Rachelle blogged recently about her friend from college who came out of the closet and is now far from Christ:
So it s got me to thinking?.what I am going to do with this homosexual issue? (Because it s not an issue really. It s about people, not ideologies.) What does the Bible say, really? And in the face of what it says, can we find a way to live a more authentic love with those who are gay (practicing or not)? There are plenty of gay Christians, could any one of them live in my community in a genuine way ? or would they always have to leave part of themselves hidden, compartmentalized? Because if they can t live with us as genuinely as the next guy (or gal), then that to me is a flaw in what I m trying to build in my home?a less-than-successful attempt to live the way of love demo ed by Jesus. I d like to find the answers to some of these questions.
Many people, myself included, have responded in the comments, but what becomes clear to me very quickly is that we have made this issue different from all others, and that has caused a great deal of harm.
Normally, when there is a moral problem in the church, it is supposed to be dealt with by repentance. If the person refuses to repent, it starts to get into the uglier realm of kicking people out of the church and so forth (see 1 Cor 5, and note that this is a heterosexual moral problem). It’s pretty simple when the moral issue can be dealt with by saying “stop doing that,” and the person can get some counseling if they need it to quit. This is true for alcoholism, adultery, drug use, etc. We even admire those who have a great “testimony” of being delivered from such problems.
It gets more complicated with homosexuality, because of the immutability issue. People who find that they are gay can’t simply, by an act of the will, stop being attracted to members of the same sex and start being attracted to members of the opposite sex. Counseling doesn’t usually help, and may enhance the sense of guilt and alienation that people feel. The desires will probably always be there. But God’s OK with that.
You would think, at this point, that the church would present celibacy as a good option for gay Christians. It makes sense, doesn’t it? Everyone has natural tendencies that would lead them into sin if they were acted on, and self-discipline is absolutely essential to following Christ, no matter what you struggle with.
Instead, the church has said it’s not OK to be attracted to members of the same sex. You can’t be gay, no matter how you act on those feelings. In other words, it’s not OK to struggle with that. Never mind that it’s OK to struggle with any other sin.
This has had two catastrophic consequences.
First, it has led conservative Christians to confuse being gay with acting on the accompanying desires. Since the latter is not OK, the former must not be either, so the non-sequiter goes. I’ve heard long, complicated sermons on how it’s OK to be tempted, since that’s beyond our control, but it’s not OK to give in to temptation. But these sermons have never used homosexuality as an example. Thus, the church has not seriously posited celibacy as the logical path for homosexual Christians. I find this extremely odd, since single heterosexuals are universally welcomed and supported.
The second consequence is that many, though not all, homosexual Christians have not pursued a celibate lifestyle, and have ended up leaving Christianity altogether. After all, if the church is going to kick you out anyway, what’s the point in attempting something as difficult as celibacy? They have found immensely strong encouragement among the local gay community, and there is no reason to turn back to the church. In the process, following Christ gets squeezed out as a viable option.
Third, the church has responded to the gay person’s serious question “This is who I am - what am I supposed to do?” with “Eew, yuck. Go away.” Why? We don’t say this to heterosexuals who struggle with lust and fornikashun. We say that celibacy is what you do if you find yourself in this situation.
Finally, I’m glad that Rachelle points out that this is not ultimately about politics or marriage, but about people. It’s easy to construct arguments and quote verses when you don’t know anybody that they apply to - or at least, think you don’t. Really, we’re all in the same boat - broken people, with lots of sinful tendencies, who have messed up plenty of times, and need support and help in resisting evil and following Christ.
What has me wondering recently is the shift in emphasis in pomo blogdom.
Used to be, the “litmus test” of orthodox Christianity was what you believed about Jesus.
I’m beginning to see a trend (I think…) in pomo blogs that almost sounds like the litmus test of “pomorthodoxy” is our view of homosexuality.
(Note the many “hedging” words & phrases I used in that sentence before anyone freaks on me, okay?)
Justin, I just scanned your blog. A lot here. I am trying to wrap my 50 yr old brain around the post modern stuff. I think most folks sorta think this way today whether we want to admit it or not. So i can’t very well ignore it now can I? “…all things to all men.” I will pray for your plant and what you are doing for God in Seattle. FYI - I am an elder at Highland church of Christ in Abilene, Tx. Mike Cope is our preacher - a Harding ex! Although I am an ACU ex some of the best folks I know are HU grads. Maybe some day my wife and I can visit you guys and experience fellowship the postmodern Seattle way! Blessings on your efforts…I am on the Board of an AIDS awareness organization here in Abilene and am grateful to see you thinking about our Christian response to the gay community…Your brother, Ed
Justin, I agree that it’s weird how churches treat homosexuality differently to other issues, but I wonder whether that is really significant to the gay community. I get the impression that what really bothers them is the way that such a fundamental part of who they are (homosexuality) is simply not acceptable.
For example, imagine that the church believed God created us to be artistic and creative. The church would tell people who were very logically minded that they should be more artistic. However, if they weren’t artisticly minded, it could insist that they should refrain from drawing any diagrams or categorising their CD collection and that they definately should not write any computer programs. I think my biggest concern wouldn’t be the rules so much as the fundamental rejection of who I was.
Good comments so far. Great to hear from an ACU person, Ed, and thanks for the kind words.
On the “fundamental rejection of who we are,” I think this is a problem that applies to all of us. If we pretend it doesn’t, we’re hypocrites. When being a Christian and being an American have been associated for so long, and the church has accepted lots of other forms of immorality that it shouldn’t have, rejecting homosexual behavior comes across as very hypocritical.
The call to the Gospel is fundamentally a call to reject every aspect of ourselves that is not congruent with Christ. None of us is exempt from that call, no matter how “small” our sins are in comparison to others (which is more a matter of who finds out and what the immediate consequences are, rather than what God thinks about it).
Perhaps we have forgotten that Jesus spoke of taking up our crosses, and he wasn’t talking about protest signs. He meant it as literally as he took up a cross himself, and followed his Father’s will, to his own death.
“Therefore God exalted him to the highest place, and gave him the name that is above every name;
that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth;
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Master,
to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2
Great post, well put. With all the ‘gay marriage’ talk lately I too have been thinking about how we treat folks differently if they describe themselves as ‘gay’. I think part of it may be how it has become to be accepted that homosexuality is part of who you are instead of what you’ve become. Saying its how I am implies that you were made that way. God does not create us predisposed to sin, we become that way through many influences, both inside and out.
Would we buy it if the kleptomaniac said he was just made that way? No, but we would not be disgusted by him as a person either. I hope we?d council them on their sin, try to connect them with others who?ve learned how to overcome their ongoing temptations and stand by them as the fight to be like Jesus. So, I think in the church we need to stop looking down our collective, hypocritical noses at them and just love them and support them as they try to deal with their weaknesses as we deal with ours.
A friend in my church recently, commenting on the shallowness of the relationships and love in our congregation, said that we risk people abandoning truth and Jesus to find folks that will love them.
BTW ? I too am from a ?restoration movement? back ground, a member of the Columbus Church of Christ. We are a part of the International Churches of Christ, but I?m not sure what that means anymore. It?s great to find another blog coming at Christianity from a similar background.
Celebacy,Obviously
I found this great post over at a new blog I’ve been visiting called Radical Congruency. The two authors are from a similar (Church of Christ) background which I find encouraging. The post was all about how Christians tend to…
Justin: It seems to me that even if we present celibacy as the option to gay Christians, this is still doing violence to their immutable sexuality. Celibacy is a calling given by God to a select few. Are you really prepared to conclude that God has called all gays to celibacy? The other option we have as a church is to embrace homosexuality–in the context of lifelong monogamy–as a permissible expression of human sexuality. If homosexuality has genetic/biological roots, then I think this is the only compassionate course of action. In this respect, I agree with Dan above: homosexuality is a fundamental part of these individuals, and no matter which “option” you give them, you are telling them that something programmed into the psyche and their genes is flawed. Who could deal with such subliminal disgust and still feel accepted?
If the few passages that deal with this issue in the scriptures are read from a cultural contextual standpoint, I don’t think this issue can legitimately be called a christian fundamental. And if it’s not a fundamental, we should deal with gays in love in order to avoid grave injustice. I haven’t fully made up my mind on this one, so I’m open to criticism, but this is my inclination after years of thought and reading on the matter.
I agree that this is not the most important issue ever, though some people are saying it is. It’s not a Christian fundamental.
What is fundamental, though, is discipleship, and the call of Christ to die to our sinful nature, whatever that might be.
This is especially tough for gays because culture has told people since the 60s that your sexuality is a domain of personal preference, and no one can judge you or tell you what to do. For non-Christians, I agree, as far as it doesn’t harm others. But for Christians, our first obligation is not to ourselves, or to our neighbors, but to God.
People on both sides of the issue make the mistake of separating homosexual activity from all other sins condemned in the bible. For the pro-gay side, it makes everything permissible. For the anti-gay side, it makes everything that’s “less bad” than homosexual sin permissible.
Am I prepared to say that God has called all gays to celibacy? Well, I believe that God has called all single people to celibacy until they are married. (Strictly speaking, celibacy is abstaining from marriage, not sex, but that makes the discussion more complicated, so I’ll use the word as if it meant sexual abstinence).
Since the number of single heterosexual Christians vastly outnumbers the gay population, by probably 50 to 1, I’d say this isn’t an unbearable burden. I have known hundreds of people who have remained abstinent for decades because of their faith. It can be done, if we present it as a viable option.
On the same note, is God doing violence to my sexuality by demanding that I not sleep around? No, it’s just an area of necessary self-control. I would contend, and I think evolutionary biologists would agree, that polygamy has far stronger genetic and biological roots than homosexuality or monogamy. Yet somehow people are monogamous. Like I said before, it can be done.
“…you are telling them that something programmed into the psyche and their genes is flawed. Who could deal with such subliminal disgust and still feel accepted?”
Let’s start with Romans 7…hopefully everyone should realize by the time they are an adult that a great deal of our psyche and genes are deeply flawed. Discipleship starts with this realization.
And the argument for genetic or biological roots is shaky at best. There are a number of cases in which homesexuals have been “cured,” sometimes despite full acceptance of their orientation, via counseling or even different medications. There’s just as much evidence for a psychological cause as for biological. You can argue that, of course, but it’s arguable because no one really knows for sure.
Good point with Romans 7…I thought about that as I wrote my first comment. I guess we do all have to deal psychologically with internal demons. Obviously lust, drunkenness, and anger fall into this category. But the church also has a bad habit of putting things in this category which aren’t actually sins, placing an unecessary burden on the believer.
The burden of forced celibacy isn’t one you can measure with ratios (your 50 to 1 statistic). It’s an individual and real burden that the apostle Paul related to being burnt in a fire–an apt analogy as any 13 year old boy can tell you. Since the psychological cost of abstention can be so great, shouldn’t we be absolutely, positively sure that this is a core Christian principle before we think about imposing it on every gay who considers themselves christian?
WRT to God doing violence to your sexuality by demanding that you not sleep around: I think that violence is done, but not by God. Our culture has, for many social, political, and economic reasons (Read: Materialism), pushed the mean age of marriage back nearly 2 decades from the actual biological onset of puberty. And improved nutrition has actually moved the age of puberty earlier by several years. When human society originated, this was not the case. Men and women could marry right around the time their hormones started surging. Admittedly, the marriages were mostly arranged, but there was a legitimate sexual outlet when you needed it. (As for the evolutionary motivation for polygamy, a significant percentage of primates–15% of all species–is monogamous. This is much higher than the percentage for lower mammals.)
Nice site, by the way. I like the open atmosphere of discussion.
Good points.
I don’t think anything has to be a “core Christian principle” for it to warrant immediate and total obedience if it’s clearly what God wants. At any rate, I don’t think there is any doubt about what the Bible and church history say about this.
I do think the ratio thing is significant, because hetero Christian singles don’t go around complaining that they can’t have any fun. It comes with the territory.
And I’m not sure there’s a “psychological cost of abstention.” Yes, resisting temptation is tough, but not destructive to one’s mental health. I’ve never heard of someone going crazy because they exercised too much self-control. I would think quite the opposite - that exercising self-control in an extremely tough area would bring a tremendous amount of discipline and peace to other areas of one’s life. Isn’t that why it’s called “fighting the good fight”?
Anyway, thanks for remaining in the conversation.
First of all, Christians (like most groups) have always persecuted people who were different: Minorities, women and especially non-Christians.
I try to imagine the mindset some Christians seem to have… “Let’s see, how can I wreck somebody’s life today? Let me find out a reason to hate you, strip you of your humanity and basically take away any freedoms that you hoped to enjoy.” It truly sickens me.
Imagine what it must have been like for the early Christians… hunted down by the fearful, hateful Romans. If caught, they could’ve been publicly humiliated, imprisoned, tortured and even killed.
It’s actually very similar to the way gay and lesbian folks have been treated throughout history, marking their lives with a secret sign and meeting in private, just hoping to be left alone to live there lives. But, eventually, they are tagged as being different… humiliated, imprisoned, tortured and sometimes even killed.
So go ahead and consider, very carefully, just where you stand on gay issues. Because it matters most to the people who CANNOT come out to you.
I think we’re drifting from the original point, which was powerful. That is, that both sides tend to see the sin of homosexual behavior (note I did not say ‘feelings’ or ‘inclination’, but behavior) as a special case. We want to make this sin about the sinner instead of the sinful actions themselves.
Form the homosexual perspective there’s the desire for a pass on their sin because they?re ‘made that way’. I think to make it part of their core physiology then forces one into a variety of exceptions to God’s standards. Sex outside of marriage is clearly a sin in the Bible and the Biblical example of marriage is one of man and woman, never same sex. Additionally, same sex relations are consistantly portrayed as sinful and abhorrent. So, if we say that homosexuality is biological or genetic, we run into all sorts of problems with scripture. Do we let them get married or say that?s its OK to have sex without it? How do reconcile the consistent stance against homosexual behavior against the assumption that the individual is genetically homosexual? Did God create them or allow them to be created in a way that they are genetically predisposed to sin? This is a much different prospect than the idea of a learned sinful nature.
On the Christian side, if we accept this notion then it opens the door to hatred and discarding of the individual. If they?re just made that way then there?s nothing to do for them, they?re just not welcome here. They are genetically built to not be able to be a Christian, so I don?t have to bother with loving them or helping them. We get a pass on loving this one.
What?s needed is for us to be consistent and treat it as any other sin. It?s wrong to steal, but the thief should be loved, corrected and helped to deal with it. It?s wrong to have sex outside of marriage, but the adulterer should be loved, corrected and helped to deal with it. It?s wrong to practice homosexual acts, but the homosexual should be loved, corrected and helped to deal with it. It is not a special case.
Good point. From my perspective it seems that the issues that divide so fiercely (like homosexuality) always boil down to simple presuppositions. If I presuppose that a homosexual was made/created that way and that he or she has no control over the matter, then we are left with the options mentioned above:
? Homosexual: I?m made this way; deal with it.
? Christian: You are inherently flawed; I hate you. OR I will accept you and your sin despite the teachings of Scripture.
But if I presuppose that a homosexual is not made/created that way but instead became that way through internal and external influences, then we have a whole new set of options:
? Homosexual: I am not a victim of genetics; I can become all that God has in mind for me to be- though it will be incredibly difficult.
? Christian: I will go into battle for you, I love you and will help you become all that God has in mind for you to be.
This issue of ?I was born this way? can be applied to many vices such as alcoholism, drug addiction, pornography addiction and the like. If I said, ?I was born an alcoholic. I can?t help it. I?m not even going to try to stop. You have to accept me anyway.? I don?t think many churches would buy that. But, as Justin pointed out, we treat homosexuality differently. Why are we so inconsistent?
I?m sure it is obvious what my presuppositions are. If anyone feels that I have misrepresented those who feel homosexuals are born that way, then I would welcome correction. Peace to all.
I?m sure it is obvious what my presuppositions are. If anyone feels that I have misrepresented those who feel homosexuals are born that way, then I would welcome correction. Peace to all.
Everything about us has both genetic and environmental determinants. I have known a few homosexuals very well, and they feel that their sexuality has been attuned to the same gender since they were old enough to be sexual at all.
But your point about genetic factors for other habits that are destructive is the key one for this topic: we do not encourage those who are genetically prone to alcoholism to drink. Why? Because it is destructive for their psychology, their families, and society.
I realize that there is some scriptural basis for declaring homosexuality sinful. However, the number of passages is few (three directly deal with it, two in the OT, which contains numerous other moral proscriptions that modern christians have no problem ignoring; do we attack people for boiling goats in their mothers’ milk?), and whether they refer to monogamous, mutually consenting homosexual relationships–let’s just call it gay marriage–is highly debatable. The one passage from Paul that deals with it directly also has interpretive issues, and if we’re going to come down hard based on that passage then we better start having the women cover their heads in church as well. I’m not bashing Paul here, but we do need to understand that he wrote in a different era, and although God may have worked through his personality during the process of inspiration, He would not have overshadowed it completely. We still must crawl inside the mind of Paul to understand what he was addressing here, and it may simplye be the general topic of sexual immorality, which for the Gentiles was uniquely expressed in their use of male and female prostitutes for illicit sexual favors. This is not the type of relationship that gays and lesbians are fighting in the courts to have.
So the key issue here isn’t about genetics, it’s about whether homosexuality (in the manner that modern homosexuals want to express it, within the context of a lifelong commited relationship) is in fact something God prohibits. Since the scriptural record is vague, one criteria I propose to address this is: is homosexuality damaging to those who practice it or to society at large? Most, if not all, of God’s rules exist because they outline the best way for humans to avoid unecessary suffering. If there is no evidence that the practice is damaging, well…
So, although i agree that it is important to note that Christians tend to view homosexuality as a “worse” sin than others, I think you can’t deal with that issue without first revisiting the question of whether the Bible even really addresses modern, committed homosexual relationships at all. If it doesn’t, then the whole discussion changes fundamentally.
Thanks for the great comments, everyone.
I think that, regardless of the causes of homosexuality, people who find themselves to be gay can live without violating what Scripture says, as I’ve already outlined.
Imagine for a moment that God does actually make a certain percentage of people gay. What would the implications of that be? I think we’ve wasted a lot of energy throughout the 20th century, and now the 21st, arguing with the assumption that homosexuality is not inborn or immutable. But so what if it is?
In this situation, we would have people who faced constant temptation to do something that God prohibited. If you assume that all people inherently have the right to pursue their every desire and be happy in every way they please, it seems cruel of God to create gay people and condemn them for their natural behavior.
But it is not our inherent right to do whatever we want, at least not for Christians. If you want to do that, you’re making a choice not to be a Christian. To be a Christian is to have Christ as lord, or master. The tremendous diversity of people who have become faithful Christians across the world makes it clear that anyone, no matter what their predispositions, can become as God wills them to be. This is precisely why “testimonies” are so powerful.
Aaron-
I think I would change your first scenario to:
Christian: You are deeply flawed, and so am I, and neither of us is OK without Jesus, nor can we continue being the way we always have.
Obviously, no one would welcome being told this directly, but I think leaving out either part of the equation leaves us with a very watered-down version of Christianity.
By the way, I’m not a proponent of original sin, either; I’m talking about our tendencies that naturally rear their ugly heads when we let them get out of control.
I got into this conversation late, but I think I have a few new things to add. I’ll try not to be repetitive.
First, I’m not sure I can agree with one of Justin’s basic arguments, that the church treats homosexuality differently than other sins, because it says it is wrong to be homosexual, not just wrong to be tempted with homosexual desires.
I agree that there are certainly some churches that fit that description, but there are also churches that embrace homosexuality as normative and are actively blessing homosexual unions. The church is never, for better or worse, monolithic. In my own church, we have taken exactly the position you have stated: homosexual desire is no different a sin from any other, and is analogous to heterosexual desire, with similar remedies.
Second, I strongly disagree with those who suggest that God created homosexual desires. I think we fail to fully understand the sweeping damage done by the fall, and how thoroughly it has corrupted us, body and soul.
It can be argued that homosexuality is a corruption of God’s perfect will, as are many other things, some genetic, some emotional, some cultural.
Let’s take schizophrenia, for instance. It is an inherited, genetic condition, incurable, and for the most part not well mitigated by medications. It causes delusional thinking of the most extreme sorts. It creates fears and doubts in the mind of the sufferer that are totally out of proportion with reality. It so distorts the mind that it even interferes with one’s ability to relate to God himself.
That such a terrible disorder exists is not God’s fault, and may not even be the fault of the god of this world?it is, however, genetic.
Christians who are compassionate will attempt to keep schizophrenics from doing harm to themselves and their families, and that often means forcible institutionalization and a loss of freedom, a loss of autonomy. Now that’s a sort of violence way beyond asking a homosexual to remain celebate. But it is a violence steeped in love.
Third, it is obvious that the intention of God for sexuality is heterosexuality, and that such relations were designed to be procreative, committed and nurturing of family.
In that Jesus uses marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between himself and the church, and he calls the church his bride and himself the bridegroom, it is very possible that in heterosexuality we witness something of the mysterious and fundamental nature of God himself and the relationship he wants to have with humanity.
Homosexuality is a corruption of what God has intended from the inception of human creation, and suggesting that any loving, monogamous, committed relationship between two humans is as good as any other arrangement is quite arrogant, I think.
I know that sounds harsh, but in many ways our sinful (i.e., incongruent with God) activities and desires are expressions of our arrogance?in my life I have often found it expedient to tell God to take a hike.
Perhaps the church is seen as reacting badly to this whole issue because it is also a very political question, and if you take a political stand, e.g., against the normalization of gay marriage, it’s very difficult to do so in such a way that doesn’t offend homosexuals who feel strongly the other way.
OK Ive come in VERY late and have a few comments. Lets face it, Christians are only increasingly talking about gay relationships as they see such relationships as a threat to marriage. Some are saying gays are sinful, therefore should not marry each other etc while others say well, why can’t gay couples get married as they are only expressing their orientation.
It’s not that simple. Throw bisexualism in the mix and its even more complicated - but no more of a sin than a married person having an affair.
So why is the church so hung up on homosexuality? The only answer I can think of is that most Christians do not understand it or do nothave friends with a homosexual orientation. Probably both.
Dave-
I think that’s definitely true. I did not know any homosexuals until last year, and in the US there is such a cultural segmentation between the Christian subculture and the gay subculture that many Christians will never get to know any gay people.
[N.B. Dave writes from NZ, I believe]
It’s still a very hot political issue here, particularly around marriage and ordination issues (as I see from your blog it is in NZ). The “Christian nation” rhetoric lives on in many places, and people are threatened by anything’s becoming acceptable that would not be acceptable in a Christian nation.
Charlie-
I think the protestant church long ago gave up the right to use “procreative” as a criterion for God-approved sex. If you’re Catholic, on the other hand…
Is there room for those churches who see homosexuality as sin, to allow gays their own lives? Why is the church so adamently opposed to my securing my civil rights in this country? Some Christians are sitting in judgement over me, by fighting my right to have the same basic benefits of a partnership, that they have in their marriage. As an example, should my partner and I travel to another state, there is no assurance that I would be able to assist in his healthcare decisions if he were hospitalized in an accident. Some states are even fighting to take burial decisions away from partner’s, not even allowing any legal agreement to be created between two partners, unless no other family members are living!
But Christians can look down long noses, and say they’re defending society (our society!) against decline, by not allowing me rights such as these. Inheritance, burial decisions, transfer of wealth without extra taxes, sharing of health benefits without extra taxes, the list goes on and on to over 1,000!
Christians have a history of denying others their civil rights based upon their interpretation of the bible at different points in history. They did this with slavery. They did this with interracial marriage (loving v. virginia), they did it with denying Catholics money for their schools, and now they’re doing it to gays and lesbians with marriage.
Could I be celibate? Hardly. That is a specially calling by God. I spent 14 years of my life attending pastoral counseling, and reparative therapy (ex-gay therapy) attempting to follow what my fellow Christians believed I should do. When all else failed, including my marriage to a really wonderfull woman, I had had about enough. 14 years of being blamed for being who you are, is just about enough don’t you think?
But you have your beliefs, I have mine. Right now the Church his being hurt a great deal by the political entity it has become, pulling it’s personal beliefs into politics. Just exactly what we all moved here to get away from.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Keith A. Daly
Portland, Ore.
Sorry to jump into this so late, but I just your site and have been reading the comments with great interest.
I wonder how many of you that embrace the idea that gays “choose” to be gay and reject the idea that perhaps there is an inherent biological or genetic predisposition to same-sex attraction have ever sat down with a gay or lesbian person and asked them to tell their story, to explain how they came to know themselves in this way? I think you would be surprised to find that the only “choice” involved was the one in which we gave ourselves permission to engage in intimate relationships with the person we love. I often find it strange to come upon these discussions and feel as if part of my life is being dissected by someone who hasn’t a clue about the complexities of the lives they are talking about. That’s why these types of arguments hold no weight with us, because we know that they’re untrue.
I do understand, though, why choice needs to remain a line of defense in your argument. Acknowledging that gays don’t in fact choose their orientation, and that there are most likely other factors involved severely undercuts the biblical argumement that homosexuality is freely chosen sin, and that has the potetntial to topple the whole view of the Bible as inerrant. Perhaps that is why those opposed to same-sex relationships on biblical grounds often seem so uninterested in knowing more about the lives of those whom they blithely discuss like a problem to be solved rather than a person to be related to. It’s safer that way, because then you don’t have to re-think your hermeneutic in the light of new scientific understanding about same-sex relationships.
Karen-
Thanks for writing. One of the original motivations I had behind writing this post was that it seemed to me that we were at a standstill because people didn’t understand the issue you mentioned. Thank you for explaining that orientation is not simply a matter of choice.
Hopefully I made clear my belief that it doesn’t matter why or how someone is homosexual; God’s standards are the same for everyone, as the single-heterosexual-celibacy analogy above hopefully illustrates. I would like to see Christians stop treating this issue differently than all other issues of moral concern, because that allows one side to condemn an entire class of people, and the other side to grant a moral carte blanche, when neither is an adequate position for a heart belonging to Christ.
I don’t think anyone here said being a homosexual was evil, but rather that homosexual activity is wrong. Christians are starting, I hope, to make clear distinctions between orientation and action. In the economy of sin and morality, good and evil, our orientations, predispositions and personality traits can be assets or liabilities, but they are not what we are judged on.
So, 2 questions:
1) Why take what you and fellow believers accept as truth, and apply it to my life by blocking my ability to marry?
2) Why is homosexuality the tipping point for the church? Matt. 23 talks against divorce, even stating that it can lead to adultry. Where’s the call for celebacy to those who’s marriages fail? And where is the legislation to block people from divorce and remarriage, except in certain extreme circumstances?
Keith, my answer to one of your questions is right here
The H Bomb
Justin, Dan, and Hamo have discussed gay marriage lately, with interesting comments from Christians and those in the gay community.
Keith asks on Justin’s blog “Why is homosexuality the tipping point for the church? Matt. 23 talks against divorce,…
Good questions, Keith. I in no way defend the failure of marriage among Christian heterosexuals. I think divorce is horrible, and the fact that the divorce rate among Christians is no different than that among non-Christians is shameful.
To answer your question, though, it’s because divorce and adultery are one-time deals, not continual choices. Everyone involved in a divorce usually agrees that it was a bad thing. I don’t think anyone would defend a serial divorcer.
When Jesus said “Anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery,” I think he was pointing out that there is no such thing as a clean divorce. Any divorce involves adultery one way or the other, and that’s not OK. I don’t think he was saying, though, that to marry someone who’s divorced is to enter a state of continual adultery and sin.
1) Why take what you and fellow believers accept as truth, and apply it to my life by blocking my ability to marry?
In a secular context, I don’t see any reason to. Civil rights are at issue here, and discrimination is wrong.
Within Christianity, the short answer is that theology is a communitarian process, and we are not all free to decide whatever we want apart from the consensus of the Christian tradition.
im just skimming over this, but im surprised no one has challenged the point that scripture is clear on this issue. the scriptural argument against gay relationships is shaky at best, imho.
I find it very disturbing that so many Christians find it so easy to portray their own prejudice against homosexual practice as God’s view on the subject.
The point has already been made that we only have one direct NT reference to homosexual sex. Not only does this refer to homosexual prostitution, but it is also on a par with other statements made by Paul i.e. women should cover their heads etc.
It is outrageous to claim that we know God’s view on all aspects of homosexual behaviour, be they monogamous, lifelong commitments or not, based on one comment by Paul.
We are being too quick to tell others how to live and we are telling ourselves that it is OK because we think we speak for God or know what he must be thinking. How can we know with absolute certainty?
All human sexuality has to have an element of control. But to deny the entire gay community the right to express their sexuality, is to deny them their right to be gay. When we talk about orientation vs. act, we use Western dualism to pretend we are compassionate and accepting, when really we are not.
We are not in a situation, though, where a few thin verses of scripture are all we have to consider. Many would argue that the primary mistake conservative Christians have made since the Enlightenment is the the practice of looking at scripture and inferring a great deal from what isolated verses say or fail to say.
Christian tradition is unambiguous in its agreement that there is only one acceptable context for sexual activity, and that is marriage between one man and one woman. (I am not defending the legal proposals being debated at the moment that use this terminology).
If there is a legitimate case for homosexual unions being OK with God, I think it is far weaker than the case that no one seems to be making for premarital hetero-sex. Again, if being denied full expression of one’s sexuality is that big a problem for Christians, you’d think single male high school and college students would be the most outspoken about it. The fact that this isn’t the case makes me less than eager to toss out the traditional interpretations of scripture.
After my last few comments, I think I haven’t been considerate enough of those who have commented. Thank you for your contributions.
A few points of clarification:
-The original discussion did not pertain to secular society, nor is this a debate about gay marriage
-Christians do not have the “right” to anything over against the will of God.
-I don’t claim to speak authoritatively for God, nor do I think I have a perfect understanding of anything.
-This is a topic that is serious enough that it is necessary that the conversation take place at the level of engaging what scripture actually says and does not say. It is possible to go through well-respected processes of interpretation and come to reasonably reliable conclusions. Absolute certainty? No. Speaking for God? Maybe. Google the bible on that one. It’s in there. This is not an excuse for arrogance or judgmentalism, but it does at least leave open the possibility.
-Behind the “you don’t speak for God” comments, I’m hearing an implication that it is unfair to come to conclusions about scripture that affect other people in ways that they perceive to be negative. If this were a priori not a possibility, what would be the point of having scripture, and of having each other to help us exegete it?
I will refer the reader to whosoever.org, a pro-practicing-gay-Christian site which I plan to discuss in a future post.
To answer your question, though, it’s because divorce and adultery are one-time deals, not continual choices. Everyone involved in a divorce usually agrees that it was a bad thing. I don’t think anyone would defend a serial divorcer.
Unfortunately, you’re very wrong on this point. I went to a born-again Christian college. People were thrown out for single incidents of homosexual ‘acting out’, I was threatened with expulsion myself, after only one incident, except that I made quite a fuss over the fact that I had been blacklisted as ‘possibly’ gay by the school, and they had gone to many of my friends and asked questions about the possibility I was gay, before anything had happened — which came out while my case was being reviewed.
The Church treats any incidents as very big issues when it comes to homosexuality, and is more apt to act upon any known transgressions, with unequivocated rebuke.
Theological politics
I’ve been spending a bit of time today swapping comments on a few blogs that I’ve come across in that way you do, where you just sort of pick out a comment here and there and follow a link to…
This is a great debate and one I think needs to happen over and over within the church. I’d also like to raise a couple of points:
-Like I said earlier, I think someone’s sexual orientation is central to who they are. This is not an acedemic issue about the choices someone makes, what’s really at stake here is whether or not we think God accepts a gay person. I just don’t buy that argument about it’s ok to be gay so long as you don’t act on it. Perhaps if we said it’s ok to have gay sex in a life long monogamous relationship, or even that it’s ok to have oral sex in a life long monogamous relationship. But to rule it all out for the rest of someone’s life is to deny them the expression of who they are, not to mention unrealistic. Justin: the reason I think that young single males aren’t making more out of their plight is that they’ve only been told to wait, not that they’re fundamentally unacceptable. Plus, they can have a sexual realtionship if they want, so long as they don’t tell anyone they’re having sex everyone will assume the best.
-Given the high stakes here, I think we need to have the utmost humility when expressing our view. It’s up to us to make sure that the people who hear us get that we’re not claiming to speak on God’s behalf. All too often people who aren’t even gay themselves say “The bible says X therefore Y”, which might be a valid point, but it makes my skin crawl because it’s acedemic to them, and yet they’ve just said that God rejects hundreds of thousands of people in our society and they haven’t even had the humility to say that it’s just their opinion.
-This is a debate about what God thinks on a particular issue. I think the bible is a little shaky and any argument solely based on it doesn’t stand up to rational analysis. Our tradition is outdated in all kinds of ways, and if sticking with tradition was so important anyway we’d still be doing services in Latin! What’s more, it’s a long time since we took our advice from a Pope. So frankly, I see no option other than to leave this up to people’s consciences and allow the holy spirit guide everyone as he sees fit.
Keith-
My college treated alcohol use, heterosexual activity, and homosexual activity equally - with a one-semester expulsion. After that, you could come back. I’m sorry if your college made a a bigger deal out of what you did than what straight people doubtless did.
Dan-
I think you’ve brought up a divine paradox regarding God’s acceptance of us. All of us come to God as people who find themselves deeply flawed and in need of not just therapy or counseling, but salvation. God offers that salvation - a strong word, isn’t it? - to everyone, so in that sense, yes, God is accepting of everyone.
But to look at acceptance in another sense, God doesn’t seem terribly concerned with validating us. Biblical terminology like “Take up your cross” and “put to death the sinful nature” and is not validating.
I would say God accepts and does not accept gay people the same way he does selfish people, greedy people, and people of every other type. Jesus spoke of denying ourselves, not of God accepting us as we are. The Bible never speaks of God acceping any of us as we are, but only of God taking people of all types, with all kinds of sin in their lives, and making them whole and holy.
1 Cor 6:11: And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
I am not suggesting that God will change the orientation of gay people once they become Christians. I am suggesting that the path of all disciples will entail some measure of self-denial, which is disproportionately large for those who find themselves to be gay. Is this unfair? Probably. Again, though, God promises neither fairness nor affirmation of our selves, only the offer of life in Christ for those who choose to follow him.
Keith-
After reading your last comment again, I think I may have assumed your college was like mine and had a zero-tolerance policy for the things I mentioned. If straight people got away with “fornication” and gay people didn’t, that’s unfair and hypocritical, and I’m sorry. My college had a zero-tolerance policy for either type of sex, so that possibility didn’t occur to me when I made the previous comment.
Miz-
Could you clarify what the “right to be gay” is? I think in the present discussion, it’s important for everyone to understand precisely what you mean by that, and in what context.
Thanks for the continued civil discussion, everyone.
Grace and peace,
Justin
That policy is essentially the same as at my college, though gays weren’t asked back. In fact, those who got turned in who weren’t practicing gays, could be expelled as well, or at the least kept under a close eye.
Of course, you could divorce your spouse without any ramifications whatsoever. I’m sure that was true at your school as well.
And, in my Church, even while not a ‘practicing homosexual’ I was kept under a close eye, and many felt uncomfortable having me around at all. I was tainted because of desires I was born with, regardless of whether or not I acted upon them.
Divorce in my church was socially uncomfortable, but there was never a discussion about the biblical ramifications of a divorce.
There were frequent sermons against homosexuality.
I?d like to chime in with a few comments. First, it seems that many people are commenting under the assumption that homosexual behavior should be acceptable within the church, therefore the church must defend the fact that homosexuality is sinful (only one NT verse, etc). To me, it seems that the burden of proof (if I may use such a modern term) rests on those who think the church should accept homosexuality. I think that nearly two thousand years of consistent tradition holds some weight, and I have yet to hear a convincing reason why homosexuality should be an acceptable behavior in Christian circles. So why should the church accept homosexuality? Because it?s culturally acceptable? Because we want to be inclusive? Help me understand the reason because I can?t see it.
Secondly, I don?t think it?s too far off base to note that homosexuality is completely biologically unnatural. It?s obvious that all of God?s creation contains a beautiful, natural order. The sun rises and sets, the rain gives life to the earth, the plants provide oxygen to the breathing creatures, plants and animals are able to multiply ? it?s perfectly designed by God and very good. It?s the same with human relationships. God designed human sexual relationships to be between a man and a woman. Can one argue otherwise? Where does that put us when we try to change or improve what God has designed and set in place?
I would like to echo Justin?s thanks for the continued civil discussion. Thank you all.
Aaron-
The reality that we face, though, is that a lot of Christians (small percentage but significant number) are finding that they are gay, whether they like it or not. That’s why I’ve been avoiding the term homosexuality, because the attraction itself is not wrong, it’s just the reality people have to deal with.
I agree that it is very strange that the church would be in a defensive posture on this. Perhaps it is the result of being offensive and insensitive for so long that some Christians have taken this issue to heart enough to call the rest of the church to task on it. I must say the demographics of my blog readers are not representative of all Christians, though!
Keith-
I think there were several divorces among my peers in college, too. Like expulsions, they were kept quiet, but people still talked. I don’t think a divorce brought any consequences from the university. Very hypocritical if that’s true.
Justin-
All the stuff you said is right, assuming you can give a good answer as to why gay sex is wrong.
The problem is that the church is selling a system. A system where by someone can have access to God. The system involves choose God’s way of doing things instead of other ways of doing things.
So, a gay person comes along and we say, “welcome, this system is available to everyone”. They’re interested, then we explain some of the details of how God thinks we should live i.e. violence against each other is bad, loving each other is good. It all makes sense and everything. Then we say, “and gay sex is out of the question”. Then the gay person say, quite legitametly:
“Why? I’m not damaging society or anything, I didn’t choose to be gay, why am I in the wrong?”
And our response is what?
“You can be gay, that’s fine, just don’t do anything that comes with being gay.”
or
“Well, we think God thinks that because the bible says X.”
or
“That’s how it’s always been.”
I’m not being facetious here, I’m just trying to say that we don’t have a very good answer to their question.
1. The first arguement is rather lame because they instantly recognise that it isn’t ok to be gay. Our words sound empty. Perhaps we need to just phrase it better or permit them to do certain things within “marriage” like relationships.
2. The bible stuff just is open to interpretation. For some, they feel that it’s quite clear and that’s fine. But others take a different view, and what should normally happen here is that everyone in the church agrees to respect each others’ interpretaions. But that’s not happening this time.
3. Regarding tradition, the gay comunity have spent the last few decades overcoming the traditional view in secular society, so they can legitametly ask why Christian tradition is more important and must be upheld.
I do think gay people have a “right” to be gay, right up until the point where someone gives them a good reason why it’s wrong. At the moment though, I think they’re winning the argument.
By “the church” do you mean the Catholic Church? I recently looked it up in the catechism and found that homosexuality is to be met with compassion, but homosexual acts are to be regarded as sin.
I’m sorry, I answered my own question by surfing a little further around your blog.
Thanks for opening up such a reasoned discussion.