Recently, while reading in Kenton Spark’s book “Sacred Word, Broken Word” (which I highly recommend if you are interested in Biblical studies and the challenges that come with the faithful study of scripture), I came across a perspective that I had never before considered. Sparks addresses the troubling mandate given by Moses to the children of Israel as they prepare to enter the promised land, “I cannot go with you, but God will be with you…Go, and kill all the nations,” in reference to the people already living on the land (LXX Deuteronomy 11:23; Joshua 23:4; 24:18). We see, in contrast, Christ speaking directly in the Matthew text when he says, “Go, make disciples of all the nations…and I will be with you.” The amazing thing here is when you look at the Greek for “kill all the nations” (panta ta ethne) and “make disciples of all nations (panta ta ethne again)---how is it that the seemingly same law was taught and carried out so differently? Sparks says that “Matthew apparently means to teach us that the true fulfillment of the command to kill the Canaanites is actually found in our efforts to convert the lost to faith in Christ.”[1]With this in mind, is it possible that Israelite history could have looked different than what occurred had the mandate been understood differently? To take things a step further, is it possible that our church policies and procedures as Latter-day Saints could look different than what they have been in the past? (I am leading you here---yes, the answer is yes)
With these things on my mind, fast forward to this week’s lecture in one of my RELA 250 classes, “Jesus Christ and the Everlasting Gospel.” While discussing Matthew 2-5, a student raised his hand and commented on the beauty that can be found within the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus teaches a higher law, stating “Ye have heard it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you…”----“You know,” my student pointed out, “when we love or enemies, we actually change their label from someone who we hated to someone we love. WE have the ability to conquer our enemies through refusing to see them as that, our enemies.” I stared at this young man in awe and amazement, congratulating him on his spot-on comment and then taking the class into a discussion on the nuances found within the Greek version of the text (both Old Testament and New), reinforcing the power and insight that can come to us through a careful and open study of the scriptures. As we look deeper into the text and apply proper hermeneutical tools, we can more effectively ask when encountering troubling texts, “what is really going on here? Is there another way to look at this?”
How does all of this tie into BYU’s recent update to their Honor Code policy in regards to SSA and homosexual behavior? I have two thoughts on that. 1) By equating homosexual sex with heterosexual sex in regards to “immoral behavior,” the distinction between students who are LGBTQ and who are straight has been eliminated. Students who have violated the law of chastity (gay or straight) are seen as simply that, a student violating the law of chastity. By removing the identity tag from the individual, we see a better reflection of the scriptural truth that “all are alike unto God---” (2Nephi 26:33). My second thought-- 2) one of the problems with the Jewish proselytes in the early Christian church was their fascination with the perfection of the law, with all its points and intricacies (both God mandated and culturally assimilated). To many, it was astounding that Jesus would simply say to the woman taken in adultery, “go thy way and sin no more” and not actually follow through with the mandate to stone the adulterer (John 8: 1-11). Jesus seems less concerned with the specifics of the punitive aspect of the law as opposed to the intent behind it law itself. It would seem to me that this update in BYU’s honor code policy is doing just that---rather than telling a student, gay or straight, exactly where the line is in regards to chaste behavior, they are getting back to the core of the law, which is not having sexual relations outside of marriage (which at this time is declared between a man and a woman). Where signs of affection (holding hands, kissing, etc.) were previously forbidden between those of the same sex, they are no longer prohibited and, in line with the LDS Church’s updated Handbook of Instruction, not considered a violation of the law of chastity and will not be punished as such.
In conclusion, there are times when identifiers (gay, straight, black, white, Asian, non-binary, etc.) are important and essential. There are other times when they are not. This shift in the honor code policy seems to me to be a step in the right direction, affirming that all are alike unto God, and putting agency and honor at the forefront as opposed to espousing a legalistic culture of reporting, fear, and “otherness.” When we love those who are different than us (and in this context, if we are straight, those that identify as LGBTQ), we refuse to see them as separate as ourselves, as “other,” and more fully progress towards a Zion people, becoming one in all things (D&C 38:27).
[1]Sacred Word, Broken Word ---Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture. Sparks, Kenton. 2012, p.69
