June 22, 2025

“No Longer Slave or Free . . .Male and Female” Reflections on Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion

This is a sermon that has evolved. I had originally intended today to focus on same gender and transgender issues. But when I realized that Juneteenth was being celebrated this past Thursday I decided to expand this message and reflect on the issues behind what has been referred to as DEI (diversity, equality, and inclusion). I was urged to do so by the Apostle Paul, when he wrote, only about two thousand years ahead of his time, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
First, let’s talk about the “no longer slave or free” part. The Emancipation Proclamation, the presidential proclamation and executive order declaring that all slaves were now free issued by President Abraham Lincoln, was issued on January 1, 1863. But it wasn’t until June 19th of that year that U.S. Major General Gordon Granger arrived to take charge of the soldiers stationed in Texas and issued General Order Number 3, defeating the last bastion of slavery. That’s the occasion that we celebrate as “Juneteenth.”
But you and I know that the end of slavery was not the end of discrimination and lack of opportunity for many African-Americans, not to mention Native Americans, Latinos, and others. The equal and compassionate treatment of others echoes the teachings of Christ, and is therefore our marching orders as his followers. And equality of opportunity must be a primary value in this “land of the free.” It is that equality that makes our nation more diverse and inclusive, and enriches our culture.
And, Paul says, “There is no longer male and female.” Ten years ago, on June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Obergefell vs. Hodges that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same gender. But now, current members of the Supreme Court are calling for revisiting that decision. And on Wednesday that same Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming healthcare for minors.
These are not simply political issues. Gay marriage obviously deals with an institution that has been, for a very long time, an important concern for the church. It is also for many people a question of morality, of biblical interpretation, or of justice.
Ours is an Open and Affirming congregation of the United Church of Christ. That means that we have put ourselves on record as being open to and affirming of all people regardless of their sexual orientation. On the 4th of July in 2005, the General Synod of the UCC passed a resolution affirming “equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender.” So, our denomination is on record in support of same sex marriage. I know that there is not a unanimity of opinion, however, about gay marriage, perhaps even in this congregation. I know that some will disagree with my interpretation of scripture, my definition of justice and equality, and my position on this issue. That is everyone’s prerogative in a “free church” such as ours.
I feel it is important, however, to offer my own reflections on the biblical, moral, and social questions involved, and to explain to you why I wholeheartedly support same sex marriage, as well as the recognition and equality of transgender people and the whole alphabet of LGBTQ+, just as I support racial equality.
Let me begin by saying that I believe movement in the direction of marriage equality in our society is not a fluke or passing fad. I believe it is the wave of the future. For the emerging generation of young people, it is simply a non-issue; by and large they see no reason that gay people should not be allowed to marry. In time this will, I am convinced, be regarded in the same way we now regard bi-racial marriages, which were once also illegal across America. In 1967, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that inter-racial marriage could not be outlawed.
We tend to think of marriage as a bedrock institution, established by Divine decree and unchangeable over the course of human history. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Marriage, like other social institutions, has undergone constant change and revision across many years and many cultures. All one need do is read the Bible to know that polygamy was once the norm. It took centuries for that to change, and in some cultures it never has. The early Christians disagreed about even the value of marriage. Many in the early church taught that celibacy was the only option for followers of Christ. After a long fight, the issue was resolved by allowing marriage, but declaring that celibacy was the superior choice. But the argument persisted for centuries. Catholic priests weren’t actually forbidden to marry until the 12th century. Romantic love, in fact, had little to do with marriage for centuries. Arranged marriages were the norm up until the 18th century, and still are the norm in many cultures.
All of which is simply to say that if there is an objection to same sex marriage, let it not be that there is something sacred about the form of the institution, or that it is fixed and unchangeable.
Some folks argue that scripture makes it clear that marriage is between and man and a woman, or support their sense of racial superiority by saying that in the Bible slavery was common and accepted. They often quote Paul in his letter to the Ephesians. He writes, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” And in the book of Romans we find these words, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.” But scriptural interpretation is never, in my mind, solely an issue of finding specific texts to support a position. The larger issue has to do with what principles and methodologies one uses to understand biblical truth. I think the safest ground for undertaking such tricky business is to examine the broad sweep of biblical themes and weigh specific perhaps time and culture-bound texts against those themes. In an interview about this issue one of the great biblical scholars and theologians of our time, Walter Brueggemann, put it this way: “Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said that the arc of history is bent toward justice. And the parallel statement that I want to make is that the arc of the Gospel is bent toward inclusiveness. And I think that’s a kind of elemental conviction through which I then read the text.”
I’m on board with Brueggemann. I believe it is necessary at times to allow the Bible to critique itself. In other words, I think it is biblical to weigh time-bound and culture-bound practices and institutions that are reflected in scripture against the broad moral imperatives of the gospel. James Nelson relates a valuable instance of this dynamic from the Bible itself. He says, “scripture tells us that after Pentecost there was an important first test case for this new faith community of Jesus people. The question was whether a person, regarded by tradition as sexually abnormal could be part of the body of Christ. It was the highly controversial baptism of the
Ethiopian eunuch by Philip. And while his critics screamed that this baptism was in clear violation of the holy scriptures, Philip set aside even the prejudices of the Bible in favor of the Gospel of Christ.”
I would suggest for your consideration that the broad biblical principle of inclusiveness, of acceptance of those who are different – a principle that Jesus spoke of persistently – helps us to look at the cultural practices of the time in which the scriptures were written in a different light – including the place of foreigners, or people who seem different, or the practice of marriage.
So, anyone may legitimately argue that they interpret scripture differently, that they use a different biblical hermeneutic. But I would suggest to them simply this: do not try to claim that it is the only way to read scripture.
This leaves us with one final objection to same sex marriage and gender and transgender equality: “it just doesn’t seem right. It makes me uncomfortable.” At the bottom of it all, I think this is probably the real issue for many (if not most) folks who oppose gay marriage or recognition of transgender students, athletes, etc. It’s just too different from what we’ve known all our lives, and somehow that makes it seem threatening. And so, claims are made that it’s not good for children, or that it somehow erodes or weakens traditional marriages and norms. I would suggest that many traditional marriages do an adequate job themselves of damaging children and contributing to their own erosion of norms without the assistance of a same sex couple down the street.
It is understandable that people find this difficult, that they feel a strong inner resistance to accepting something that goes against what they have learned from childhood. No one can argue that such feelings are unnatural or inexplicable. They are reflected in our instinctive response to other races as well. I entirely understand them; I have known those feelings myself.
But gender, same-gender, transgender acceptance and racial equality are, in the final analysis, all a matter of justice. It’s about people – people we know, people in our families, our friends. Regardless of peoples’ discomfort about being in close contact with those who don’t look like them, or act like them, separate is not equal. Separate schools are not equal schools, separate institutions are not equal institutions, and separate opportunities are not equal opportunity. That makes this simply a matter of equal rights under the law. And here is my thesis: justice trumps feelings of discomfort.
So, the ongoing efforts to integrate diversity, equality and inclusion, or DEI, into our workplaces, schools, and other institutions has been recently under fire. And it’s true that in some instances, policies put in place under these initiatives have been less than effective. But the impetus behind them is simply this: to make America live out its high ideals of freedom and equality for all its people. And I think the Apostle Paul gave us a pretty good starting point for that.
Well, I may not have changed any minds, but I hope I have at least caused all of you to think, and perhaps raised a few questions. It is for the sake of those thoughts and questions that I invite all of you to come and join in further discussion of all this, if you choose, over coffee at the tables. After all, we are, as Paul says, all “one in Christ Jesus.”