So as I continue to struggle to find the path of authentic Christianity in today’s culture, my mind often bounces from point to point within postmodernity. Why are Evangelicals largely in favor of “big military” and even military preemption, but ardently against abortion? Why are evangelicals largely against wealth redistribution? If the evangelical church lives in the grace of the new covenant, why are they largely in favor of carte blanche support of Israel? What percentage of mega church budgets are allocated towards missions relative to facility maintenance and upkeep? Why is there an Evangelical outcry against homosexuality, but hardly anything said on the divorce rates within their own community or children born out of wedlock? How has the Republican political party actually served the Evangelical community relative to the advancement of Christ’s birth, death, resurrection and ascension? Where is the compassion of Christ within Evangelical politics? Read the rest of this entry »
Tag Archives: LGBTQ
Culture Wars, Homophobic Chickens and a Net Loss of Yards
“Christians” Killing Homosexuals to Win the “Culture War”
In recent days, the politics of Uganda have once again captured the attention of the global audience, as lawmaker David Bahati has sought to introduce a bill into the National Assembly that would call for homosexuals to face life imprisonment for their crimes. Three years ago, a similar bill, which also included the death penalty for certain sexual acts, was voted down when pressure from the international community was brought to bear on the largely “Christian” nation.[1] But according to Bahati, “This is a piece of legislation that is needed in this country to protect the traditional family here in Africa.”[2] In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Bahati went on to say: Read the rest of this entry »
Breaking Rank: Coming Out as “Gay By Choice”
Cynthia Nixon and her finance, Christine Marinoni
Imagine a hypothetical scenerio in which a well-known pastor from a culturally influential church suddenly came out and admitted that he did not believe the Bible to be inerrant or even inspired. What would the reaction of the orthodox Christian community look like? How quickly would we close ranks, talking about the importance of community and foundational beliefs?
If you can imagine this moment and if you can grasp the cultural stakes that are up for grabs, than perhaps you can begin to understand the magnitude of Cynthia Nixon’s recent decision to announce that she is “gay by choice.” Within the broader LGBTQ sub-culture, [1] this is a defection from “orthodoxy” that provides all manner of fodder for those that wish to repress the influence of homosexuality on the wider culture at large. And as a former star of the widely acclaimed, post-feminist Sex and the City, Ms. Nixon could not be a more public figure.
My purpose here today is not to enter the fray through offering any ill-formed opinions of my own. Rather, my purpose here today is to allow Ms. Nixon to speak for herself, thus raising questions that are worthy of open discussion.
“I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not. As you can tell, I am very annoyed about this issue. Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate. I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with.”[2]
As I said, it’s an enormous declaration. And there are so many things to unpack in a statement like this that I almost hesitate to open the can of worms. Nevertheless, this is an important issue for both those within the church and those outside of it. And when a well-known member of a marginalized community makes a announcement of this magnitude, we absolutely should sit up and pay attention because it has the potential to reveal a great deal about who we are as a society and what we believe to be true.
So what do you think of Cynthia Nixon’s decision? Was it the brave act of a woman committed to walking her own path, in spite of what the majority of her sub-culture believes to be true? Or was it the selfish and/or naive act of a woman who willfully threw an oil drum of jet fuel on the bonfire of a culture war? It’s an interesting question to be sure, particularly in a postmodern culture that idolizes the value of community, but still worships at the alter of Modern, radical, individualized autonomy.
[1] LGBTQ is the acronym for the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender and queer community.
“Sexless” Babies and the Rise of “Gender Creativity”
In 2007, Beck Laxton, a self-professed “radical feminist” gave birth to a baby named Sasha. And for five years, Laxton and her partner worked to keep the sex of their baby a secret, in the hopes of making a statement against gender stereotypes.
“All I want to do is make people think a bit. I just want Sasha to fulfill his potential, and I wouldn’t push him in any direction … As long as he has good relationships and good friends, then nothing else matters, does it? What’s more important than being happy, and making other people happy? It’s all that matters.”[1]
Since that time, Canadians Kathy Witterick and husband David Stocker have made a similar decision regarding their child, Storm. When Storm was born in May of 2011, they sent out an email to their close friends and family in which they said:
“We’ve decided not to share Storm’s sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm’s lifetime (a more progressive place?).”[2]
Although decisions like these are still clearly outside of the cultural norm, they are not entirely unheard of. Take, for instance, Shiloh Pitt-Jolie, the four-year old daughter of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. 
In recent months, Shiloh has drawn attention to herself by her unique sense of fashion. And in an August interview with Vanity Fair, Shiloh’s mother, Angelina, had this to say:
“She wants to be a boy. So we had to cut her hair. She likes to wear boys’ everything. She thinks she’s one of the brothers. She dresses like a little dude. It’s how people dress there (in Montenegro). She likes tracksuits, she likes [regular] suits.”
Clearly, “gender creativity” is on the rise in society. And while it is far from the norm for parents to make decisions as radical as these, there is no denying the fact that greater and greater freedom of choice is being given to individuals in the construction of their sexual identity. But on a cultural level, this is quite confusing and even somewhat contradictory.
On the one hand, many who self-identify as being part of the “far left” want to deny the differences that gender should be allowed to play in the socialization of an individual. They want to suggest that society should treat all people, regardless of gender, as equals, both in societal status and in access to power. In the most extreme cases, you have parents who choose to maximize “gender creativity,” in the hopes of creating a world where sexual identity does not play a role in an individual’s ability to either succeed or be accepted.
But on the other hand, another segment of the cultural left wants to argue that the LGBTQ[3] community is entirely defined by its sexual identity, marking it out as a marginalized population. For members of this community, matters of sexual preference are often seen as being deeply rooted in biology, and thus they serve as a defining characteristic of the individual, and one that shouldn’t, under any circumstance, be minimized or ignored.
This creates a rather interesting cultural dilemma. If we want to suggest that socialization should not be determined by the biological sex of an individual, than how can we, at the same time, argue that biological predispositions towards certain sexual preferences form the core of an individual’s identity? It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways. Either sexuality should play a significant role in how people perceive us and interact with us or it should not.
If you tend to think that our biological sex should define how society perceives and interacts with us, how do you think we, as a culture, should go about deciding what are and are not appropriate gender roles? What’s off limits to boys? What’s off limits to girls? And who decides?
If, on the other hand, you think that biological construction should not define us, then how can we, as a society, give any credence to notion that the LGBTQ community is a marginalized group of people?
Whether we like it or not, these are the questions that we are facing as a society; and how we answer them, as Christians, will go a long way towards our ability to interact with those that see human sexuality in a different way than many within conservative evangelical circles tend to see it.
[1] http://www.christianpost.com/news/parents-finally-reveal-gender-of-child-after-5-years-of-secrecy-67672/
[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389593/Kathy-Witterick-David-Stocker-raising-genderless-baby.html
[3] LGBTQ is the shorthand acronym for the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, and queer community.
