Historical Parallels: LGBTQ Inclusion in the Church
Or Inclusion: Electric Boogaloo!
Some people get the idea that in the early church, everything was peace, love, and agape meals.
If only we could get back to Acts 4:32, they say. But without the whole sharing everything in common, because gross, but with the unity of the apostles and early Christians, all of one mind.
Rumors of their cohesion have been greatly exaggerated.
Or, people at peace don’t constantly urge unity in their letters.
1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.
Philippians 2:2 2 Make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind.
Ephesians 4:2-6 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
A couple thousand years into the future, this advice rings quaint.
But if we peer through the lens of time, we see the outline of something more interesting; these are real human beings forging new understandings of an established religion under real-time oppression and danger from the governing bodies that ran the known world. Unity was crucial.
Why are we bringing this up in a post about LGBTQ inclusion in the church, Shay?
Because before we were talking about including LGBTQ people in the church, we were talking about including Gentile people or non-Jews.
There were three major positions on Gentile inclusion in the early church; we can use them as a template for the three positions on LGBTQ inclusion today.
There were three major positions on Gentile inclusion in the early church; we can use them as a template for the three positions on LGBTQ inclusion today. The three positions are:
Ebionites or Jewish-Christianity,
Apostolic Christianity or Evolving Christianity,
and Pauline Christianity or Full-Inclusion Christianity.
1.) Jewish-Christianity
They believed Christianity was for Jewish people. (yup, that’s right.)
They believed that Jesus was a Jewish man who intended to create a new sect of Judaism, not a new religion. Hence, it only made sense that if someone became Christian, they would have to take on all the accompanying Jewish laws, including kosher food laws and circumcision if male.
We see Paul’s opinions of the Jewish-Christians in a few places, notably in Philippians 3:2–3, “Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh,”
and also in Galatians 5:4 and 12, “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.” and “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!”
If you want to do something interesting, read the whole book of Galatians with the understanding that Paul was being followed by Jewish-Christians trying to re-convert his Christian converts.
We see the Jewish-Christians’ opinions of Paul in the non-canonical book called “The Ascent of James." The book contains a later account of the apostles meeting the Jewish Sanhedrin at the temple, and just as the high priests were all about to convert to Christianity…
"A certain hostile man [Paul], entered the temple at the time with a few men, began to shout and say, "What are you doing, O men of Israel?"...and like a madman incited everyone to murder...And when he had said these things, seizing a brand from the altar he began to murder...the hostile man attacked James [the brother of Jesus], and threw him down headlong from the top of the steps...the hostile man had received authority from Caiaphas the high priest to pursue all who believe in Jesus and travel to Damascus with his letters so that there...he might bring ruin to the faithful." (Ascent of James 1.70.1-1.71.4)
To say that these two ends of the Christian spectrum disliked each other is an understatement. However, we are familiar with Paul's version of the events because his view became orthodox and the other was erased as heretical. But in the early church, to not follow kosher food laws and deny the need for circumcision was extremely contentious.
Jewish living wasn’t just following rules; it was an identity. Jewish-Christians held that they were a new sect of Judaism, and it still required Jewish living.
It is, in a way, a fairly apt modern equivalent to those that hold a traditional view of sexual ethics. The true bewilderment that someone could hold a different position would be pretty similar!
2.) Apostolic or Evolving Christianity
I call this one apostolic Christianity, not because it has the most authority, but because this position is represented by the apostles in the book of Acts. These are the guys that are working it out through a process.
For context, there are essentially three different ways of following Judaism.
1.) You're born Jewish.
2.) You convert to Judaism, taking on the mitzvot (laws) given by Moses. For many, this includes kosher eating and circumcision and observing Shabbat (sabbath) and the Jewish holidays. This path of conversion is closer to adoption or naturalization; you become truly Jewish in the eyes of the community.
3.) You choose the path of the “Righteous Gentile.” Here, one follows the Noahide laws (less strident that Moses' laws above) that still prohibits murder, adultery, cursing God, and idols. You’re not part of the community, but the community recognizes you as an ally.
Back in the time of the apostles, the third path was called being a God-fearer. It recognized that people could be right with God, while not calling on them to follow laws that were specific to Jews.
In Acts 10, Peter has a vision of a sheet full of unclean animals being lowered from Heaven. He is told to get up and eat something from this non-kosher, impure food group. We can imagine that the sheet is crawling with reptiles, amphibians, insects, and birds like vultures, ostriches, and hawks, as well as beasts like pigs, rabbits, and camels.
Peter responds that he has never done something so abhorrent; he has never eaten anything unclean in his life.
The voice responds to him, saying, "Do not call anything unclean that God has made clean."
Peter had this vision three times.
At the same time, a god-fearing Roman centurion named Cornelius also has a vision: to go get Peter and listen to what he has to say.
Peter goes with Cornelius’ men when they come to get him. And when he gets to Cornelius' home, Peter says, "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean."
After Peter speaks to the God-fearers about Jesus and, "the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers (Jewish-Christians) who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles...Then Peter said, ‘Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.’”
This new development is "ratified" at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. There, the apostles (and Paul) all discuss the issue of Gentile inclusion, pointing out the many Gentile believers who have shown themselves to be good, faithful people who received the same "sign" as all the other believers: speaking in tongues.
Essentially, these are believers who started off believing that non-Jews should be excluded. However, through God's wider vision and their own encounters with the good in people that could not be denied, they came to a position of inclusion.
This is the path that my personal story with LGBTQ inclusion followed.
I was raised in a church with a sexual ethic that did not allow for gay folks to be a part of the community unless they followed very specific rules: celibacy, denial of this identity, or a loss of voice in the community.
But I saw how this worked out. They suffered or they left. Or, I should say, they suffered until they left.
I had the unique position of working in a Christian theater. Here, I saw people who loved Jesus, gave abundantly and righteously to their community, lived with deep kindness, created beautiful art, and safe spaces for young artists— and they were LGBTQ+.
And when my husband went to seminary, he was surrounded by people leading their ministries, breaking their hearts open to care for foster children, working tirelessly for the poor and unhoused, preaching beautiful sermons—and they were LGBTQ+.
Through God's wider vision, and my own encounters with the good in these folks that could not be denied, I came to a position of inclusion.
And I now say with Peter:
"Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."
3.) Finally, Pauline or full-inclusion Christianity.
Paul, as we saw in the Ebionite literature above, didn't even start out in the Christian camp. He hated Christians, all of them. While the Book of Acts tells us that Paul merely stood by in the temple, holding the coats of those who murdered and stoned Christians, the Ebionites place Paul at the center as the one who murdered.
And not only that, but they accuse him of throwing James the Just, Jesus' own brother, the bishop of Jerusalem down from the steps of the temple.
Now, traditionalists would state that the author of Acts is probably right, but from a historian’s perspective, we have to consider the possibility that the author of Acts was writing to promote Pauline Christianity and may have downplayed Paul's involvement.
Regardless, both books agree that Paul received letters from the high priest Caiaphas to persecute, jail, torture, and potentially kill Christians.
Two things happen.
Paul has a vision encounter with Jesus. Whether you believe in visions or not, something scratched Paul's record hard enough to take him from persecuter to preacher.
It's not talked about very often, but Paul did not go from the Damascus road to church planting. He describes in Galatians how, first, he hopped off to the desert for three years.
When Paul returns, he's skipped over all of the apostles' processing and gone straight for inclusion. Everybody's in. Gentiles, Hellenized Jews (Jews that also weren't living kosher), God-fearers, everybody.
In fact, Paul actively argued against eating kosher, getting circumcised, or following Jewish law (at least for Gentiles).
He literally tells us that "the gospel I teach is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ....I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother." (is this noted because of the legends of Paul's violence against James?) Galations 1:11-12
Can you imagine? Paul doesn't go talk to the apostles, he doesn’t check in with those that knew Jesus and had eyewitness account of him, yet when he comes out of the desert, he emerges with the full-inclusion theology that Christians essentially live by today and writes 3/4 of the New Testament.
This doesn't mean that Paul eschewed ethics. However, it's no longer about moving an action from the forbidden column to the allowed column.
Paul redraws the whole conversation.
It's about what you trust in for right standing with the Divine.
Paul's point is that it's not Jesus plus avoiding food taboos that gives you right standing. It's not Jesus plus being circumcised.
In fact, anything that we are putting into that "plus" column is worthless.
Paul thinks it's Jesus or bust.
And if you are relying on something to do what Jesus has already done, it's a problem.
So, theologically-speaking, if actions are not what put us into right standing, what do our actions become? Do our actions matter at all?
The conversation changes from the basics of "forbid/permit" to a nuanced discussion of how our actions and choices effect us on an interior level.
The conversation changes from the basics of "forbid/permit" to a nuanced discussion of how our actions and choices effect us on an interior level.
I can drink alcohol, and it's not a big deal. Another abstains because it sends him into a spiral he can't get out of.
I'm not better for being unaffected. He's not better for abstaining. We are just people with different stuff in our metaphorical backpack.
Some people are just gay, guys.
As the church has consistently shown in the last several decades, anyone can use their sexuality to wield power, harm, oppress, and damage people in our lives.
I personally believe that anyone can also use their sexuality to deepen, connect, and care for their loved one.
If you feel in your heart that you cannot be gay and have a loving relationship without sinning, then by all means, don't.
But if your brother feels that he can, and is showing through the rest of his actions that he is being a loving, engaging, kind, and giving presence in the world, then accept him. Do not call unclean what God has made clean.
And for the love of Pete, if a person is not a Christian, then they are not called to live under our sexual ethics at all, provided, like everyone else, they are not harming people. And no, them being visible and our children knowing they exist is not harming anyone. We can still be civil advocates of gay and trans folks, regardless of any position we take on this issue, just as we would hope they would advocate for our freedom.
To sum up, there were three positions on inclusion of Gentiles in the early church, and I believe there are three positions on LGBTQ+ inclusion now.
Inclusion with severe limits.
Ancient church: Eat kosher and get circumcised.
Modern church: Live straight or be celibate.
Inclusion with livable limits.
Ancient church: Live by Noahide laws, don’t eat animals with blood in them, live righteously.
Modern church: LGBTQ+ individuals can have relationships, but like straight folks, sex should occur within the bounds of a same-gender monogamous marriage.
Inclusion with self-intuited limits.
Ancient church: Maintain a food ethic that harms no one, and be aware of others you might affect.
Best ancient example of this is Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 10:26–30. “If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”
Modern church: Maintain a sexual ethic that harms no one, yourself included.
If we look down the historical telescope, we do see how this played out in terms of Gentile inclusion.
The Jewish Christians, the Ebionites, eventually fled to a place in mid-Galilee called Pella. There they stayed for about 400 years, largely cut off from the rest of the church by the Jordan River. Their community eventually collapsed after waiting so long for Jesus' return that it fell into irrelevance and petered out. The only people who read Ebionite literature now are historians. (Hi!)
The apostolic Christians, while still waiting for the return of Jesus, begin to turn towards the business of being the church, creating bodies of writing, hymns, rituals, and tradition, and working at caring for the poor and needy in Rome and beyond. This sustained them through the disappointment of Jesus' lack of arrival and helped them pivot to new things, working alongside the Gentile believers.
Pauline Christianity is... well, it's what we believe today. I'm not Jewish. My clergy husband isn't Jewish. Are you? As Christianity shifted towards a Gentile majority through the centuries, the conversation on their inclusion became irrelevant. They were the church. Whatever you think of Paul, he was far-seeing in terms of who might carry on being the body of the Christian church.
We must remember that exclusion has the potential to isolate and diminish the church, while inclusion can bring growth, diversity, and strength. In embracing our LGBTQ+ siblings, we affirm the spirit of unity and inclusivity that has been the sustaining bread for the church from the beginning.