First, from this morning's Facebook feed, comes the story of the church in Tennessee who excommunicated (my word, not theirs, though this is practically what they've done) a family who was in support of their (same-sex) married daughter. The logic of the church: Sin is sin, and it's so disgusting that we must exorcise it from our midst as God's pure people.
Second, also from this morning's Facebook feed, an article written by Thabiti Anyabwile, "The Importance of Your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and 'Gay Marriage'", that attempts, unapologetically, to elicit and then direct feelings of revulsion and disgust toward gay persons.
Now, I don't know either of the parties involved here. Nor do I know anything about The Gospel Coalition. But both articles interest me in what they're saying.
Since the material on the excommunicating church is scant at the moment, let me deal with the material in the article specifically. Then, I think you'll get my lesson for the day.
The article focuses on what Anyabwile wishes he would have said, in hindsight, to a group scholars at a think tank who were discussing same-sex marriage. Looking back, Anyabwile felt that he was too polite and intellectual in offering his rebuttal to those at the table advocating for same-sex marriage. Rather than being polite, calm and rational what does Anyabwile think he should have done? This:
"Here's what I failed to do then and I’m convinced is necessary now: Return the discussion to sexual behavior in all its yuckiest gag-inducing truth."Anyabwile wishes he would have described gay sex in such a way so as to disgust his conversation partners. That he failed to make those listening to him feel disgusted by gay sex is, in retrospect, Anyabwile's great regret. The battle, he admits, can't be won on intellectual, biblical or theological grounds. His only hope is to use the "yuck factor". Truth, as he sees it, isn't enough. Truth, to be effective, has to be "gag-inducing".
And to show he truly means what he's saying, Anyabwile goes on in the article to try to elicit the disgust response with "obscene descriptions" of gay sex. All of which returns back to the lessons Anyabwile learned and his new resolution to elicit the disgust response by describing gay sex to people:
"The next time I'm in a conversation about these matters I hope to move it first principles and illicit [sic] that visceral response ..."In short, you can't win this debate with theology, Bible or intellect. Your only argument is disgust, revulsion and inducing the gag reflex. Words fail.
There are defenders of Anyabwile, no doubt. And, no doubt, they'll attempt to use two arguments.
First, they'll say that sin should be an object of revulsion. And second, Anyabwile is saying we should be disgusted by gay sex, not gay persons. He's making a distinction, it will be contended, between the sinner and the sin, between persons and their behaviors. (The distinction is quite old, they'll claim -- as far back as Augustine. Though I'm not sure that really helps their case.)
Now, for my rejoinders.
First, sure, if sin is spiritual "filth" it makes sense that emotions like disgust would be triggered by sin. Personally, I don't think it's healthy to use disgust to regulate moral behavior, but let me grant that for the sake of argument to make the point I want to make. Specifically, even if it is true that we should be disgusted by sin Anyabwile isn't trying to elicit disgust in relation to all sins, his own sins being of particular interest. Disgust is being used selectively, to stigmatize specific behaviors and persons. If Anyabwile was spending time trying to get us to gag at his own sins perhaps I'd see this differently. But he's not.
Which brings us to the second point, the suggestion that Anyabwile is making a distinction between persons and behaviors.
What I've attempted to illustrate before, is that if you use disgust in this way, you dehumanize. Wherever hate and bigotry exist, disgust takes center stage. As any cursory study of history will reveal, disgust properties have always been imputed onto despised groups. What's more, disgust creates justifications for violence and social scapegoating. From kids being bullied on playgrounds to acts of genocide, disgust justifies exclusion, violence and extermination. Don't believe me? Look at what's happening in Uganda.
So, even if you did convince yourself that Anyabwile is just talking about behaviors, you can't escape the fact, if you agree with Anyabwile, that individuals who are involved in these behaviors -- let alone enjoying them -- are engaging in degrading activities that mar or seriously call into question the dignity and humanity of the participants. When disgust is involved, any purported distinction being made between persons and behavior is purely fictitious, a rhetorical ploy, a verbal obfuscation of the underlying psychology. Your feelings of disgust will contaminate how you feel about persons doing disgusting things.
In short, the first part of my lesson for today: There's no defense for this sort of stuff. Either for the church or for Anyabwile.
You want to know what ran through my head as I read these two stories? Lots of stuff. But, in the midst of all that stuff, was a particular thought: How odd for Christians who stand in the tradition of Jesus and St Francis.
Lest folks think this is the only way to respond to homosexuality, let me lay out a different track.
This is the second part of my lesson for today.
St Francis was known for his care of lepers. And what I find so powerful about that is how St Francis refused to be guided by his disgust response. Listen, if you are a heterosexual Christian, I wouldn't be surprised if you found images of gay sex to be a bit disgusting. There is a reason you are heterosexual after all. And that isn't any different to how gay persons feel about straight sex. That's a part of why they're gay.
My whole point here is that feelings of disgust, even if they exist, are totally irrelevant.
To be sure, some will suggest that leprosy isn't a moral issue, so there's no equivalence in this comparison between Francis and Anyabwile. But that would be missing the point that leprosy in both Jesus' and Francis' day was associated with immorality, sin and wickedness.
So in light of all that, soak in the witness of St Francis given what you've read from Anyabwile. Francis's transformative encounter with the lepers:
Making his way slowly north from Rome on foot, [Francis] came upon a colony of lepers. Many such communities existed, most of them in isolated rural areas. Lepers were considered legally dead; they had no rights under the law ...Having read that, who seems more like Jesus to you?
People with hideous deformities were required to live among themselves, were forbidden to enter towns or cities, and were prevented from making any contact with the rest of society. If they limped along the road or came close to town to beg, they had to cover themselves with their pathetic rags, which did little to stifle the appalling stench emanating from suppurating wounds; they were also required by law to sound a clapper or a bell to warn of their proximity. Everyone kept a distance from lepers, for their condition was considered both highly contagious and a sign of dreadful sinfulness.
... Like everyone else, Francis would never come too near to them; if passerby had a few coins or some bread to spare, they flung the offering from what was considered a safe distance.
But this time the encounter was very different ... [Francis] did not flee in horror as before, but instead approached one of the most lame and pathetic of the group. With no money to give and no food to share -- for he, too, was now reduced to begging -- Francis knelt down and gave what he could: an embrace ... Francis would almost certainly have remembered the New Testament accounts in which Jesus healed a leper. "Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him," which must have shocked bystanders as much as the cure itself.
With this single act of charity, Francis was apparently transformed, for when he returned to Umbria he not only resumed his restoration of [the church of] San Domiano but also began to nurse lepers, a task rarely undertaken by anyone. This involved not only begging food on their behalf and feeding them, but carrying them to a nearby brook or stream to wash their sores. "For God's sake, he served all of them with great love. He washed all the filth from them, and even cleaned out the pus of their sores." His care, in other words, meant more than merely not showing revulsion. It meant a willingness to be with them precisely because they were outcast ...
The one who shelved his disgust and led others to do the same? Or the one trying to get you to gag?
The church who ousted a family over concerns about purity? Or the people who embrace sinners and trust God for transformation?