is the line in the sand that most people have drawn to determine whether they or others are “conservative” or “progressive” Christians. By using it myself, I’m acknowledging this reality.

[E4] Mark Yarhouse, Homosexuality and the Christian, p. 30. Generally speaking, I think Mark is one of the most insightful thinkers on the subject, though I ultimately come out at a different place than he does.  

[E5] Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, p. 37-38.

[E6] The Roman Catholic Church serves as a partial exception to this, not because it explicitly prohibits oral sex specifically, but it does seek to regulate sex acts broadly, on the basis of whether or not they lead to the possibility of procreation, and the rationale for prohibiting sex between two people of the same gender falls under this rubric. Cf. Humanae Vitae, the paradigmatic papal encyclical published by Paul VI on the heels of Vatican II.

It would take another blog post entirely for me to give thorough attention to this issue, but perhaps I should say for now that I do not find the Catholic understanding of sex to be convincing, and neither does my church. For example, in the Mennonite document I mentioned in E2, Human Sexuality in the Christian Life, the section entitled “Sex within the marriage” (2.5.6) says, Thus, Paul does not view the purpose of sexual intercourse only for the procreation of children. The sex act has the value of uniting the married couple.” I’ll leave it at that for now – unless there is considerable demand from my readership to engage this further. 

[E7] The term “homosexuality” itself contributes to the problem. The word ‘homo’ is Greek for “same” and sexuality, of course, refers to sexual desire, but put those together and just get “same sexual desire.” That doesn’t make sense. There is a third concept in the word that is implied but that doesn’t get represented etymologically: gender. This way of talking calls our attention to the “sexual” aspect of it and obscures the “gender” aspect. Part of the reason I insist on using the less familiar term “same-gender marriage” or “same-gender sex” is to put extra emphasis on this overlooked aspect of homosexuality. This does not mean that I believe that people who experience same-gender attraction honor have a same-gender orientation should refrain from using this word themselves. I leave it to them to determine the best self-designation.

The Christian Dilemma Over Same-Gender Marriage

This is the first post in my blog series on same-gender marriage. For an outline with links to the whole series, click here. The views expressed in this series are my own and do not represent those of my denomination, conference, or local church.

For a long time, I was conflicted about the moral status of homosexuality. As a Christian who took the Bible seriously and who cared deeply about gay people, I couldn’t reconcile what I read in Scripture with the experiences of the gay people whom I loved. On the one hand, I believed that the Bible’s opposition to homosexuality was unequivocal. After all, the Scriptures explicitly forbid homosexual behavior in the Old Testament and consistently uphold this prohibition in the New Testament. [E1] On the other hand, I couldn’t understand why God would make such a prohibition. Although I was familiar with the abstract arguments about how homosexual behavior inherently violates “the created order” or “God’s will,” I couldn’t think of a single concrete way that a monogamous and loving homosexual relationship caused harm. On the contrary, it seemed to me that there is a tremendous need for loving couples – gay and straight – to share the love of God in this broken and hurting world. [E2]

Among Christians, two sides have emerged around this issue which have come to dominate the conversation. [E3] First, there is the “conservative" side, which believes that God created marriage as an institution for one man and one woman, which implies that same-gender marriage is not part of God’s plan. Conservatives argue that homosexual activity is condemned every time it is mentioned in the Bible, which leaves no room for doubt regarding the Bible’s stance on this issue. Then there is the “progressive” side, which acknowledges that there are Bible verses that forbid homosexual activity but also notes that there are also Biblical passages that take positions on a number of other issues – especially relating to racism and patriarchy – that we have since rejected out of obedience to higher Biblical principles such as love and justice. [E4] They then argue that homosexuality is another one of those issues where faithfulness to love and/or justice ought to lead us to embrace LGBTQ persons as they are, despite the Scripture passages that prohibit homosexual behavior. However, conservatives reply that these appeals to love or justice appeal to secular understandings of love, justice, etc., rather than Biblical ones. But for progressives, the conservative arguments – however sound – must be missing something, because the goodness of same-gender marriages is self-evident to them. As Megan Ramer says, “The Spirit so clearly bears good fruit in the lives of those who identify as gay that who am I to block, deny or limit the Spirit’s work?” [E5]

Mainline denominations have been wrestling with this for years, commissioning studies on human sexuality and hosting various dialogue platforms in the hopes of reaching some consensus or at least some resolution about respectful disagreement. But to my knowledge, none of these denominational efforts have made any progress in bringing the two sides closer together. On the contrary, the longer the conversation continues, the more antagonistic the two sides seem to become toward each other, with more and more people being wounded in the wake. [E6] In the face of this, it’s tempting to give up on conversation and conclude that “the other side” is simply refusing the see the truth, either due to their fear of change or their accommodation to American culture.

But there is another possible explanation. Perhaps we can’t find any good answers because we haven’t been asking the right questions. I believe that we haven’t been able to resolve this debate because we have been approaching this question in the wrong way. We have been approaching questions about same-gender attraction and sexual behavior as a question about sexual ethics, when it is first and foremost it is a question about gender norms. This does not mean that the issues that progressives and conservatives raise are invalid. Progressive Christians are right to point out the fact that LGBTQ people are suffering under the conservative teachings on same-gender attraction and marriage. However, they have by and large misdiagnosed the problem. It is not the church’s teaching on sexual ethics that has caused such harm to the LGBTQ community, but rather, it is the church's enforcement of gender norms: the insistence that men and women ought to act a certain way for no other reason than because of their gender. This is not to say that sexuality is unrelated to same-gender attraction and marriage, but that it is secondary: We will only find clarity about sexual ethics for gay and bisexual people after we have resolved our understanding of how gender is supposed to influence Christian behavior.

In the next several posts, I will make the argument that there is room for same-gender marriage in the kingdom of God because the advancement of the kingdom of God entails a rejection of gender norms. [E7] I suppose that this conclusion puts me on the “progressive” side of the progressive/conservative divide, but I’m not really comfortable there, because there are many moves that progressives make in order to arrive at a stance that affirms same-gender marriage that are threatening to Christian values. Instead, I believe we need to go back to the core issue and re-frame the entire conversation. Therefore, I offer not only a unique argument for the affirmation of same-gender marriage (as though another one was needed), but a new frame, which I hope both progressives and conservatives can embrace in order to move the dialogue forward.

This argument is not a complex or esoteric argument that you must have a PhD in Biblical studies to engage. I can state it simply in a single sentence and cite a clear Scripture to defend it: Two people should not be prevented from marrying each other simply on the basis of their gender because “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” [E8] However, as simple as this is, it runs so contrary to the way that we are accustomed to thinking about same-gender attraction and marriage that it will take me an entire series to work it out.

Now, I realize that this is a lot to consider, and you’ll likely have several questions and critiques to offer. I invite your respectful feedback to this subject, whether in the form of questions, affirmations, or criticisms. Most importantly, before you react logically or emotionally to this proposal, I’d ask you to react prayerfully. May the Holy Spirit – and not my own fallible thoughts – be the guiding force of your discernment.

End Notes

[E1] The five Biblical passages that prohibit same-gender sex are Lev 18:22; Lev. 20:13, Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11, and 1 Tim 1:9-10. Other passages allude to same-gender sex as well, but not as directly. Given the controversy over homosexuality in the past five decades, these passages have received a lot of attention from Biblical scholars, and several articles have been published that argue that these verses do not prohibit homosexuality in general, but to a specific subset of homosexual behavior, such as pederasty (sex between adult men and prepubescent boys), male prostitution, or experimental sex between heterosexuals. These arguments are usually followed by the claim that these types of homosexual behaviors are rightly condemned, but they do not represent the same kind of healthy same-gender relationships between adults that progressives defend today. However, few of these arguments have withstood scholarly scrutiny, as there seems to be evidence of a variety of types of homosexual behavior in the ancient world – including both healthy and unhealthy forms – that the Biblical authors would have known about. Moreover, even if the Biblical authors did have a specific subset of homosexual behavior in mind, they didn’t express that in the texts. The texts themselves make blanket prohibitions that seem to condemn all homosexual behavior.

[E2] One example that comes to mind is the need for adoption. There are hundreds of thousands of children in the world who need to be adopted, and there are many gay people who want to adopt these children and raise them with a partner of the same gender. However, prior to a series of Supreme Court rulings from 2015 to 2017, gay couples were prohibited from adopting children in several states. These prohibitions not only hurt the gay couples themselves, but also the children who were not able to grow up in loving homes due to them. All of this despite the fact that studies have shown that homosexual couples are just as effective at raising healthy children as heterosexual couples. http://www.apa.org/news/press/response/gay-parents.aspx

[E3] To some extent, this debate about homosexuality centers around a yes-or-no question, “Are marriages between two Christian partners of the same gender valid?” and so we should not be surprised to find that there are two sides – one that says “yes” and the other that says “no.” Within those sides, there is a wide range of views, from some who hate homosexuals, to others who “hate the sin but love the sinner,” to those who argue for monogamous same-sex unions, to those who believe that all sexual activity is good so long as it occurs between consenting adults. Although these differences are important, the basic structure of the “yes” and “no” sides of the argument remain surprisingly similar, as I detail in the above paragraph. There isn’t really a good way to label each of the two sides, so I have used the labels that these groups most commonly call themselves: progressives and conservatives.

[E4] Love and justice are the two most common higher principles cited by progressives, but they are by no means the only ones. People have also cited Christian freedom, hospitality, mercy, inclusion, welcome, non-judgment, non-discrimination, and several other values as Biblical principles that should compel us to embrace same-gender marriage despite the verses that prohibit it.

[E5] https://www.bmclgbt.org/single-post/2013/10/10/Fashioned-in-Love-Biblical-and-Theological-Foundations-for-Inclusion

[E6] This is particularly painful to see in the Mennonite Church, since Mennonites are a part of tradition that highly values dialogue, reconciliation, and peacemaking. Many of the early Mennonite resolutions on this subject committed "to mutually bear the burden of remaining in loving dialogue with each other in the body of Christ" (1987, "A Call to Affirmation, Confession, and Covenant Regarding Human Sexuality.") However, as time moved on and hopes of achieving consensus dwindled, the church let go of the pursuit of consensus and instead sought to establish forbearance as a principle to at least keep us together (2015, "Forbearance in the Midst of Differences." Even this did not work, as the largest Mennonite conference - Lancaster Conference - left shortly thereafter. Moreover, the rhetoric even among people who have long engaged in dialogue is starting to become more hostile.) 

[E7] The Bible calls for a rejection of gender norms, not a rejection of gender itself. Unfortunately, there are several progressives who have had some exposure to queer theory and who, upon encountering the argument that gender is socially constructed, come to the conclusion that gender is inherently oppressive and the entire construct should be rejected. Hence, they may only use gender-neutral names, pronouns, or identity markers, both for God and for people. But this is comparable to responding to racism with colorblindness. It is unrealistic, it actually harms some of the people in the LGBTQ community (especially people who are transgender, for whom the concept of gender is very important), and it misses the point. There is nothing inherently wrong with girly girls or macho guys. The problem emerges when those tendencies become ideals or norms that are imposed on people who don't happen to have them. We must learn how to celebrate gender, but reject gender norms.

[E8] Galatians 3:28. This is the most important verse that speaks to this subject, but as I shall show in future posts, it is by no means the only one.

Same-Gender Marriage Series Outline

Here is the outline for my blog series on same-gender marriage. 

1. The Christian Dilemma Over Same-Gender Marriage
2. Reframing the Question in Terms of Gender
3. The (Deeper) Gender Trajectory of the Bible
4. What's at Stake? God's New Social Order
5. Christian Sex Ethics: "Performing Covenant"
6. Weighing Romans 1 in the Broader Witness of Scripture
7. Some Guidelines for Gender-Liberated Ethics

In Support of Sanctuary Cities

When you hear the term “sanctuary city,” what images come to mind? The far right would have you believe that the sanctuary movement is all about defiance, that it consists of liberals who want so badly to thwart President Trump’s agenda that they are willing to offer refuge to violent criminals, thus putting other Americans at risk. [E1] To be fair, the rhetoric on the left can be misleading too. It depicts sanctuary cities as enclaves of justice, cosmopolitan oases where immigrants can find relief in a country that is otherwise run by racists. [E2]

The polarizing political language makes it hard to discern the truth about sanctuary cities, or more generally, about immigration policy. Regarding the latter, the officials who actually oversee immigration in our country – whether Republican or Democrat – have to uphold two values which are sometimes at odds with each other: security (specifically the safety of U.S. citizens) and decency (specifically the respect and dignity with which we treat those who would like become contributing citizens). Republicans tend to emphasize the importance of security and depict Democrats as undermining it, while Democrats tend to emphasize the importance of decency and depict Republicans as tossing it aside. In reality, both are important and need to be upheld.

As you may have guessed from the above commentary, I like to see myself as a moderate, as the kind of person who can see the validity of both sides and who is open to compromise. However, after I learned about how immigration actually works in our country, I discovered that we are way out of balance in the way that we pursue these two values. The Trump Administration has placed so much emphasis on security and so little emphasis on decency that grave abuses and injustices are occurring on a regular basis. So despite the fact that I would like to be seen as moderate, I find myself participating in the sanctuary movement as a corrective to an administration that shows such little concern for the well-being of immigrants. [E3]

So what is a sanctuary city, really? It is not a municipality that flat-out refuses to cooperate with Immigration & Customs Enforcement altogether. On the contrary, the police in sanctuary cities such as Camden or Jersey City will still arrest individuals who has been involved in violent crimes and turn them over to ICE to be detained and/or deported. No one in the sanctuary movement is suggesting that we should stop doing this, or that we should harbor violent criminals in our cities.

Instead, a sanctuary city is one that evaluates ICE detention requests on a case-by-case basis rather than giving the federal government whatever it asks for. After all, ICE asks local governments to detain individuals who have violated any law, including minor traffic laws and even jaywalking, so that they can deport them. The cities are expected to hold these individuals for up to 72 hours – covering the expenses of food, lodging, and security – so that ICE agents can transfer them to a long-term detention facility. The people who are arrested for these minor violations are not dangerous individuals, and the ICE requests disparage them by having the cities hold them for double or triple the length that they would be held as US citizens who had made the same violations. Indeed, these policies encourage the police to racially profile Hispanic people and arrest them for petty or even made-up violations. [E4]

Because the federal government is not paying for immigrants to be detained, cities have a right to decide whether to comply with detention requests on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, it is very misleading when far-right legislators such as Congressman Todd Rokita say that, “Politicians don’t get to pick and choose what laws they comply with.” That is true, but these ICE detention requests are not laws; they are requests. And as the courts have concluded, the federal government does not have the authority to compel cooperation.

More importantly, there is no evidence that sanctuary cities are less safe because of their immigration policies. On the contrary, immigrants are actually less likely to commit violent crimes than the rest of the population. [E5] But far-right Republicans have been working hard to create the opposite impression – that all undocumented immigrants are dangerous – by scouring the news and police reports across the country for any incident in which an undocumented person who was not turned over to ICE by a sanctuary city went on to commit a violent crime. The best example they could come up with is the case of Garcia Zarate, an undocumented immigrant who was accused of murdering Kate Steinle, but who was found not guilty in a court of law. [E6]

But even if they aren’t committing violent crimes, undocumented immigrants are criminals by virtue of the fact that they came here illegally, right? So why should we tolerate that? Because many people who come to the United States illegally are desperately trying to escape very threatening situations and they have been given no legal means to do this. [E7] This insight became real to me when three young ladies started attending my church whose mother was being attained for crossing the border illegally. She was living in Honduras and had been applying for legal citizenship for nearly a decade, all while trying to escape gang violence. When one of the gangs started targeting her family and actually murdered her cousin, she felt that she couldn’t wait any longer, and she fled to the United States to keep her daughters safe. As my church has made an effort to support her, we have learned that her case is not at all exceptional. We have been trying to apply for asylum for her, but this kind of situation is so common that many judges won’t hear it.

In light of this complete imbalance between security and decency, in which the federal government is ignoring the human needs of immigrants altogether to enact security measures that don’t actually help, I encourage you to call your representatives to the Indiana legislature and urge them to reject the SLAP bill. Also, if you would like to help one family that has been harmed by this unjust system, you make a donation through this crowdfunding page.

Endnotes

[E1] This is the narrative that is promoted by Congressman Todd Rokita, as can be seen from this article in the IndyStar: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/04/rep-rokita-proposes-bill-threatening-jail-time-1-million-fine-sanctuary-city-leaders/919546001/

[E2] This is a narrative that is often promoted by Democratic mayors (including Hogsett, to an extent) and city officials who like to depict their cities as "welcoming places." While their response to ICE may be influenced by a desire to protect immigrants to some degree, policies like this are not enough to make cities "welcoming" or "just" in and of themselves. Besides that, the suggestion that racism is limited to rural areas is just plain false.

[E3] There is not an official "sanctuary movement club," but I have been in conversation with various groups that have wanted to promote more just and reasonable immigration policies at the local level. I even participated in a march last summer calling for an end to the sheriff's unconditional compliance with ICE detainer requests. Since I was near the front of the line, photographers got some photos of me, and my image from that March has appeared in at least five subsequent IndyStar articles on the subject, making me wish that I had dressed up a little more on that particular day..

[E4] See http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/USA/INT_CERD_NGO_USA_17787_E.pdf 

[E5] See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/trump-illegal-immigrants-crime.html?mtrref=mail.zoho.com&gwh=BF4BEF66A588EE8D5B605F6E434276AF&gwt=pay. Thanks to Sister Tracey Horan for pointing me to this article.

[E6] See http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial-verdict/index.html. I do not want to deny or downplay that this is an extremely tragic situation. I just do not believe that it makes for a strong argument against city officials using discernment about whether or not to hand someone over to ICE.

[E7] Few American citizens are aware of how difficult applying for citizenship to the United States can be. People can apply to become citizens through a few major avenues, including having a family member who is a citizen, having a job offer or highly specialized skill set, or by putting their name in the "lottery." Those who have a "way in" still have to undergo long wait times for the paperwork to get there, which for some parts of the world averages a 10-year waiting period. (Can you imagine waiting 10 years to be united with your spouse, for example?)

For those who do not have family connections or highly specialized skills, your only hope is to get in through the lottery. The government grants 55,000 lottery visas to immigrants each year, out of the millions who apply. In 2011, for example, about 1 out of every 220 people who applied through the lottery system were accepted. In other words, the other 99.5% of people who applied had no legal means to get here. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states-1#9c

A Pragmatic Case for Pacifism Series

Now that I have completed my "A Pragmatic Case for Pacifism" series, I created this page for a quick reference point for anyone who wants to read the whole set. Here are the posts in order:

1. Nonviolence is More Effective Than Violence
2. Why Threats Can't Produce Good Results
3. Why We Can't Kill Off the Terrorists (Or Anyone Else)
4. Deep Assumptions About Power
5. A Christian Understanding of Power
6. 10 Nonviolent Options for Dealing with Violent People
7. What Would I Do if an Assailant Threatened my Daughters?

What Would I Do if an Assailant Threatened my Daughters? (7 of 7)

This is the last post in seven-part series called "A Pragmatic Case for Pacifism." For a link to the table of contents for the entire series, click here.

It’s been a long time since my last post, partially because there has been so much going on in my life in the past few months. Most significantly, my wife gave birth to our second daughter two weeks ago. Our baby is beautiful, and it has been a pleasure for me to see my oldest daughter – who is now 2 years old – get a long so well with her sister. There is nothing in this world more precious than children.

This has gotten me thinking about the most common question that is posed to pacifists, which I would like to address as the last post in this series: “What would you do if a violent person threatened someone you loved and you had to kill them to stop them?” This is the concern that keeps many people – who are sympathetic to the theories and mindset of nonviolence – from crossing the line and becoming full-fledged pacifists. They may agree with everything I have written in the previous six posts. They may believe that we should abstain from violence 99.999% of the time. However, so long as the possibility exists that a violent person could threaten someone they love and that killing them could prevent it from happening, they aren’t willing to relinquish their right to kill if that which they love most is under threat And, as a result, they don’t feel like they can ask other people or nations to relinquish their right to kill when they things they love are under threat. Now, I can’t and won’t deny that the possibility that killing could save an “innocent” life [E1] – however slight – does exist. And how do I answer the question, when it is posed to me? What would I do if a violent person threatened the lives of my daughters, and I knew that the only way that I could save my daughters was to kill the assailant?

I would kill the assailant.

That’s not the answer you were expecting, was it? I was supposed to say, “No, I wouldn’t kill them even then.” But I can’t say that, because – as much as I value and believe in pacifism, as much as nonviolence seems like the most ethical and best way to live – I value my daughters more. I would not put my own need to "hold to some moral principle" above their lives. And that is essentially what the question is trying to suggest that pacifists must do. It asks people, “If you want to be a pacifist, then you have to love nonviolence more than you love anyone or anything else. Are you willing to put this ideal above everything else you care about?” Of course you’re not willing to do that. Neither am I.

But that in no way undermines my absolute commitment to nonviolence. Although it appears that I’m cheating, that I’m trying to make an exception to nonviolence and still call myself a pacifist, I’m actually not.  I can answer, “Yes, I would kill” to that question and still be a pacifist because it is a fallacious question. It contains a false assumption about the world: namely, that there would ever be a situation in which I could know with a high degree of certainty what the outcome of my actions and the actions of others will be. [E2] To be more precise, it actually makes three assumptions: (1) that my attempt to kill the assailant will succeed in saving my daughters; (2) that I can know what the assailant would do to my daughters if I didn’t intervene; and (3) that this is the only thing I could do to save my daughters. But I can’t know any of these things, for they require a person to know both what will happen and what “would have happened.” Therefore, I can answer “yes” and still be a pacifist because I believe very confidently that the scenario posed in this question will never occur.

Maybe an analogy would be helpful here. If you read my blog, then you know I am a Christian, but that doesn’t mean I believe that everything Christians say and do is right. For example, I recognize that Christians sometimes create arguments against atheism that are fallacious and even manipulative. Imagine that a Christian were to ask an atheist, “If you knew that the only way that you could save your loved ones was to pray to God, would you do it?” that would qualify as a fallacious and manipulative question. It’s framed to make the atheist look bad either way. For if they say, “No, they wouldn’t pray” then it appears that their hatred of religion outweighs the love they feel for their families. But if they say, “Yes, I would pray,” then the Christian would be tempted to declare that, in their heart of hearts, they really do believe in God. But neither of these implications is true. The atheist can simply reject the premise that anyone could ever know that praying would save someone and explain that this is why she doesn’t pray. Similarly, the pacifist can simply reject the premise that anyone could ever know that killing would save someone and explain that this is why she doesn’t kill.

 Now, you may be thinking, “Fine – you can’t know with certainty that killing an assailant would save your daughters, but even if you believed there was a reasonable chance that it could, shouldn’t you do it?” Before we answer that, let’s consider the three specific assumptions built into this question to see how reasonable it is to kill someone in order to save someone else.

(1) How confident can we be that our attempt to kill the assailant would succeed in saving the person we love? That depends significantly on who we are and what the circumstances are. In my case personally, as someone who is not very physically imposing and who has never fired a gun in my life, it would be very unwise for me to assume that my attempt to kill an assailant would work. It is more than likely that I could fire a gun and miss, attack the assailant and fail, and by doing so, put my daughters in greater danger than they were in before.

Now, this may seem pretty obvious to those who know me, but in actuality, it is quite hard for me to admit. Like most men and many women in the United States, I have been conditioned to view myself as a superhero who hasn’t blossomed yet. [E3] I want to believe that – if I were put in the right set of circumstances – I could figure out a way to defeat evil with a combination of my skills and wit. [E4]  I have had to make an effort to face my own limitations, even though in my case it should be pretty obvious that I have them. Now some of you may be better equipped than me to take on an assailant, but I would argue that this “conditioning” causes all of us to overestimate our chances of success, to fail to see how much could go wrong in a John-Wayne style rescue. Even in the best-case scenario, where a trained combat vet discovers an assailant threatening their family without being noticed, there is still a small but significant chance that the attempted rescue could fail and make things worse.

(2) How confident can we be that an assailant will kill if we don’t intervene? Again, that depends on the context. Let’s go back to this image of a masked assailant pointing a gun at my children. If I ever faced that scenario (and I pray I never will!), then my paternal instincts would certainly kick in to tell me that they are in mortal danger. But that may or may not be true. Yes, it is possible that the masked robber is a sociopath who is willing to kill children. It’s also possible that he hoped to break in silently and stumbled across them by accident, or that he was desperate and hoped the bluff of holding a hostage would be enough to get him what he needs, or that he himself thought he was ready to kill but he finds himself faltering when faced with the actual situation.

So it’s quite possible – in fact I would argue “more than likely” – that an assailant pointing a gun at my family does not intend to kill them but is looking for a way out. However, if I attempted to fight or kill that person and fail, it could startle him or push him over the edge and inspire him to go through with it. So, if I am being a responsible dad and am not just indulging in my instinctive fears and my inflated self-image as a would-be superhero, then I would assess the situation, determine how likely it was that the person intends to kill and how likely it is that my attempt to kill him would work. I believe that in majority of real cases where people are at gunpoint, the safest and most logical option is not to attack. However, I will concede that there are still a few circumstances in which attempting to kill the assailant seems like it would work and it reasonably could save lives. An active shooter situation is probably the best real-world example of this. What about then? Before answering, let’s evaluate the last assumption: that killing the assailant is the only thing that could work.

(3) How confident can we be that nothing other than violence would work? In strictly philosophical terms, we can’t be confident about this at all. There is no way that a human being could conceive of every alternative possibility to violence at the moment he or she realizes that their family is threatened and conclude that – out of all of them – violence is the best option. No, in the heat of the moment, our flight or fight instinct kicks in and tells us that there are only two options: kill or get away. But there are always more. You could distract an assailant so that your children could get away. You could bribe them. You could film them or shame them or appeal to their humanity. You could reason with them about the consequences or jump in front of your children to shield them with your body.

None of these are guaranteed to work. All of them could fail – just like attempted to kill the assailant could fail. Of course, you can increase your chances of succeeding by preparing for such a situation ahead of time. If you go to the shooting range every week, then it increases your chances of stopping an assailant by killing him/her. Similarly, if you engage in de-escalation training, it increases your chances of stopping an assailant by talking to him/her. And we should do this. Everyone should invest some time in protecting their loved ones. But the question is – how will we invest? How will we work toward safety and security? And I choose to invest in nonviolence.

Why not both? Why not do the de-escalation training and hold on to a gun as a “last resort”? Because there is no such thing as a last resort in those kinds of situations. Or to put it more accurately, every choice is a last resort. If you try to negotiate with someone, you give up your opportunity to attack them by stealth. If you throw your body in front your children, you made your move, and now it’s the assailant’s turn to make hers. Similarly, if you attempt to kill someone, you blow your chances at peaceful negotiation. If we really want to be prepared to engage evil, then we have to commit to a type of response, we have to condition ourselves to react in emotional moments in a specific way. And the way that I have chosen to protect my family is the way of nonviolence.

Conclusion

So you see, pacifism is not an unrealistic ideal that people are expected to adhere to at the cost of everyone and everything they love. It is not a way of avoiding conflict or “doing nothing” in the face of evil. It is a choice to engage with evil in a particular way, the way that Jesus introduced to the world nearly 2,000 years ago. So what would I do if a violent person threatened my daughters? I would use all of my training and every resource at my disposal to try to rescue them nonviolently, which I believe is the safest and most practical response.


***

End Notes

[E1] I put innocent in quotation marks because I realize that it is problematic to define people as “guilty” or “innocent” in general, because that suggests that some are deserving of death and others are not. However, it is fair to describe that people are guilty or innocent of particular actions or in particular circumstances, and this is a shorthanded way of conveying this.

[E2] I discovered this assumption from reading John Howard Yoder’s insightful book, What Would You Do? Yoder actually identifies several other assumptions as well, but I highlighted the ones I believe are the most important.

[E3] It’s worth noting that this question is usually directed at men, and part of the reason it is so potent in our culture is that it often appeals to implicit concepts of masculinity. “What would you do if your mother, wife, or daughter was threatened? Would you be man enough to save them?” I suspect that we often claim violence is necessary because we believe that violence is the most honorable response. When a man learns that an important female in his life has been sexually violated, for example, he is supposed to physically threaten the assailant – whether or not that is actually helpful for the victim. Men, we have to acknowledge that this influences the way we think about this issue if we want to actually help the people whom we love feel and be safer.

[E4] – I wonder how much this irrational instinct that we are somehow exceptional convinces people to go to war. Everyone who goes to war knows that people die, but I suspect many people think, “Yes, but it won’t be me. I am smarter, stronger, or better than the average fighter.”

I am speaking outside of my experience here, so I am open to correction, but my impression is that part of the pain that people experience when they return from war is that this illusion has been crushed. They realize that they survived not primarily because they were “superior” or somehow deserving, but because they got lucky. None of us – even our greatest military heroes – can guarantee victory or even survival in a mortal struggle.