I had the opportunity to interview Phyllis Tickle, the founding editor of the religion department at Publishers Weekly. She is the author of over two dozen books, and currently serves as a lay eucharistic minister and lector in the Episcopal Church in her home city of Memphis, TN.
She has some very clear thoughts on the shifting culture of Christianity and how that relates to gays and lesbians, and I’m wondering what you think of all she said in this first part of the interview?
Much love.
Just a dude trying to learn how to live and love. 
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
She says that we changed with the times concerning divorce, slavery, and homosexuality. I think you should pray about what stand you are going to take, and if you are going to base that stand on scripture, be specific about those scriptures.
My mom justifies her divorce by saying that she was “yoked with an unbeliever” (2 Corinthians 6:14), and in combination with some other scripture, I think she thinks that that pushes it over to her end over Mark 1:1-12.
I think the justification for slavery was in Philemon and a liberal interpretation of what God created on the sixth day.
Obviously folks are going to differ with my Mom, just like people are going to differ over whether the Bible promotes slavery. So I think its important to pray.
There are a number of people commenting on my Facebook page regarding this video (not sure why they’re not doing it here?), so for an ongoing discussion please visit my Facebook.
However, I would love to start one here.
Daniel – I had someone mention the following to me yesterday:
The reason conservative Christians no longer concentrate on divorce, because Jesus is very clear on divorce, is because the majority of them practice it and it has become ‘normalized’ so they had to move on to something else.
Interesting thought….
Phylllis is very compassionate, as I am, for GLBTs, but we still believe in Sola Scriptura. We can still be firm in our belief in the Bible & still have compassion on & work with LGBTs.
The Bible is not completely clear on certain issues related to this as it is on divorce. [Yes, there is lots of divorce in the church, but it doesn't make it right! However, God is forgiving & often we can't "unscramble the egg," as my pastor once said. So all these divorced/remarried folks go on & have to deal with the Lord privately. But, they are not put on the shelf....]
OK, I’m digressing from the gay issue. I guess I’m saying the issues are somewhat different. Andrew, we support what you are doing, so keep doing it!
It seems that Phyllis Tickle is saying that the Bible takes outdated positions on such and such issues. The Bible clearly says that divorce is absolutely wrong in all circumstances, that patriarchy is God’s ideal, that slavery is morally acceptable, and homosexuality is immoral. However, by way of common sense and cultural evolution we have cast off the teachings about divorce, patriarchy, and slavery. Therefore, we should cast off the Bible’s teaching about homosexuality.
Those are fascinating observations about culture, and how cultural shifts impact our interpretive process. They are also revealing statements about her assumptions about how people actually read and interpret the Bible. She does not really offer much in the way of how an interpretive process works. It seems to me that she is presenting the Bible as a book that is hopelessly outdated and must be discarded when appropriate. Since there could be no other possible reading of the Bible on those subjects, other than the backwards one she insists upon, she is faced with a very difficult problem–by what criteria can you judge which texts are normative and which are dispensable? The criteria she judges by seems to be rooted in the “common sense” of whatever cultural context we find ourselves in. But why not deny the resurrection then? After all, we live in a day and age where the miraculous is treated as something that is absurd. Why believe Jesus is Lord–or in modern parlance–the ONLY way to God? We live in a pluralistic society! Why believe in Christianity at all when it can be changed at the culture’s notice?
There has to be a more thoroughgoing hermeneutic to account for the doctrinal positions that have changed over the last few hundred years, not to mention a better effort to understand the “conservative” church’s views on divorce (I am not sure anyone looks upon it as a good thing). William Webb offers an approach that is worthy of consideration. Otherwise we get stuck in an inconsistent conservative hermeneutic or a liberal one that undermines the authority of Scripture–like the one PT seems to adhere to.
“We can still be firm in our belief in the Bible & still have compassion on & work with LGBTs.” I’m curious what you mean by this Mrs. T? Work with us (queers/LGBTs) as a “mission field”?
I’m disappointed to hear Mrs. Tickle’s almost flippant tossing aside of traditional understanding of Scripture on this issue as well as that of divorce. The fact that divorce is rampant in the church and isn’t talked about isn’t because we’ve come to some elevated understanding of things, it’s because of hypocrisy on the one hand and an unbiblical view of heterosexual marriage on the other. The solution here isn’t to just keep moving the goalposts, it’s to recover a proper wholistic and biblical understanding of sexuality both for GLBT and heterosexuals alike.
I love Phyllis by the way! Such a nice woman! I offer this quote in lieu of the book I’d write on this subject.
Spurgeon once said:
“Love thy neighbor, too, albeit that he be of a different religion. Thou thinkest thyself to be of that sect which is the nearest to the truth, and thou hast hope that thou and thy compeers who think so well, shall certainly be saved. Thy neighbor thinketh differently. His religion thou sayest is unsound and untrue; love him, for all that. Let not thy differences separate him from thee. Perhaps he may be right, or he may be wrong; he shall be the rightest in practice, who loves the most. Possibly he has no religion at all. He disregards thy God; he breaks the Sabbath; he is confessedly an atheist; love him still. Hard words will not convert him, hard deeds will not make him a Christian. Love him straight on; his sin is not against thee, but against thy God. Thy God takes vengeance for sins committed against himself, and leave thou him in God’s hands. But if thou canst do him a kind turn, if thou canst find aught whereby thou canst serve him, do it, be it day or night. And if thou makest any distinction, make it thus: Because thou art not of my religion, I will serve thee the more, that thou mayest be converted to the right; whereas thou art a heretic Samaritan, and I an orthodox Jew, thou art still my neighbor, and I will love thee with the hope that thou mayest give up thy temple in Gerizim, and come to bow in the temple of God in Jerusalem. Love thy neighbor, despite differences in religion.”
(Love Thy Neighbor- Aug. 9th, 1857)
When the church follows that idea, that “he shall be the rightest in practice, who loves the most”, most of these issues will disappear.
Andrew, thank you for following the above sentiment. I am continually praying for the ministry God has called you to! Love you bro!
Tim Kurek
Well, I know there are a lot of traditionalists out there who are simply NOT going to like this, but Phyllis Tickle is right. There’s no way around it. Despite all the efforts that conservative, Christian Baby Boomers are putting into maintaining a particular interpretation about this issue, the young folks just aren’t buying it. As a matter of fact, they’re so fed up with it, that they seem to be leaving organized religion by the droves. There are only 2 options for the future of the church in the US: they will either be obsolete (as they are in much of Europe), or they will simply see this issue from a different perspective (i.e., they will employ the “cultural context” concerns with homosexuality, just as they do with regards to womens’ place in the Church, and recognize that it’s an issue that’s not really an issue.)
Hi Ray! I guess I mean interact with GLBTs, not write them off. Many are Christians, therefore not a ‘mission field!’
I love what Andrew is doing. He is trying to bridge that gap. But the poor guy is misunderstood on both sides of the gap.
The Bible isn’t that clear on gay issues as it is on divorce. From what I see, there is only one reason for a believer to divorce & then only the innocent party may remarry. How GLBTs are supposed to live is quite nebulous. We are still learning. There are so many beliefs acoss the spectrum. We don’t have all the answers, so we keep learning. Please, if you are GLBT, realize that many Christians love you & are not judgng you.
Another note: The Old Testament & the New are different. The NT fulfills much of the Old. But know that NT believers don’t condone slavery!!
“The reason conservative Christians no longer concentrate on divorce, because Jesus is very clear on divorce, is because the majority of them practice it and it has become ‘normalized’ so they had to move on to something else.”
Yes, an interesting thought, and one that ought to be sobering, as well. How many “something elses” will pop up? Are we evolving or devolving in the Church? Are we trying to make “Sola Scriptura” a bygone rather than a foregone conclusion? Are we falling all over each other to enthrone self in place of God, some being “nicer” about it than others? And what position does the Holy Spirit occupy in our Christian lives these days? I’m just thinking out loud here.
I couldn’t help but wonder why Phyllis spoke of divorce so prominently in your interview of her, Andrew, yet mentioned nothing about abortion (she did mention feminism) and its impact on the Church. Especially given her editing of a book in 1990 (still appears on her Web site, but is out of print), “Confessing Conscience: Churched Women on Abortion.” It’s hard to find much information about the book or what her views are on the subject, except for a pro-life United Methodist Church pastor citing it as a having strong pro-choice viewpoint and essentially depressing him. I wonder if she has moderated her views on the subject now.
I realize abortion is not the topic here, but I am struggling to understand how divorce can selectively come into the “new reformation” and emerging theological picture that Phyllis Tickle paints vis-à-vis GLBT issues and not abortion, which is the other great postmodern capitulation of the Church. And that question is far from settled — the tide is turning presently in favor of life, in fact — so I don’t believe the gay question represents the last stand for Sola Scriptura or “the” battle for the heart of the Church. It is a significant one, of course.
Clearly, the three things — divorce, abortion and gay rights — are interrelated, with sexual mores (and self-fulfillment) being the crux.
Probably because gay relationships have more to do with divorce than abortion. She seems to be addressing the issue of relationship (divorce, GLBT inclusion, even slavery), not the termination of life issues.
That is likely her rationale, Jon. I get that. But she did leave a hole there, I think, as she was speaking of a bigger picture with regard to the Church and what we have come to see as defining (or divisive) issues in today’s cultural climate.
Jesus hated divorce, and I think Tickle concedes this, but she still manages to be OK with our getting beyond it (which we haven’t, really). And if God, in her supposed view, put a comma rather than a period at the end of Revelation, then what is Jesus telling the seven churches? It is a warning for now, but there is an end coming, no?
Also interesting that divorce can be viewed in light of the Church/Christ’s bride’s faithfulness. Jesus said Moses allowed for it because of the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts. So, where is the heart of the Church today. Is it hard or pliable? Is it how we view Christ as our bridegroom or how we view each other that defines us? We can make human allowances for each other and feel pretty good about it. That’s a non-option where Christ is concerned. We are his Church, and not our own.
If it makes you feel any better, a gay man is currently spearheading the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act, which would amend that state’s constitution to prevent divorces (http://rescuemarriage.org/). I think you would agree with at least one of the campaign’s mottos: “Marriage isn’t a used tissue you can throw away”.
Then again, at risk of being accused of tossing out my martyr badge again, gay people are not seeking to either dissolve or destroy marriage. We’re seeking the ability to become part of the marriage movement. Some of us are also pretty big fans of adoption and opponents of abortion.
There’s very few, if any, abortions being terminated in our relationships so I’m not sure why we always get lumped in with abortion proponents or why conservatives are always seeking to amend state constitutions to legally neuter our relationships, but not to ban abortion.
Yes, I do agree with that statement about marriage. Thanks for the reference. I guess we have to be very careful about banning stuff outright. In the marriage/divorce arena, we are all painfully aware that some abusive marriages that ought never to have taken place could be potential death-traps for victimized spouses.
I do support covenant marriage, and just wish we could get folks to be better prepared before taking the plunge. My younger daughter and I were literally just talking about this topic. She’s engaged to be married next spring. She has really studied and prepared herself in so many ways for marriage (she and her fiance are being counseled by the couple who started the covenant marriage movement), realizing that we are to love our spouses as Christ does the Church. That kind of love cannot fail. It is true 1 Cor. 13 love.
I do know that some gay folks are definitely opposed to abortion and have other more conservatives views, including on marriage. It is so very hard to find what we could all agree is the pulse of the gay community on certain issues. But then, we could say the same thing about the rest of us.
Yes, it’s hard to also overlook the gross hypocrisy within the Church on both marriage and abortion. I think many folks automatically assume gays are liberal in all their views, including on divorce and abortion. To me, the only reason to discuss all three issues in one breath is because they seem equally central to whatever battle there is for the heart of the Church.
No martyr mantras will you hear from me today, by the way.
Maybe if people know that they can’t escape from their marital commitments by getting divorced, that will help them from springing too quickly into poorly matched marriages.
I feel as though Phyllis was taking the traditional conservative talking points regarding relationships and speaking directly to where homosexuality fits in regards to how cultural (in this case, religious) shifts occur. I’m not sure if any of you have read her recent book, The Great Emergence, but what I took from the scope of that book was her overviewing Christianity and the theological/social shifts it goes through once every 500 years. Her conclusion is that today, in 2009, we are in the middle of the next great shift. And from a wide-range persepctive over Christianity, she seems right. That doesn’t necessarily make her interpretations/thoughts/etc correct for everyone, but it does bring up an interesting view of the landscape of Christianity. Though I don’t ever see many (or any) of the major conservative denominations shifting away from Sola Scriptura, even as we have seen most all other denominations are adapting to a new version of what it means as we speak. Though my opinion is that no matter how many other denominations move away from the traditional Sola Scritura, that there will still be a very strong conservative Church that continues to align itself with a traditional interpretation of Scripture (no matter how irrelevant others might think they are). Funny enough, studies show that the conservative church is growing like wildfire in Latin America and Africa, and if it wasn’t for them, the conservative Church would be hardly anything, because in white/anglo communities, conservativism is declining rapidly (hence Darren’s comment about Eurpoe).
And Jon – Although I don’t think outlawing divorce would ever actually happen, I think it’s a great idea! (except for physical abuse and cheating)
And Debbie – I do agree with you that if we’re going to talk about conservativism’s ‘Big 3′ – it must also include abortion. My thought about that, and I don’t remember who said this, but “there is more to being pro-life than just being against abortion.” I also love your point about Moses and ‘hardending of the hearts’ and how that relates to us today.
Tim – Great quote!
Bryan – I loved your analogy of ‘moving the goal posts’ because I think it brings up a bigger question of ‘where does culture influence Scripture and where does Scripture influence culture?’
@ Darren
“As a matter of fact, they’re so fed up with it, that they seem to be leaving organized religion by the droves.”
As others who have more eloquently put it before me, sola scriptura…its not a popularity contest, we aren’t adjusting our doctrine by Neilsen ratings. It is about what God has said, otherwise we are left to base it off our feelings (oh wait, that appears to be what is happening).
@ ray
I don’t pretend to say that considering my GBLT friends a “mission field” is not an offensive statement (on the surface). But IF the Bible is true, and God really does not support same-sex unions under any circumstance. How much less do I love you if I choose to not tell you? If I think I have been shown the truth, how much do I have to dislike you for me to keep it to myself? I know, I know…how can I say that I know the Truth…how arrogant of me…but isn’t it just as true for the other side…aren’t GBLT’s convinced that this is NOT wrong? So much so that will fight every legal battle necessary to make it a crime for anyone to deny them the right to practice this expression of their sexuality?