This is the first of three posts from Dr. B. Dlamini extracted from a presentation he gave at the 2016 CIHA Blog Conference on Religion, Governance and Humanitarianism in Africa. Come back to the blog tomorrow and Thursday for parts two and three.
By Dr B. Dlamini, Siyakhana – Ecumenical Community of the Paraclete
The premise that LGBTQ people do fall among the hard-hit population groups that have been left behind and almost forgotten along the journey of eliminating the pandemic is of significance. This paper probes into the contribution of religion in this, leaving behind and near-forgetting of the LGBTIQ.
Siyakhana – Ecumenical Community of the Paraclete is a faith-based, no-profit organization serving the LGBTIQ people, mainly catering for their psycho-social and spiritual needs, in the Province of KwaZulu-Natal. In June 2016, Siyakhana – Ecumenical Community of the Paraclete ran a series of workshops in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, which sought to dialogue with and engage community on LGBTI and human rights, on theologies of human sexuality, and on Bible studies and theology. This is in line with the second focus area in the Constitution of Siyakhana, which is Community Education. In executing this mandate, the organisation sought to conduct these workshops, also known as community dialogues on sexuality, to educate the public about violence directed at LGBTIQ communities.
The first workshop was mainly attended by local church leaders, some in prominent positions and others just ordinary clergy. Most came from Holiness/Pentecostal churches, some from indigenous traditional churches, with one from the Catholic tradition. The workshop took place in the Catholic church, and the priest from this church led the workshop. The reason for getting this workshop going was to conscientise people on the Hate Speech bill that was before parliament, and to promote a culture of respect for human rights of all. The theme of the workshop was LGBTIQ and human rights. At the start of the workshop, the 12th chapter of the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians was read and reflected upon. In that reading, the church is understood and portrayed by Paul to be the body of Christ. Christ is presented as a corporate figure with many diverse members. Through baptism in the one Spirit, Christians have become one, without social distinctions. Individual members in this corporate body have their own proper place and functions which are not interchangeable with others. Just as the different members of the body are interdependent and need each other, so also do Christians. That same reading speaks of gifts and stipulates that nobody is left without gifts of God; everybody receives their own given charism, “for the benefit and general good of the community” (v.7), and the relative value of the various gifts is to be estimated by their usefulness to the church.
Nobody picked on any of the elements presented in the reading during the discussion. One prominent member dominated the discussion and become almost the co-facilitator, coming out with his own readings that he deemed to be stipulating clearly that we should not even be talking about such matters as Christians, since such people – queer people – are already condemned and do not belong to the body of Christ.
An attempt was made to round off the discussion and invite concrete suggestions for the way forward. The same prominent member still wanted to preach about repentance and salvation, not taking any of the points presented in the reading into account. Incidentally, the prominent member was requested to close in prayer. He closed the prayer with the words “in Jesus’ name.”
It is in Jesus’ name that some Christian leaders perceive others to be of not worth much consideration. Many, including at these workshops, had an opinion that it is proper to speak of LGBTIQ rights in political discussions, but not in church as Christians. The name of Jesus and the discussion of queer people as having a share in human rights just do not come together.
Theologies of human sexuality
The second workshop was mainly attended by the same local church leaders as in the first. The workshop took place in the same Catholic Church, and the same priest from this church led the workshop. The Hate Speech bill had been opposed by some faith-based communities. The suspicion was that ignorance about human sexuality formed the basis for such opposition. The reason for getting this workshop going was to assist in accessing information on the current theologies of human sexuality. The workshop was opened with a reading from the 15th chapter of the first letter of Paul to the Romans. In that reading, members of the Christian community are mainly urged to be accepting of one another. The seventh verse is particularly explicit in stating this. Participants of the workshop, however, felt that all the preceding verses need to be read, so as to establish context, so this was done.
The purpose of the reading was to prepare participants for the differing views and voices in theology regarding human sexuality. The topic of homophobia, which had been introduced by the facilitator in the first workshop, was continued. The facilitator, however, could not methodically present the input prepared. There was already discussion, as if the participants knew where the facilitator was heading. This, in fact, meant that the facilitator did not need to invite the participants to start a discussion, nor were they discussing the reading. Even the establishment of context for the stated reading did not help. The same prominent member as in the first workshop dominated the discussion and become almost the co-facilitator, dwelling on the first chapter of the Romans, which he deemed to be stipulating clearly that we should not even be talking about such people (LGBTIQ) as Christians, since they are already condemned and deserve no acceptance in the Christian community. The reading on acceptance had not been intended to be advocacy for the LGBTIQ community. It was meant to introduce divergent views on theology regarding human sexuality and that there would be need to hear them properly in order for dialogue to take place. We ended up discussing the acceptance of gays – though not lesbians or any other queers, just men. The discussion again shifted to focus on culture, customs and mores of the society around, which do not permit love relationships between two men, let alone the Christian community, which should know what an abomination this is in the sight of God. No text was used in discussing this abomination.
People had been slowly dribbling in during the discussion. A tavern owner came in who insisted on being heard. He picked on the abomination, without using any text, though his abomination was on imagining what two men can do together in bed. He did not seem to think they could forge relationships that are beneficial and healthy for themselves and for community. Their union is perceived as restricted to sexual activities in bed. The tavern owner accused the facilitator of not having the interest of the community at heart by bringing about such discussion. In fact, he explicitly stated that the intention is to destroy the community. He did not stop to think that running a tavern could also be considered an abomination and a destruction. Dialoguing about human sexuality is deemed more destructive than selling alcohol to old and young indiscriminately. Discussion was interrupted by lunch. Not much was achieved in the discussion when we reconvened after lunch, simply the same wrangling. Participants again requested the prominent member to close in prayer. He ended his prayer with the words “in Jesus’ name.”
It is in Jesus’ name that divergent views on theology regarding human sexuality cannot be allowed space to be heard. It is in Jesus’ name that there would be no need to hear properly other voices in order for dialogue to take place. It is in Jesus’ name that gay clergy was to be ordered to step down and leave the pulpit.
Bible Studies and Theology
The third workshop, on the topic of Bible Studies and Theology, was intended to develop theologies of care towards a model of a caring community. The workshop was held in the same venue, more or less attended by same people, and the same priest facilitating.
The workshop was opened with a reading from the 7th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. The following reflection was then offered by the facilitator: The reading is in two parts: the first is verses 1–12, and the second is verses 13–29. In the whole of that reading, members of the Christian community are mainly urged to demonstrate their accepting of one another by not judging the other. Verses 1–5 are particularly explicit in stating this. By commanding his disciples not to judge, Jesus is not asking them to suspend their faculty of discernment. He is concerned with how their judgement may be exercised in relation to the judgement of God. In this reading he warns against hypocrisy. The hypocrite is an actor who wears the mask that depicts the role they are playing. They are not real. A hypocrite acts a role in life (cf. Mt. 23:25, 27; Lk. 11:39–40). Only an ethic which reaches to what is within – heart and mind – is the fit standard of the kingdom (cf. Mt. 5:20; Lk. 16:15). The greatest delusion is thinking that one can solve the moral problems of life by creating a righteous exterior. This type of person is contemptuously referred to as dog and swine in verse 6. In verse 12 is the ‘Golden Rule,’ intended to dispel the hypocrisy and govern genuine interactions among the disciples. Following the golden rule will bring the perspective of the merciful Father. In the OT this ‘golden rule’ was expressed negatively: not to do to others what one would not want done to oneself. By putting it positively, Jesus makes it more demanding for his followers. In the second part, Jesus urges his disciples to be on guard against false prophets who will distort his message. The core, and the key tenet of this message is love. This distortion is easily demonstrated by words like ‘love the sinner, hate sin’ which are not authenticated by deeds of charity towards queer people. Jesus alludes to the ‘narrow gate’ saying. The allusion is to the search for a city-gate where no tax collectors would be waiting to exact their tolls. There is escape in the narrow gate – no time wasted on trivialities, and more time for deeds, for doing the will of the father, in verse 21. This is in line with an IsiZulu saying, Wande ngomlomo okwesiqabetho = with a wide mouth like a basket of some sort. This refers to a person who is good in words but lacking in deeds. Deeds, too, must be a testimony and witness to the commitment to Jesus, not just magic religiosity of the use of the name of Jesus while practising hatred towards some of the children of God. ‘Not in my name,’ Jesus seems to be saying. In his name, however, he urges his followers to be builders of a stable community not founded on words only but supported with poles well set in works of charity and love towards others. The reading ends with urging followers of Jesus not to act, behave, and do like power-hungry fools who think they can build their success by trampling upon others, instead of placing hope and trust in God.
‘Not in my name,’ Jesus seems to be saying.
The topic of homophobia which had been introduced by the facilitator in the previous workshops was continued, without much reference to the reading and the reflection offered above. The purpose of the reading was to prepare participants in some form of exegesis. To a degree, participants seemed to be receptive of the facilitator’s input. The infamous prominent member was not present at this workshop. There was less resistance in this workshop than the two previous ones, even though we did not delve much into exegesis. The level of education of the participants did not make this very easy.
Many of the participants in these workshops have not achieved anything beyond grade 10, and yet they are leaders in their respective churches. They lay claim to the words of Paul, “by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10a), even though their claim does not include the rest of that verse, nor does it seem to bear the context of the entire chapter in mind. A close look at the chapter points to the contrary.
Paul opens the chapter by reminding the Corinthian Church of the gospel he preached to them. The foundation, centre and apex of the dynamic power of that gospel is the explicit declaration: In Jesus Christ who was born, died, and rose again from the dead salvation is offered to everyone as the gift of the grace and mercy of God (cf. Eph. 2:8). In the rest of verse 10, Paul states that the grace and mercy he has received has not been ineffective, for he has toiled harder for this salvation offered to everyone, in comparison to the others.
Verses 20–23 of the fifteenth chapter of the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians speak of Christ as the “first fruits” of those who have fallen asleep. This is one of the passages/phrases that have inspired the African Christology where Christ is seen as the proto-ancestor. Among the ancestors he is the first who arose and who can now give life to all; he is the new Adam, the real ancestor and source of life to all ethnicities and nations. Even if he died a violent death at a young age, was not married, was childless, he is the one who opened the eyes of the blind, cured the sick and gives his disciples life in full (Lk. 7:22).
Paul positively develops what the resurrection of Christ means for all Christians – the building of the kingdom. When the building of the kingdom is complete, when all the enemies of Christ are overcome, then he will hand his kingdom to the Father. The everlasting kingdom of God will then begin (v.28).
Halfway to the end of the chapter, Paul invites Christians to keep their eyes fixed on heaven where true life is. In verse 34 Paul offers a challenge to sober thinking, a command to holiness, and a plea to recognise false teaching. Paul is warning the Corinthians about the abysmal ignorance on the part of those who have infiltrated their church and are upsetting their faith. He also invites them to work, to commit themselves to a role in this world, in the certainty that all the good they perform and the love they spread will not be lost. The crucified and risen Jesus is presented as the image of Christian faith. The way of life of Christians is distinct from that of their contemporaries so that cultural beliefs, customs and mores of the society around should not be allowed to hinder the spreading of that love.
In the workshops, the participants also called for the stepping down of all gay clergy from the pulpit. Yet this seems to be contrary to the way of life of Christians. The way of life of Christians, as already suggested above, is distinguished by the Golden Rule: “So whatever you wish that people do to you, do so to them.” Or “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you” (Lk. 6:31 and Mt. 7:12). This means that what is hateful and hurtful to you do not do to anyone else. The Golden Rule commands us to do for others the good that we wish for ourselves, quite apart from the behaviour that we expect or experience from them. Following the Golden Rule brings the perspective of the merciful Father to a world marked by the principle of retaliation. Luke in particular writes the ‘Gospel of Mercy’ or the ‘Gospel of Great Pardons.’ Jesus’ disciples will not condemn or judge, but give and forgive. Even the balanced justice of only “measure for measure” is exceeded by the image of overflowing generosity. Those who lack in this generosity, therefore cannot, rightfully, claim to be doing anything in the name of Jesus.
In the Hebrew Testament this ‘golden rule’ was expressed negatively: not to do to others what one would not want done to oneself. By putting it positively Jesus makes it more demanding for his followers. Queer people have positively captured this demand in the slogan: “Make love, not war.” Yet fierce war is declared upon them. And the war is “in Jesus’ name.” His own deeds, and teachings, however, do not seem to lend support to this type of war fought in his name. He points his followers to a different type of war.