On a smaller scale, I know how Willow feels.
Reminds me of that old Steelers Wheels’ song:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.
So the Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz declined to speak at Willow Creek Church’s Leadership Summit because the church once affiliated with Exodus International. A petition at Change.org with just under 800 signatures provoked the CEO to change his plans. I must admit I am puzzled over this. I can understand a gay activist viewing Exodus as a gay change organization but the relationship with Willow Creek ended in 2009.
Now here is why the title of the post says that Willow is under more than one gun. At the same time the Change.org petition took Willow to task for ever being affiliated with Exodus, Peter LaBarbera is protesting, with a sign and everything, outside the church’s Leadership conference because Willow broke with Exodus.
What is odd about AFTAH’s protest is that Exodus has not been particularly high on AFTAH’s list of groups either. In 2010, AFTAH accused Exodus of capitulating to gay interests when they dropped the Day of Truth.
Through all of this, Willow Creek reacted in a pretty classy manner. Bill Hybels gave praise to Schultz, wants to meet with the Change.org people and to my knowledge has said nothing about AFTAH’s sign. He maintained his beliefs, repeated his view that all people are welcome at Willow and even said buy Starbucks coffee.
Clearly, in America, there is tension between gay rights and traditional religious views of sexuality and we are sorting all of this out in real time. Regarding this particular dust up, I think Willow could have handled the break with Exodus better. I think it should have been made public when it happened and clear reasons given. Also, when it did come to light, they did not comment about accusations that they had gone soft on homosexuality, nor make it clear what the issues were.
However, in the present, I like how Hybels handled Schultz’s decision. Reacting with grace is a much better reflection of what he says he believes than retaliation or defensiveness.
whoops, delete that last line mentally in your mind 😉
I think you could probably nudge that to “most” don’t agree. If this issue were treated as other differences in interpretation are, I’m not sure there would be an issue for us to discuss.
David,
That is, of course, the core of the disagreement between affirming and non-affirming parties: is sexual activity between two members of the same sex sinful or not? (Even as a traditionalist, I wouldn’t say a loving same-sex relationship is sinful *in toto*, as if the love they express is all ‘sinful.’ The controversial issue is narrowed to the proper expression of sexual activity.) Each party is going to think the other is wrong or mistaken, that their side has stronger evidence on this issue, etc. It’s a morally controversial thing, which will necessarily lead to a fundamental disagreement between the two groups.
Please don’t misunderstand me, though: if someone doesn’t agree with the traditional ethic, I don’t believe it should be imposed on them. Only if they freely decide to live their lives this way, and join a church who is on the same page with that, would it be appropriate to call such persons to a life of discipleship defined in this way. I’m for religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Unfortunately, many traditionalists don’t agree with me.
The real malfunction here is the premise that a loving relationship between two people of the same sex which includes sexual intimacy is, by definition, sinful. The other issues all branch out from this. And as long as people who believe that it is their God given mandate to live their neighbor’s lives for them also hold that that view, this matter will go unresolved.
Phrases like “speak the truth in love” and “hold them accountable” may sound spiritually responsible in the abstract, but they almost always represent the imposition of all too human conditions on relationships.
I certainly understand that unless we walk a certain path, we cannot pretend to fully understand it. Credibility to speak authoritatively and comprehensively on a certain path needs to be earned in some way, either by walking it or walking closely with someone who is walking it. And I certainly don’t think we should just flippantly “tell others how to live their lives” without knowing them and without having any sympathy with their situation
But at the same time, I don’t think it’s quite right to say that a religious leader must have firsthand experience on *everything* they speak of in order to speak on it with authority. Many of our struggles overlap in similarities, though they are all distinct and unique as well. What I am saying is, the similarity of our struggles gives us commonality, and we can then hold each other accountable (within a church family where there is agreement). That’s what we are supposed to be doing in the church, anyway: calling each other to faithfulness, whatever that means for each person, and even as our struggles are different. We are all struggling to live the costly obedience of the cross, after all. We can’t pretend to understand everything about the struggles of our brothers and sisters, but we are supposed to be there to speak truth in love to them.
For example, as a single man (religious leader or not) I understood how hard it was to remain sexually pure. If a married Christian friend of mine was thinking about cheating on his/her spouse, I think it would be my responsibility to hold that person accountable, even as I was yet unmarried. I would at least have to say something to them, exhort them, etc. Would my battle have been identical? No, but the basic dynamics of sin, temptation, and grace, are fundamentally the same for all persons in all situations.
Teresa and Kyle,
Not only does it not have any real secular social affirmation, it often does not have the same kind of affirmation in the Church that marriage does. I doubt I could count the number of times I hear “church folk’ talk about setting up this or that single person, or extolling the value of marriage at the expense of singlehood and celibacy. Don’t misunderstand me, I realize the Church does often speak about celibacy, but I have yet to see a place where it is *truly* held up as an ideal equal to marriage.
There is a group of gay Christians who do believe they are called to be celibate until they are married. They existed before the advent of gay marriage in this country. Now that gay marriage is a possibility in many states, I think the door has been opened for them to at least entertain the thought of a romantic relationship with someone – FYI 🙂
Emily K – You articulated the situation very well.
I know this discussion has been going on from before this post, but let me remind some that while the prescription of chastity for people attracted to the same sex seems awful, it’s hardly the worst.
Jesus tells the rich ruler to sell everything he has. He tells a loyal family member to let a dead loved one rot. The Holy Spirit kills a couple for lying about the size of a gift to the church. Let’s not even visit the Hebrew part of scripture.
Chastity is demanding; so is the rest of the Bible. Cognitive mediation yes, but also partial (and continuing) transformation by the Spirit coupled with extravagant grace.
I’m reminded of that scene in “Where the Heart Is”: “Lord, forgive us again the fornication we commited even this morning on this kitchen table….”
Teresa,
I think most heterosexual Christians who declaim homosexuality give very little thought to the acute loneliness that must be battled in a life of chastity. Though I will never know what it’s like to be called to be chaste my whole life (I am now a married man), I was single since puberty, and fully sexually chaste for about ten years before I was married. And I rarely dated until about 7 months before I got married to my wife.
I was lonely. I remember a haircut being the most sustained touch I would have. Our world is such that if you do not have a spouse or a “romantic” partner with whom you have sexual intimacy, you have a hard time fitting in or finding an accepted and available means of intimacy with other human beings.I do think there are ways to live a fulfilled and happy life of intimate relationships as a chaste person, but our world is tilted away from that, even our Christian world which idolizes marriage and family.
That’s another thing. As a single man in the orthodox church I was constantly seen as a part to made whole by a spouse, rather than a full person seeking basic relationships with others. Unless the church is willing to be family to homosexuals – REAL family, not distant, cordial relationships filled with “niceties,” it has no business calling people of any sexual orientation to a life of discipleship and chastity. Unless we live Jesus’ view that the church is our more basic family, our moral views about the practice of homosexuality and the proper use of human sexuality (or any other forbidden sexual contact) will be nothing more than a consignment to loneliness and misery.
I’m beginning to just find this all rather humorous. I finally get comfortable with myself and American Christendom is going all wonky over people such as me. Such is life.
We’ve all done this, have we not? I certainly have.
I been in conversations where I haven’t had any meaningful comprehension … but, I’ve acted as if I had. And, yes, I didn’t have a clue … only my wild assumptions. I think I’m better at being honest, most times; but, I can’t say this still doesn’t happen to me.
On the other hand, David:
And, although some people prefer to avoid this truth: a large number of people do not change their attractions.
David, both statements are true. Which one takes precedence, where and when,
depends on “whose ox is being gored”.
ok, but I don’t understand why the gender of the person you are attracted to excludes those people from building a relationship with “cognitively mediated” sexuality and faithful monogamy. The only thing different is the gender.
I mean I guess if you go by certain arbitrary readings of scriptures, sure, you can say “this is allowed but this isn’t.” But trying to justify it further by introducing some kind of reasoning into it seriously has me lost.
Just say “the Bible says so, so it must be this way.”
There are a group of men in the world who are attracted to many different kinds of women, inherently, repetitively and sometimes compulsively.
Their attractions do not change, but they create an identity around monogamy.
The biological argument about attractions and drives and identities has its obvious weaknesses, which should be confronted from time to time. Sexual attractions are designed to be cognitively mediated, not simply expressed.
Also, Willow Creek has it correct: according to Christianity, all sexual expression outside monogomous marriage is an expression of our “brokenness.” Christianity is an equal opportunity offender here.
And although some prefer to avoid this truth: a small number of people do change their attractions.
Hehehehehe. Constant reflection on conversations with others.
Well, David, I’m glad that you have acknowledged that it is a small number.
Anyone waiting for that to happen to them might just as well wait for all their numbers to come up in the lottery (which would be a lot more useful). After all, that too does unquestionably happen to a small number of people.
The problem is people think it’s about “identity” and “behavior.” You can change your identity and you can alter your behavior. What people at fundamentalist non-denomination Christian churches don’t get is that for us gays, expressing our sexuality physically within the bonds of a loving relationship is NO DIFFERENT from a heterosexual expressing their sexuality physically within the bonds of a loving relationship.
So if our sex drives are the same, heteros are at least given the option of marrying and having a romantic and sexual outlet that way. Gays are told to keep it corked up because we cannot marry.
If straights would only imagine if they were forced into the same situation maybe they would understand why having our natural loving desires compared to one’s “natural inclination” to alcohol, addiction, greed, and lust angers and hurts us so much, and doesn’t at all speak to us in a “truth-in-love” manner at all.
No, the problem is that people really don’t have any idea. They say they know – they act like they understand – and in their quiet moments, they have no clue – only assumptions.
Ann, I don’t understand the last sentence of your statement. I don’t particularly identify as lesbian except in an appropriate setting. Notwithstanding that, I believe I understand what Frank’s getting at. You seem to be trying to state something about “identify as”. What’s that mean to you?
Ann, what specifically do you do as an ‘inclined person’ to understand us? This is assuming you’re not homosexual.
Teresa,
I believe that Frank’s primary objection, which he referred to in his comment, is shared by many who identify (personally or openly) as gay or lesbian and yet is not understood by others.
I think I do too but out of an abundance of caution I didn’t want to make any assumptions. I think it is too important to think I know what he is referring to based on my own perceptions. I want to understand what he is referring to.
I was using Frank’s words – gay and lesbian. I think anyone can identify as anything they want and often do. Sometimes children and adults resort to making up identities for others that are unsolicited and many times unwanted.
My question was posed to Frank because he has a valid concern and rather than assume what a proper remedy would be, or worse, ignore his concern, I asked for specifics instead.
Richard,
I am not very well versed on religion so please just consider what I say about it as only an opinion. My faith is personal, and while I do believe in a particular religion, it does not interfere with my faith.
Regarding personal responsibility – I am a big believer in this and all the virtue that is associated with it. I absolutely think one can have this without a particular religious commitment, however, I also think that most have it because of a religious belief or from some sort of religious teaching in their life that settled well within them.
What you’ve said is interesting, Ann, because it does actually raise some pertinent questions about what is the proper nature and role of ‘religion’. Many people don’t like ‘religion’ precisely because they feel that it conflicts with ‘personal responsibility’ (and ‘bad’ [as I would see it] religion often appears to do just that).
Richard,
Do you think that the premise of religious beliefs are the foundation for a civilized world? For instance, the Ten Commandments – don’t most people, regardless of religious beliefs, tend to think they are a good example to live by?
Thanks, Ann, for clarifying. Well said.
Whoops, a couple typos there: “for whatever reason.” Also, I should have said “heterosexual sex in the context of marriage” is the only permissible type of sexual expression.
the difference between gays and singles is that singles always have the option of entering a “Godly” relationship and having their needs met there. Gays have no such option in the church.
Also in my original post, while I was saying that homosexual attraction is similar in many ways to heterosexual, obviously it is still different, and when put into practice, different in a morally important sense to many Christians. If it were EXACTLY the same, then again, I think we would have a contradiction on our hands.
Timothy,
I personally see nothing *contradictory* in believing in a loving God and the traditional position on sexual expression. The full rationale behind it may be beyond my ken, but to me that’s different.
I’ve given serious thought to what I would do if I was called by God to refrain from sexual activity for the rest of my life or whatever reason. Such a thing is really hard to speculate about with any kind of accuracy – who of us has that kind of clarity into our own hearts? But I do know that many Christian persons, gay and straight, have been celibate their whole lives (by call, situation, or both), and that while they testify to it being a challenging road, they do not view it as cruel, or a horrifying burden, or a consignment to loneliness.
If sex were the highest means of intimacy, joy, and fulfillment, or if we could not flourish without sex, then it would be cruel and arbitrary for God to keep it from us. That would be a downright contradiction with the goodness of God, and an untenable position because of it. But short of that, the fact that I do not fully grasp the reasons behind heterosexual sex being the only permissible form of sexual expression is not enough of a reason to look for another way of understanding it, in my mind. Given how little we know about what’s good for us, it is not at all surprising that we would not quite grasp all of the “why’s.” There’s an irreducible element of trust and faith when it comes to God’s commands.
All that said, I truly am open to the tradition being wrong on this point. It has been wrong before. And as you noted, we better make sure we are right in our interpretation before we call people to a taxing point of discipleship. But I do think those Christians who dispute Christian tradition and traditional interpretations of the Bible bear the burden of proof, for the church has generally been guided in the right direction by the Holy Spirit (though not infallibly).
Kyle
From a theological/biblical perspective, one must remember that the Bible does not actually address the issue of loving same-sex relationships (unless the David-Jonathan, Ruth-Naomi and Daniel-Ashpenaz relationships had a sexual element, which is, in at least one of these cases, a possible interpretation when hermeneutics and linguistic analysis are applied to these stories). All the (apparent) references to ‘homosexuality’ could be interpreted as references to sexual abuse and/or exploitation, rather than same-sex intimacy per se. There is an on-going lively debate in the Church on this issue (which is really a range of issues, of course: ‘homosexuality’, just like ‘heterosexuality’, is not the monolithic thing that extremists of various kinds sometimes like to make out), as we all know.
to clarify:
Please believe me when I tell you that most gay Christians do not experience their orientation as a calling from God. Nor do heterosexual Christians appear to recognize that celibate homosexuals have a special calling from God and rush to benefit from their wisdom or defer to their devotion.
Frankly, other than when it comes time to tell gay people what to do, no one seems to really believe that they have a calling from God.
I’m sorry, I have the tendency to qualify myself to death. I’m often afraid of being misunderstood.
By saying same-sex desires are also different, I just mean they are obviously different because they are directed to the same sex – not that they are automatically lust or anything. And again I’d want to differentiate between the physical aspect of that orientation and the emotional, only the former of which is inconsistent with traditional Christian morality. Gay people aren’t prohibited from all types of loving relationships with people of the same sex on the traditional ethic…
Your comment comes with a multitude of assumptions, Kim. Are you prepared to follow the rest of scripture as literally? Such black and white belief has launched many a horror in our history.
Then again, as you are a woman, God says through scripture that I am not to listen to you on theological issues anyway.
Ann
I suppose I see religious dogma as primarily theological matter. Get the theology (as) ‘right’ (as possible), and things that help to ‘make the world a better place’ should follow.
Richard,
Do you think this disagreement among Christians and other religions is because so little is actually known or understood about orientation, leaving much open to speculation and unsubstantiated conclusions?
Kyle,
Thanks for your posts. Please continue to comment.
Yes, Ann, I do.
But it does seem that, as more scientific endeavour is undertaken, mainstream churches in the West are moving in a more ‘liberal’ direction. Even one or two Muslim clerics in the UK are now ‘wondering’ if same-sex partnerships can in fact be justified by ‘general islamic principles’ (I’ll try to find the article where I saw this).
Mary
Doesn’t it rather depend on what one means by ‘being gay’? I can appreciate the notion that promiscuity, recklessness and sexual selfishness/greed can engender a social ethic that can seriously undermine ‘family and communal values’, but is the same true of ‘gay marriage’-type scenarios? I really think that this is a key question, and it goes back to what David said earlier (and with which I agree):
“The real malfunction here is the premise that a loving relationship between two people of the same sex which includes sexual intimacy is, by definition, sinful.”
In saying the above, David has identified the key point of disagreement in the Church today. IMHO, the Bible does not provide a ‘neat’ solution to this dilemma, despite what a prima facie reading of the small number of small passages apparently dealing with this topic seem to say.
The ‘demonization’ of those advocating ‘gay marriage’ is also profoundly ironic, since one can see all kinds of personal and social benefits from such a realistic and sensible measure – a measure that would be hailed by many ‘traditionalists’ as a ‘morally good thing’ in a straight context.
The ‘demonization’ of LGB persons, and (in particular, perhaps) transgendered persons, many of whom undoubtedly have a demonstrable biological basis for their ‘nature’ (e.g. Klinefelter’s syndrome), is a blight on society. To be fair to some ‘traditionalists’, despite their ‘discomfort’ with things like ‘gay marriage’, they do recognize this.
Kyle,
Very astute. I hope you continue to comment as I have enjoyed your fairness and interesting point of view.
At any rate, it’s been edifying. Adios for now. Maybe I watch too many musicals, hence the melodrama? Who knows… 😉
David – it looks like you’ve already damned me in your eyes. You send up insinuations, then invite me to defend myself, and then interpret my explanations as a “tell” that your insinuations are, in fact, true.
I don’t ponder these issues as mere theoreticals, for what it’s worth, but it looks like there’s nothing I can say, or not say, that will move you beyond prejudice at this point.
I’ll conclude with a point of agreement: I agree, when something is politicized, it is usually done so because of bigotry.
Really? For those of us who have been gay and now practice a more conservative sexual ethic (notice I did not say right or wrong ethic) that we have had to really get to know the issue as well as many of the other issues that present in the church having to do with social circumstances – divorce, marriage, children etc…. The issues of family do not isolate themselves in sexuality.
That’s not inflated, that’s taking a look at our faith.
You can watch too many musicals? 😉
Awww, Ann, what would life be around here without your adorable little passive aggressive streak?
I’m still damned it looks like… 😉
And hey, lighten up is advice that I think cuts both ways here 🙂
David,
I’ve read plenty on, and discussed much with other Christians on controversial moral issues besides homosexuality in the course of my Christian theological reflection, both online and offline, but frankly this is not something I feel I need to prove to you. I haven’t offered enough evidence in these short exchanges to warrant the conclusion about my motives you drew. You are free to make the point about the inflation of this issue in general, but I think it outside of charity to assume what you have about me personally.
Yes this subject is inflated, I agree, mostly because of how it has become politicized. Part of why I am here talking about it is simply because it is a “hot” topic, and many, including myself, have many questions on it, as well as my own perspectives to offer for others who are similarly seeking. There are, of course, plenty of other controversial topics that are equally important to discuss.
Kyle, I’m glad you enjoy pondering these issues, but for me it is a great deal more serious — it is my life. I will, frankly, feel free to speculate on your motives given whatever information you provide. Your defensiveness is very telling, however.
The political aspect is hardly the only reason this issue is so amplified in the church, as the political seems only to be a tool. A large element is good old fashioned bigotry wrapped up in spiritual garb. Many people would prefer that the entire issue remain in the shadows — it makes them uncomfortable.
Since that is not possible, the demonization of LGBTs allows them to become the latest target for “what’s wrong in the world today,” something the Church is rather good at. This is a very old tune with some new lyrics.
Why limit us to the civil realm? Gay Christians have been marrying without the benefit of government recognition for several decades. The MCC officiated at its first commitment ceremony back in 1969. United Church of Christ churches have been officiating at commitment ceremonies since then, as have other Christian, Jewish, and other religious churches. Obviously, there are more states in the US than not that legally recognize our families and most of them have constitutionally prevented us from any legal protections. And yet gay and lesbian couples in those states continue to stand before their friends, family, and God to join together.
Lighten up, Kyle. You will never survive discussions about this issue displaying that kind of melodrama at the first sign someone might possibly doubt you.
“The real malfunction here is the premise that a loving relationship between two people of the same sex which includes sexual intimacy is, by definition, sinful.”
I agree. The aforementioned premise is, in my view, an assumption, based on the flimsiest of evidence, ‘biblical’ or otherwise.
Marriage (as ‘traditionally’ understood) does seem to be held up a ‘biblical ideal’, and is rightly proclaimed as such by the Church. However, I think we make a mistake if we confuse ideals with morals: though linked, they are not congruent. And history teaches us that, in the (apparent or genuine) pursuit of an ideal, people can, even with the ‘best will in the world’, do things are morally reprehensible (or at least morally questionable).
Kyle
I entirely agree with you that it is very important to reflect carefully on a whole range of moral issues (and ‘moral issues’ include those relating to ‘society’ and ‘the global family’ – e.g. the nature and effects of various economic or political activities, the use of force to attempt to resolve international disputes – as well as those more apparently connected with individuals – though this apparent individual-society dichotomy is of course a false one).
My comment about ‘moral laziness’ was certainly not directed at you personally.
Kyle,
I wanted you to know that I appreciate your stance on Biblical interpretation and freedom of consciousness. Its hard to find “traditionalists” who are as moderate and understanding as you seem to be. Thank you 🙂
David Roberts,
I think you are probably correct!
Presumptuous? Perhaps, but can you point us to the forums devoted to divorce and remarriage or birth control where you have made analogous contributions? My comments are not meant to attack, but to simply illustrate that this subject has been inflated in the eyes of believers far beyond any rational theological need.
Emily raises a very important point. There seems also to be a tendency on the part of some ‘traditionalists’ to ‘lump together’ as ‘bad things’ different issues, such as ‘gay marriage’, divorce and abortion. I see this as (at best) ‘moral laziness’.
Consider divorce and ‘gay marriage’: in a real sense, they are actually complete opposites! The former is about dissolving a partnership; the latter is about formally and publically creating one!
Yes, most, you’re right.
You don’t think there would be an issue to discuss once we realize this is a matter of interpretation? Really, all biblical issues are issues of interpretation. That every teaching requires an interpretation doesn’t mean there isn’t an objective answer; it just means it takes some work to get there, and that matters are not going to be immediately obvious to everybody.
I like to compare this issue to disagreements over pacifism/just war in the church. Both sides of this argument are very passionate and convinced they are right in their scriptural interpretation. And yet both still consider the other Christian.
I’m with Richard Hays here: why should we treat this issue like any other? It is a virtual shibboleth for many evangelicals. For them, that the Bible condemns homosexual practice is utterly obvious to everyone who picks up a Bible, and anyone who disagrees must simply not believe in the authority of Scripture, and thus they are just being stubborn rebels against God…etc. And then they go and impose it on others in the civil realm.
For my part, I don’t think the same answer will be immediately obvious to everybody who honestly believes in the Bible. Nevertheless, it is still an important issue – the morality of sexuality – just as the pacifism/just war issue is, with significant moral consequences either way, and thus it should still be discussed seriously by both sides. And I do think there is an objective answer one way or another. It’s just not NEARLY as simple as evangelicals tend to treat biblical interpretation…
But it is a moral issue, and as such
Kyle, I don’t see any mammoth religious movements to make civil marriage unavailable to those who have been divorced without due biblical cause. I don’t see any major Catholic moves to have civil divorce laws revoked or to have contraceptives made illegal. I don’t see either group mounting major smear campaigns to demonize those involved in those respective issues.
They may discuss it theologically, but it simply doesn’t approach the level of vitriol and control the issue of homosexuality does. So yes, I stand by my original statement. There is far more going on here than a simply theological discussion — it is all too often bigotry and prejudice using scripture as it’s justification.
Even your own statements, as moderate as you are trying to be, belie this fact. Do you wrestle equally over divorce and remarriage? Be honest.
Richard, no offense taken, and I wholeheartedly agree that moral issues include both personal and structural/collective realities.
This is absolutely true and I wonder why it is so. We’re constantly being painted as mentally ill, broken, child-indoctrinating monsters trying to sneak our way into public schools to recruit.
None of this is said about divorcees; one might be able to argue proponents of contraception are somewhat demonized for similar things, but the fact remains is there is no widespread movement to “heal” those who support those two things.
I think there’s been a bit of disconnect here. I agree that there is usually far more going on in this discussion than the theological dimension. I did not deny this. And I agree that homosexuality is usually singled out and treated separately due to fear-based, bigoted, and political reasons. I was simply saying there is much to discuss on the theological level, even once we get past these other silly, self-righteous dynamics.
For my part, I do, in fact, wrestle equally over other difficult moral issues in the context of the Christian life, such as divorce and remarriage, birth control, just war, etc. I think it was more than a bit presumptuous of you, David, to assume that I don’t. Every aspect of the Christian moral life is significant enough to reflect seriously upon it.
My primary objection to what Hybels has to say is that he claims to love gays and lesbians but his love has not made him inclined to try to understand anything about them. His Christian Sexual ethic demands that gay people live and die alone, and he doesn’t even acknowledge the severity and cruelty of that demand.
Bill Hybels may have done the best he could within the limits of his beliefs, but so did Abraham when he bound his son Isaac and prepared to slaughter him. Rabbinical sources claim that Isaac never spoke to Abraham after that.
@ David Blakeslee:
Irrespective of any action by TWO, there was a very good reason why it was right that Exodus’s iPhone app should have been pulled. It was aimed at gay youth and gave access to serious misinformation on research by Gary Remafedi, Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Minnesota. As Remafedi wrote in The Guardian (UK):
I don’t think straights will ever get it. What we feel is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as what they feel, just with a person of the same sex. So it’s a cruel fate to be born with this state of being that, were the switch flipped (so to speak), would be celebrated, encouraged, and even revered. By that single fact, that we fall in love with those of the same sex instead of the opposite sex, we are determined to be in the realm of drug users and kleptomaniacs. I really do not understand the mentality that can twist this into making sense.
If roles were reversed and straights were told that the people they fell in love with were beyond their reach solely because of that person’s gender, you can bet there’d be an outcry of anger and desperation.
And even most conservative christians admit today people don’t choose to be gay (“But you can choose your behavior! :D”). So why exactly would they think we’d eagerly participate in a religion that treats us as such pariahs?
There are many things I do not understand. Like many, I have searched for answers. I have come up with few definitive ones. One of these is that God is real and He is good. He may say or do things that we perceive, through our individual and generational filters, as bad/hypocritical/etc.- but He truly is real and only good. There are many times I tell my children, “No” wherein they believe I am uncaring, not “getting them”, and/or just trying to keep them from fun. As a parent, it is frustrating and hurtful to have the ones you love so much you would die for them assume so quickly and with such conviction that you, somehow, mean ill towards then. God warns us continually through His Word, the Bible, on a multitude of topics. It sometimes reads like He is relentlessly judgemental. Well, If WILL judge us…but HIS HEART IS THAT OF A GOOD FATHER WHO IS PATIENT, KIND, EASILY FORGIVING, ETC…not how some of “His” representatives are! He is, however, all knowing. He knows best, He made us, and He warns STRONGLY against homosexuality. As a 21st century woman- I don’t understand why. As a parent, I know its NOT to keep anyone from fun/companionship and /or because he doesn’t “get it”. He knows something we don’t. And, as a Christian…A LOVING INCLUSIVE Christian I can only say- God said its an abomination-so it is.
Kim,
The word “abomination” in scripture covers everything from lying lips to eating shellfish. So your use of it here singularly on just this topic is rather telling. Assuming you have actually spent time reading this blog and are not just trolling through you should have seen a whole lot of examples of lying lips coming from folks on the conservative side of things … (see link for examples) so there are a lot of abominations going on. So I would give up any delusions that the world is as black and white as you think it is.
You might also consider how this lying by Christian groups is going to effect their witness to Jesus Christ. Or .. to put this more bluntly .. people who have been lied about and slandered by Christians are not very likely to jump at the chance to get to know the loving God that you … I … and these (lying) Christian groups profess to know.
Blessings,
Dave
Timothy,
It sounds like at bottom, you simply object to the fact that God approves of heterosexual sex (in a marital context), but not homosexual sex. To you this is just arbitrary and unfair, unless the prohibition of sex is across the board. This of course just gets to the heart of the fundamental disagreement between the affirming and the non-affirming sides: is sex/gender morally irrelevant to the proper use of sexuality? Does the fact that persons are born with unalterable homosexual feelings entail that they should be permitted to act on them? Does God directly create some people gay as an essential part of them, or are their gay desires a sign of a broken world, the way the world is not supposed to be? Etc. It all comes down to these fundamental value judgments.
I do understand your perspective, and I do understand how a prohibition against homosexual sex can *seem* arbitrary and contradictory. But I think this viewpoint depends crucially upon a controversial value judgment about the role of gender/sex, one that is not obvious to me (and others), namely, that gender/sex is irrelevant when it comes to the morality of sexual behavior/marriage. Now exactly how sex/gender makes a moral difference is where I think there is some mystery (though I think there are some hints as to why it does matter, but not along the lines of anti-gay propagandists). But since God knows more about sex than we do, it is not unreasonable that there are unknown aspects of it that God sees that we do not. Again, unless gender/sex is irrelevant to the morality of sexual behavior, I don’t think the traditional ethic is illogical.
I also get what you are saying about calling, and how it is not usually assigned based on an attribute like gender or race or what have you. But when it comes to being called to celibacy, it is not just those with homosexual desires who have such a calling, according to the traditional ethic. It is anyone who is not married in the traditional sense, which includes life-long singles, priests, widows, etc. By “call” I just mean the calling by God to live according to His will. We all have it, and what our call constitutes depends upon our situation. Sometimes God keeps us from marital sex for specific purposes; other times, the situation is such that marital sex will simply not be available to us, perhaps for our whole lives. According to traditional Christianity, having homosexual desires is one of those situations. I would not at all want to single any type of person out; we all have callings, and sometimes they are very demanding.
I certainly wouldn’t force this ethic on anyone, or run up into my gay friends’ faces and tell them, “You must be celibate! You’re called!” Not everyone – including not every Christian (yes I do consider those who disagree with me on this moral issue Christians) – agrees with this ethic . But I think this ethic is reasonable, livable, and I know some live it and live it well.
Kyle, I’m not quite sure how many married persons would take kindly to a gay person (or any single person) telling them how to live their life … even if the gay person was chaste. The Catholic Church has pretty much a 90-95% artificial birth control population … mainly, because those married persons will tell you … the Pope doesn’t run my bedroom, a celibate man. Married persons will reply … you don’t know what it’s like to be married. Unless we’re talking about a minister, or something similar, single people carry no ‘weight’ of influence for others. It’s simply a fact of life.
Unless the person ‘telling’ the other how to do live their life, has accomplished what they expect the other to do … has been there, and done that … for me, this is only my opinion, I don’t find that compassionate, at all. I perceive it as very judgmental, and hypocritical.
Well, I’m pretty sure that str8 singles are never credited for having “a calling from God”. The only celibates that receive any social privilege and recognition are the Religious of both the Catholic, Anglican/Episopal and Orthodox beliefs. Christians (whatever denomination), by and large, have a hard time with ‘single’ persons … and, I’m not talking about divorced, widowed, whatever. They don’t see this ‘state of life’ as a calling of God, I don’t think.
Nevertheless, certainly single persons (str8 or gay) can have a fulfilling life being chaste. I say this as a gay woman pursuing chastity. It’s my experience; but, I can tell you without equivocation, it’s been a long, hard road getting to that realization. So, I try not to expect others to follow my choice. I’m not anyone’s judge, jury, and executioner. The following, from Timothy, needs some real reflection … very apt, indeed:
I’m, also, quite weary of this … way beyond weary, actually.
When I said calling is not usually assigned based on an attribute like gender or race, obviously I was implying that sometimes God *does* give us a calling because of specific attributes of ours, or a specific situation we are in. I think what you were objecting to was the idea of God giving a calling to a set of people with a certain attribute just because they are in that set. Now true, if that attribute is irrelevant to the calling, it would be arbitrary for God to do that. But if it is relevant, I see nothing inconsistent with a loving God giving a group of people with a certain attribute a calling (either in the sense of a specific purpose, or more general obedience to the Gospel). All straight life-long singles, for instance, are called to celibacy, just in virtue of being in that situation. A black person may be called to speak up for civil right, or a gay person, because they have that attribute. And according to traditional Christian morality, because homosexual sex is not permitted, those with homosexual desires would be called to celibacy as what constitutes a faithful life for them (again, for traditional Christians who agree with this). So I don’t think the idea of an attribute-based call is incoherent or illogical in all instances. Once again, it is only illogical if the attribute in question is irrelevant to the calling. And that’s what this whole debate circles around! 😉
Kyle, I disagree with this. ‘Calling’ does not really mean “doing God’s Will”. “Calling” means a special invitation by God that usually involves recognition. Most single persons are viewed as ‘losers’ in the big game of life. The life of social privilege and attribution. That’s why traditional societies made no adequate means for single persons. Marriage and the Religious Life were the options.
Singleness meant simply … well, nothing, actually. Yes, we can try to spin it in some other way; but, quite frankly, those won’t compute. Yes, our generation is more forgiving of being ‘single’. But, I can tell you in my lifetime, when people had no idea of my being gay … I was constantly asked, “when are you going to get married”. The world’s changed much in these last years.
Singleness has no social affirmation … no public ceremonies, no special social privileges, no ‘notice’ in a social way. That’s one of the burdens of being single. No, it’s not the worst life; but, it’s a life without social recognition. For, some of us, that’s an important value.
Kyle,
Would it be accurate to say that absent this unknown full rationale upon which you rely, such a contradiction would seem evident? In other words, other than the unknown reasons that God has chosen not to make clear, the prohibition would appear inconsistent and arbitrary?
If so, we have a starting point.
First, I wish to address what I think is a misconception. I think you misunderstand what it is that I consider to be cruel and capricious.
It is not, necessarily the prohibition of sex. Were that applied across the board then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Rather, it is the allowance, celebration, and assignment of sex as a “religious mystery” for some… but not for others. And the distinction as to who gets it and who is “called to celibacy” appears to lack clear purpose.
Which leads me to a particularly irritating point.
First, let me agree that were God to call any of us to celibacy, we would be blessed to follow his calling. But I am weary of those who decide that God has called others to what they certainly feel no calling towards.
And, unless your doctrine is different than mine, God does not base his calling on attributes or categories of persons. God’s calling is always to individuals. And, oddly enough, when God calls, he doesn’t get lost and have to have someone else pass on the message.
With a calling from God, there is clarity that God has a special role for you. That your calling achieves a unique purpose. And there also comes a measure of grace that compensates. When God calls, he doesn’t lightly tap on the door and leave a pamphlet on the step. You know it.
Please believe me when I tell you that most gay Christians do not experience their orientation as a calling from God.
And please also believe me that telling a gay Christian that they are called to celibacy will appear to them to be particularly insensitive and thoughtless response. It is perceived as cavalier to repackage a Levitical prohibition as a “calling from God” – regardless of who is being “called”. Let me illustrate: the next time your wife disagrees with you about anything, tell her that God has called women to silent obedience. You may find that you, too, have been called to celibacy.
I also want to discuss the “physical aspect” which many Christians believe to be so important. While I know that some faith traditions place a great deal of emphasis on specific sexual acts (hence the “missionary position”), to a large extent Protestant Christianity has blessed pretty much any sexual expression within marital confines. And there isn’t a “physical aspect” that isn’t appreciated with much gusto by heterosexual Christians.
Really, when it comes down to it, this “moral importance” is only on the gender of the parties, and not on the “physical aspects”. Or, if otherwise, they don’t seem to find it morally important enough to raise objections to non-gay people. (Which takes the arbitrariness off of God and onto those deciding who gets condemned and who gets overlooked).
But to conclude, I do think we are in some points of agreement. I do believe the Holy Spirit is moving today. Thirty years ago, no churches were welcoming or accepting of those whom God chose to create gay. Today gay people find welcome in perhaps half of congregations with support and encouragement in perhaps a third. And in those churches in which tradition holds sway, many are looking for a common ground, a new understanding.
The Lutherans and Presbyterians and Methodists are all trying to decide whether they should offer marriage rites. The Episcopalians and UCC passed that a ways back. And while some scoff at the “liberal pseudo-Christians”, they aren’t the only ones who are changing.
Consider the nation’s largest protestant denomination. In the Southern Baptist Convention, as little as five years ago, it was God’s Divine Truth that homosexuals have chosen a life of debauchery and sin out of their wicked desire to flout God and his laws. It was a choice, choice, choice, choice…. and on the echo went.
But today, while everyone is still in agreement that it’s sin, sin, sin, sin… they’ve begun a conversation in which there is recognition of attraction as an uninvited uncultivated attribute (but behavior is still a choice, choice, choice…)
Clearly the Holy Spirit is moving. Will he draw the body of Christ back to tradition? Will he lead to a new understanding?
I guess we will see. And I suspect that it won’t be a very long wait.
Richard,
I understand that there is debate about the homosexuality passages. Some argue that they are just about unloving same-sex relationships. The traditional interpretation, though, is that these texts are indeed about homosexual sex itself. So it is controversial whether or not the Bible addresses same-sex sexual contact simpliciter, or just a certain kind of same-sex sexual contact.
“The philosophical/theological question that lurks behind this issue, of course, is whether or not the immutability of a homosexual orientation (in this life, at least) should change our view of the moral status of same-sex sexual relationships.”
So says Kyle. And I agree. The Church should provide some kind of overall ‘moral framework’, the rights of individuals to follow their own consciences notwithstanding.
Richard,
Some churches have certainly become aware of the need to understand that there are different orientations, and that is very encouraging to any individual’s spiritual evolution. Having said that, I think that there are enough churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. that can and will address the needs of either point of view – a traditional and conservative one or a more libereral and progressive one. The awareness, acknowledgement, recognition, and acceptance that there are differences is a very good starting point though and, hopefully, will allow each individual to pursue their spiritual path with dignity and grace in the religious setting they choose.
Kim,
The word “abomination” in scripture covers everything from lying lips to eating shellfish. So your use of it here singularly on just this topic is rather telling. Assuming you have actually spent time reading this blog and are not just trolling through you should have seen a whole lot of examples of lying lips coming from folks on the conservative side of things … (see link for examples) so there are a lot of abominations going on. So I would give up any delusions that the world is as black and white as you think it is.
You might also consider how this lying by Christian groups is going to effect their witness to Jesus Christ. Or .. to put this more bluntly .. people who have been lied about and slandered by Christians are not very likely to jump at the chance to get to know the loving God that you … I … and these (lying) Christian groups profess to know.
Blessings,
Dave
Your comment comes with a multitude of assumptions, Kim. Are you prepared to follow the rest of scripture as literally? Such black and white belief has launched many a horror in our history.
Then again, as you are a woman, God says through scripture that I am not to listen to you on theological issues anyway.
There are many things I do not understand. Like many, I have searched for answers. I have come up with few definitive ones. One of these is that God is real and He is good. He may say or do things that we perceive, through our individual and generational filters, as bad/hypocritical/etc.- but He truly is real and only good. There are many times I tell my children, “No” wherein they believe I am uncaring, not “getting them”, and/or just trying to keep them from fun. As a parent, it is frustrating and hurtful to have the ones you love so much you would die for them assume so quickly and with such conviction that you, somehow, mean ill towards then. God warns us continually through His Word, the Bible, on a multitude of topics. It sometimes reads like He is relentlessly judgemental. Well, If WILL judge us…but HIS HEART IS THAT OF A GOOD FATHER WHO IS PATIENT, KIND, EASILY FORGIVING, ETC…not how some of “His” representatives are! He is, however, all knowing. He knows best, He made us, and He warns STRONGLY against homosexuality. As a 21st century woman- I don’t understand why. As a parent, I know its NOT to keep anyone from fun/companionship and /or because he doesn’t “get it”. He knows something we don’t. And, as a Christian…A LOVING INCLUSIVE Christian I can only say- God said its an abomination-so it is.
Ann
I suppose I see religious dogma as primarily theological matter. Get the theology (as) ‘right’ (as possible), and things that help to ‘make the world a better place’ should follow.
Richard,
Do you think that the premise of religious beliefs are the foundation for a civilized world? For instance, the Ten Commandments – don’t most people, regardless of religious beliefs, tend to think they are a good example to live by?
What you’ve said is interesting, Ann, because it does actually raise some pertinent questions about what is the proper nature and role of ‘religion’. Many people don’t like ‘religion’ precisely because they feel that it conflicts with ‘personal responsibility’ (and ‘bad’ [as I would see it] religion often appears to do just that).
Richard,
I am not very well versed on religion so please just consider what I say about it as only an opinion. My faith is personal, and while I do believe in a particular religion, it does not interfere with my faith.
Regarding personal responsibility – I am a big believer in this and all the virtue that is associated with it. I absolutely think one can have this without a particular religious commitment, however, I also think that most have it because of a religious belief or from some sort of religious teaching in their life that settled well within them.
That fell flat, didn’t it!
Of course, I meant write: “One might even say that religion was made for (wo)man, and not (wo)man for religion!”
One might even say that religion was made for (wo)man, and (wo)man for religion!
Ann
The Catholic Church has long maintained that what a penitent brings up in the confessional should be what is troubling that penitent’s conscience, even in spite of the Church’s teaching. It is a ‘delicate balance’ perhaps, but, in the end, Matthew 25 does seem to me to make clear that, when it comes to ‘judgement’, it is personal responsibility, and not ‘following this or that party line’ that is key.
I was talking with an old, experienced priest the other day, and he said that the Church offers us a box – outside of which we must be prepared to think and act if need be.
Richard,
I think there are some religions and organizations that allow this, however, it is my understanding that most religions are in place so individuals can aspire to the teachings and beliefs of that particular religion. I also think, but am not sure, that is why people believe in a certain faith and religion – because they are unsure of theirself without it.
“The philosophical/theological question that lurks behind this issue, of course, is whether or not the immutability of a homosexual orientation (in this life, at least) should change our view of the moral status of same-sex sexual relationships.”
So says Kyle. And I agree. The Church should provide some kind of overall ‘moral framework’, the rights of individuals to follow their own consciences notwithstanding.
Honest discussion is always good.
Obviously, when it comes to civil policy (as opposed to what this or that church/mosque/synagogue thinks or does), there has to be a ‘settled view’ that informs civil law at national and/or state level, although laws always evolve, of course.
I think it’s true that the evidence that sexual orientation is typically pretty fixed, if not immutable, has prompted many to change their view to the liberal position on this issue. The philosophical/theological question that lurks behind this issue, of course, is whether or not the immutability of a homosexual orientation (in this life, at least) should change our view of the moral status of same-sex sexual relationships.
Richard,
Some churches have certainly become aware of the need to understand that there are different orientations, and that is very encouraging to any individual’s spiritual evolution. Having said that, I think that there are enough churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. that can and will address the needs of either point of view – a traditional and conservative one or a more libereral and progressive one. The awareness, acknowledgement, recognition, and acceptance that there are differences is a very good starting point though and, hopefully, will allow each individual to pursue their spiritual path with dignity and grace in the religious setting they choose.
Here it is, Ann.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12486003
You’ll need to scroll down to see a comment supporting ‘gay marriage’ from a Muslim cleric.
Yes, Ann, I do.
But it does seem that, as more scientific endeavour is undertaken, mainstream churches in the West are moving in a more ‘liberal’ direction. Even one or two Muslim clerics in the UK are now ‘wondering’ if same-sex partnerships can in fact be justified by ‘general islamic principles’ (I’ll try to find the article where I saw this).
Richard,
Do you think this disagreement among Christians and other religions is because so little is actually known or understood about orientation, leaving much open to speculation and unsubstantiated conclusions?
That fell flat, didn’t it!
Of course, I meant write: “One might even say that religion was made for (wo)man, and not (wo)man for religion!”
One might even say that religion was made for (wo)man, and (wo)man for religion!
Ann
The Catholic Church has long maintained that what a penitent brings up in the confessional should be what is troubling that penitent’s conscience, even in spite of the Church’s teaching. It is a ‘delicate balance’ perhaps, but, in the end, Matthew 25 does seem to me to make clear that, when it comes to ‘judgement’, it is personal responsibility, and not ‘following this or that party line’ that is key.
I was talking with an old, experienced priest the other day, and he said that the Church offers us a box – outside of which we must be prepared to think and act if need be.
Richard,
I think there are some religions and organizations that allow this, however, it is my understanding that most religions are in place so individuals can aspire to the teachings and beliefs of that particular religion. I also think, but am not sure, that is why people believe in a certain faith and religion – because they are unsure of theirself without it.
Honest discussion is always good.
Obviously, when it comes to civil policy (as opposed to what this or that church/mosque/synagogue thinks or does), there has to be a ‘settled view’ that informs civil law at national and/or state level, although laws always evolve, of course.
I think it’s true that the evidence that sexual orientation is typically pretty fixed, if not immutable, has prompted many to change their view to the liberal position on this issue. The philosophical/theological question that lurks behind this issue, of course, is whether or not the immutability of a homosexual orientation (in this life, at least) should change our view of the moral status of same-sex sexual relationships.
Here it is, Ann.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12486003
You’ll need to scroll down to see a comment supporting ‘gay marriage’ from a Muslim cleric.
Mary
The point I was making was that there is disagreement among Christians on this issue (I also expressed my own view). I entirely agree with you that each of us must listen to his/her own conscience and take very seriously its promptings. I also agree that giving a ‘moral label’ to ‘being such-as-such’ is meaningless; morality is about motives and behaviour.
Mary
The point I was making was that there is disagreement among Christians on this issue (I also expressed my own view). I entirely agree with you that each of us must listen to his/her own conscience and take very seriously its promptings. I also agree that giving a ‘moral label’ to ‘being such-as-such’ is meaningless; morality is about motives and behaviour.
Kyle,
Thanks for your posts. Please continue to comment.
This is as far as I read. I’m not going to get into a discussion about the rightness or not of being gay. For me, it is obvious how I interpret my faith. My comment was to point out that understanding homosexuality from a theological point and in depth for people such as myself is not irrational – but relevant. And that when considering homosexuality as it applies to me ,myself and I, that I have taken into consideration many biblical issue conserning the family. I assume others who talk about homosexuality and the bible always consider other issues concerning the family and marriage. We do come to different conclusions.
Mary
Doesn’t it rather depend on what one means by ‘being gay’? I can appreciate the notion that promiscuity, recklessness and sexual selfishness/greed can engender a social ethic that can seriously undermine ‘family and communal values’, but is the same true of ‘gay marriage’-type scenarios? I really think that this is a key question, and it goes back to what David said earlier (and with which I agree):
“The real malfunction here is the premise that a loving relationship between two people of the same sex which includes sexual intimacy is, by definition, sinful.”
In saying the above, David has identified the key point of disagreement in the Church today. IMHO, the Bible does not provide a ‘neat’ solution to this dilemma, despite what a prima facie reading of the small number of small passages apparently dealing with this topic seem to say.
Really? For those of us who have been gay and now practice a more conservative sexual ethic (notice I did not say right or wrong ethic) that we have had to really get to know the issue as well as many of the other issues that present in the church having to do with social circumstances – divorce, marriage, children etc…. The issues of family do not isolate themselves in sexuality.
That’s not inflated, that’s taking a look at our faith.
You can watch too many musicals? 😉
Awww, Ann, what would life be around here without your adorable little passive aggressive streak?
This is as far as I read. I’m not going to get into a discussion about the rightness or not of being gay. For me, it is obvious how I interpret my faith. My comment was to point out that understanding homosexuality from a theological point and in depth for people such as myself is not irrational – but relevant. And that when considering homosexuality as it applies to me ,myself and I, that I have taken into consideration many biblical issue conserning the family. I assume others who talk about homosexuality and the bible always consider other issues concerning the family and marriage. We do come to different conclusions.
Kyle,
Very astute. I hope you continue to comment as I have enjoyed your fairness and interesting point of view.
At any rate, it’s been edifying. Adios for now. Maybe I watch too many musicals, hence the melodrama? Who knows… 😉
I’m still damned it looks like… 😉
And hey, lighten up is advice that I think cuts both ways here 🙂
Lighten up, Kyle. You will never survive discussions about this issue displaying that kind of melodrama at the first sign someone might possibly doubt you.
David – it looks like you’ve already damned me in your eyes. You send up insinuations, then invite me to defend myself, and then interpret my explanations as a “tell” that your insinuations are, in fact, true.
I don’t ponder these issues as mere theoreticals, for what it’s worth, but it looks like there’s nothing I can say, or not say, that will move you beyond prejudice at this point.
I’ll conclude with a point of agreement: I agree, when something is politicized, it is usually done so because of bigotry.
The ‘demonization’ of those advocating ‘gay marriage’ is also profoundly ironic, since one can see all kinds of personal and social benefits from such a realistic and sensible measure – a measure that would be hailed by many ‘traditionalists’ as a ‘morally good thing’ in a straight context.
The ‘demonization’ of LGB persons, and (in particular, perhaps) transgendered persons, many of whom undoubtedly have a demonstrable biological basis for their ‘nature’ (e.g. Klinefelter’s syndrome), is a blight on society. To be fair to some ‘traditionalists’, despite their ‘discomfort’ with things like ‘gay marriage’, they do recognize this.
Kyle, I’m glad you enjoy pondering these issues, but for me it is a great deal more serious — it is my life. I will, frankly, feel free to speculate on your motives given whatever information you provide. Your defensiveness is very telling, however.
The political aspect is hardly the only reason this issue is so amplified in the church, as the political seems only to be a tool. A large element is good old fashioned bigotry wrapped up in spiritual garb. Many people would prefer that the entire issue remain in the shadows — it makes them uncomfortable.
Since that is not possible, the demonization of LGBTs allows them to become the latest target for “what’s wrong in the world today,” something the Church is rather good at. This is a very old tune with some new lyrics.
Richard, no offense taken, and I wholeheartedly agree that moral issues include both personal and structural/collective realities.
David,
I’ve read plenty on, and discussed much with other Christians on controversial moral issues besides homosexuality in the course of my Christian theological reflection, both online and offline, but frankly this is not something I feel I need to prove to you. I haven’t offered enough evidence in these short exchanges to warrant the conclusion about my motives you drew. You are free to make the point about the inflation of this issue in general, but I think it outside of charity to assume what you have about me personally.
Yes this subject is inflated, I agree, mostly because of how it has become politicized. Part of why I am here talking about it is simply because it is a “hot” topic, and many, including myself, have many questions on it, as well as my own perspectives to offer for others who are similarly seeking. There are, of course, plenty of other controversial topics that are equally important to discuss.
Kyle
I entirely agree with you that it is very important to reflect carefully on a whole range of moral issues (and ‘moral issues’ include those relating to ‘society’ and ‘the global family’ – e.g. the nature and effects of various economic or political activities, the use of force to attempt to resolve international disputes – as well as those more apparently connected with individuals – though this apparent individual-society dichotomy is of course a false one).
My comment about ‘moral laziness’ was certainly not directed at you personally.
Presumptuous? Perhaps, but can you point us to the forums devoted to divorce and remarriage or birth control where you have made analogous contributions? My comments are not meant to attack, but to simply illustrate that this subject has been inflated in the eyes of believers far beyond any rational theological need.
I think there’s been a bit of disconnect here. I agree that there is usually far more going on in this discussion than the theological dimension. I did not deny this. And I agree that homosexuality is usually singled out and treated separately due to fear-based, bigoted, and political reasons. I was simply saying there is much to discuss on the theological level, even once we get past these other silly, self-righteous dynamics.
For my part, I do, in fact, wrestle equally over other difficult moral issues in the context of the Christian life, such as divorce and remarriage, birth control, just war, etc. I think it was more than a bit presumptuous of you, David, to assume that I don’t. Every aspect of the Christian moral life is significant enough to reflect seriously upon it.
Emily raises a very important point. There seems also to be a tendency on the part of some ‘traditionalists’ to ‘lump together’ as ‘bad things’ different issues, such as ‘gay marriage’, divorce and abortion. I see this as (at best) ‘moral laziness’.
Consider divorce and ‘gay marriage’: in a real sense, they are actually complete opposites! The former is about dissolving a partnership; the latter is about formally and publically creating one!
This is absolutely true and I wonder why it is so. We’re constantly being painted as mentally ill, broken, child-indoctrinating monsters trying to sneak our way into public schools to recruit.
None of this is said about divorcees; one might be able to argue proponents of contraception are somewhat demonized for similar things, but the fact remains is there is no widespread movement to “heal” those who support those two things.
Kyle,
I wanted you to know that I appreciate your stance on Biblical interpretation and freedom of consciousness. Its hard to find “traditionalists” who are as moderate and understanding as you seem to be. Thank you 🙂
David Roberts,
I think you are probably correct!
Kyle, I don’t see any mammoth religious movements to make civil marriage unavailable to those who have been divorced without due biblical cause. I don’t see any major Catholic moves to have civil divorce laws revoked or to have contraceptives made illegal. I don’t see either group mounting major smear campaigns to demonize those involved in those respective issues.
They may discuss it theologically, but it simply doesn’t approach the level of vitriol and control the issue of homosexuality does. So yes, I stand by my original statement. There is far more going on here than a simply theological discussion — it is all too often bigotry and prejudice using scripture as it’s justification.
Even your own statements, as moderate as you are trying to be, belie this fact. Do you wrestle equally over divorce and remarriage? Be honest.
Why limit us to the civil realm? Gay Christians have been marrying without the benefit of government recognition for several decades. The MCC officiated at its first commitment ceremony back in 1969. United Church of Christ churches have been officiating at commitment ceremonies since then, as have other Christian, Jewish, and other religious churches. Obviously, there are more states in the US than not that legally recognize our families and most of them have constitutionally prevented us from any legal protections. And yet gay and lesbian couples in those states continue to stand before their friends, family, and God to join together.
whoops, delete that last line mentally in your mind 😉
Yes, most, you’re right.
You don’t think there would be an issue to discuss once we realize this is a matter of interpretation? Really, all biblical issues are issues of interpretation. That every teaching requires an interpretation doesn’t mean there isn’t an objective answer; it just means it takes some work to get there, and that matters are not going to be immediately obvious to everybody.
I like to compare this issue to disagreements over pacifism/just war in the church. Both sides of this argument are very passionate and convinced they are right in their scriptural interpretation. And yet both still consider the other Christian.
I’m with Richard Hays here: why should we treat this issue like any other? It is a virtual shibboleth for many evangelicals. For them, that the Bible condemns homosexual practice is utterly obvious to everyone who picks up a Bible, and anyone who disagrees must simply not believe in the authority of Scripture, and thus they are just being stubborn rebels against God…etc. And then they go and impose it on others in the civil realm.
For my part, I don’t think the same answer will be immediately obvious to everybody who honestly believes in the Bible. Nevertheless, it is still an important issue – the morality of sexuality – just as the pacifism/just war issue is, with significant moral consequences either way, and thus it should still be discussed seriously by both sides. And I do think there is an objective answer one way or another. It’s just not NEARLY as simple as evangelicals tend to treat biblical interpretation…
But it is a moral issue, and as such
I think you could probably nudge that to “most” don’t agree. If this issue were treated as other differences in interpretation are, I’m not sure there would be an issue for us to discuss.
David,
That is, of course, the core of the disagreement between affirming and non-affirming parties: is sexual activity between two members of the same sex sinful or not? (Even as a traditionalist, I wouldn’t say a loving same-sex relationship is sinful *in toto*, as if the love they express is all ‘sinful.’ The controversial issue is narrowed to the proper expression of sexual activity.) Each party is going to think the other is wrong or mistaken, that their side has stronger evidence on this issue, etc. It’s a morally controversial thing, which will necessarily lead to a fundamental disagreement between the two groups.
Please don’t misunderstand me, though: if someone doesn’t agree with the traditional ethic, I don’t believe it should be imposed on them. Only if they freely decide to live their lives this way, and join a church who is on the same page with that, would it be appropriate to call such persons to a life of discipleship defined in this way. I’m for religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Unfortunately, many traditionalists don’t agree with me.
“The real malfunction here is the premise that a loving relationship between two people of the same sex which includes sexual intimacy is, by definition, sinful.”
I agree. The aforementioned premise is, in my view, an assumption, based on the flimsiest of evidence, ‘biblical’ or otherwise.
Marriage (as ‘traditionally’ understood) does seem to be held up a ‘biblical ideal’, and is rightly proclaimed as such by the Church. However, I think we make a mistake if we confuse ideals with morals: though linked, they are not congruent. And history teaches us that, in the (apparent or genuine) pursuit of an ideal, people can, even with the ‘best will in the world’, do things are morally reprehensible (or at least morally questionable).
The real malfunction here is the premise that a loving relationship between two people of the same sex which includes sexual intimacy is, by definition, sinful. The other issues all branch out from this. And as long as people who believe that it is their God given mandate to live their neighbor’s lives for them also hold that that view, this matter will go unresolved.
Phrases like “speak the truth in love” and “hold them accountable” may sound spiritually responsible in the abstract, but they almost always represent the imposition of all too human conditions on relationships.
Teresa and Kyle,
Not only does it not have any real secular social affirmation, it often does not have the same kind of affirmation in the Church that marriage does. I doubt I could count the number of times I hear “church folk’ talk about setting up this or that single person, or extolling the value of marriage at the expense of singlehood and celibacy. Don’t misunderstand me, I realize the Church does often speak about celibacy, but I have yet to see a place where it is *truly* held up as an ideal equal to marriage.
There is a group of gay Christians who do believe they are called to be celibate until they are married. They existed before the advent of gay marriage in this country. Now that gay marriage is a possibility in many states, I think the door has been opened for them to at least entertain the thought of a romantic relationship with someone – FYI 🙂
I certainly understand that unless we walk a certain path, we cannot pretend to fully understand it. Credibility to speak authoritatively and comprehensively on a certain path needs to be earned in some way, either by walking it or walking closely with someone who is walking it. And I certainly don’t think we should just flippantly “tell others how to live their lives” without knowing them and without having any sympathy with their situation
But at the same time, I don’t think it’s quite right to say that a religious leader must have firsthand experience on *everything* they speak of in order to speak on it with authority. Many of our struggles overlap in similarities, though they are all distinct and unique as well. What I am saying is, the similarity of our struggles gives us commonality, and we can then hold each other accountable (within a church family where there is agreement). That’s what we are supposed to be doing in the church, anyway: calling each other to faithfulness, whatever that means for each person, and even as our struggles are different. We are all struggling to live the costly obedience of the cross, after all. We can’t pretend to understand everything about the struggles of our brothers and sisters, but we are supposed to be there to speak truth in love to them.
For example, as a single man (religious leader or not) I understood how hard it was to remain sexually pure. If a married Christian friend of mine was thinking about cheating on his/her spouse, I think it would be my responsibility to hold that person accountable, even as I was yet unmarried. I would at least have to say something to them, exhort them, etc. Would my battle have been identical? No, but the basic dynamics of sin, temptation, and grace, are fundamentally the same for all persons in all situations.
Kyle, I’m not quite sure how many married persons would take kindly to a gay person (or any single person) telling them how to live their life … even if the gay person was chaste. The Catholic Church has pretty much a 90-95% artificial birth control population … mainly, because those married persons will tell you … the Pope doesn’t run my bedroom, a celibate man. Married persons will reply … you don’t know what it’s like to be married. Unless we’re talking about a minister, or something similar, single people carry no ‘weight’ of influence for others. It’s simply a fact of life.
Unless the person ‘telling’ the other how to do live their life, has accomplished what they expect the other to do … has been there, and done that … for me, this is only my opinion, I don’t find that compassionate, at all. I perceive it as very judgmental, and hypocritical.
In the latter sense, if we are part of a traditional church, I think we can compassionately tell persons if they are in a certain situation that they are called to a certain behavior for their Christian discipleship – even if we are not so called. So a single man can exhort a married man to marital faithfulness as part of his calling in Christ, even though the single man is called to something different because of his situation.
I realize many gay persons don’t feel that Christian discipleship calls them to celibacy. I respect this. But if one is in the context in which people do believe this, I don’t think it is lacking in compassion or understanding to exhort believers in various circumstances to be faithful to their specific calling in Christ.
Teresa,
I think there are two possible senses of “calling.” One is what you identified: being called for a specific purpose by God in a special way. But I think in a broader sense, we can speak of being “called to a life of Christian discipleship,” a calling all Christians share, whatever that entails for them in their situation. For an example of the latter, see Phil 3:14: “I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.” I think this is speaking of the general calling to Christian faithfulness we all have as Christians.
When I said calling is not usually assigned based on an attribute like gender or race, obviously I was implying that sometimes God *does* give us a calling because of specific attributes of ours, or a specific situation we are in. I think what you were objecting to was the idea of God giving a calling to a set of people with a certain attribute just because they are in that set. Now true, if that attribute is irrelevant to the calling, it would be arbitrary for God to do that. But if it is relevant, I see nothing inconsistent with a loving God giving a group of people with a certain attribute a calling (either in the sense of a specific purpose, or more general obedience to the Gospel). All straight life-long singles, for instance, are called to celibacy, just in virtue of being in that situation. A black person may be called to speak up for civil right, or a gay person, because they have that attribute. And according to traditional Christian morality, because homosexual sex is not permitted, those with homosexual desires would be called to celibacy as what constitutes a faithful life for them (again, for traditional Christians who agree with this). So I don’t think the idea of an attribute-based call is incoherent or illogical in all instances. Once again, it is only illogical if the attribute in question is irrelevant to the calling. And that’s what this whole debate circles around! 😉
Kyle, I disagree with this. ‘Calling’ does not really mean “doing God’s Will”. “Calling” means a special invitation by God that usually involves recognition. Most single persons are viewed as ‘losers’ in the big game of life. The life of social privilege and attribution. That’s why traditional societies made no adequate means for single persons. Marriage and the Religious Life were the options.
Singleness meant simply … well, nothing, actually. Yes, we can try to spin it in some other way; but, quite frankly, those won’t compute. Yes, our generation is more forgiving of being ‘single’. But, I can tell you in my lifetime, when people had no idea of my being gay … I was constantly asked, “when are you going to get married”. The world’s changed much in these last years.
Singleness has no social affirmation … no public ceremonies, no special social privileges, no ‘notice’ in a social way. That’s one of the burdens of being single. No, it’s not the worst life; but, it’s a life without social recognition. For, some of us, that’s an important value.
Well, I’m pretty sure that str8 singles are never credited for having “a calling from God”. The only celibates that receive any social privilege and recognition are the Religious of both the Catholic, Anglican/Episopal and Orthodox beliefs. Christians (whatever denomination), by and large, have a hard time with ‘single’ persons … and, I’m not talking about divorced, widowed, whatever. They don’t see this ‘state of life’ as a calling of God, I don’t think.
Nevertheless, certainly single persons (str8 or gay) can have a fulfilling life being chaste. I say this as a gay woman pursuing chastity. It’s my experience; but, I can tell you without equivocation, it’s been a long, hard road getting to that realization. So, I try not to expect others to follow my choice. I’m not anyone’s judge, jury, and executioner. The following, from Timothy, needs some real reflection … very apt, indeed:
I’m, also, quite weary of this … way beyond weary, actually.
Richard,
Yes, I know. It just sounded like you were asserting something as a fact, namely, that the Bible does not address homosexual sex in the context of a loving relationship. I think that itself is something controversial…etc. Sorry if I misunderstood you!
Kyle
Timothy,
It sounds like at bottom, you simply object to the fact that God approves of heterosexual sex (in a marital context), but not homosexual sex. To you this is just arbitrary and unfair, unless the prohibition of sex is across the board. This of course just gets to the heart of the fundamental disagreement between the affirming and the non-affirming sides: is sex/gender morally irrelevant to the proper use of sexuality? Does the fact that persons are born with unalterable homosexual feelings entail that they should be permitted to act on them? Does God directly create some people gay as an essential part of them, or are their gay desires a sign of a broken world, the way the world is not supposed to be? Etc. It all comes down to these fundamental value judgments.
I do understand your perspective, and I do understand how a prohibition against homosexual sex can *seem* arbitrary and contradictory. But I think this viewpoint depends crucially upon a controversial value judgment about the role of gender/sex, one that is not obvious to me (and others), namely, that gender/sex is irrelevant when it comes to the morality of sexual behavior/marriage. Now exactly how sex/gender makes a moral difference is where I think there is some mystery (though I think there are some hints as to why it does matter, but not along the lines of anti-gay propagandists). But since God knows more about sex than we do, it is not unreasonable that there are unknown aspects of it that God sees that we do not. Again, unless gender/sex is irrelevant to the morality of sexual behavior, I don’t think the traditional ethic is illogical.
I also get what you are saying about calling, and how it is not usually assigned based on an attribute like gender or race or what have you. But when it comes to being called to celibacy, it is not just those with homosexual desires who have such a calling, according to the traditional ethic. It is anyone who is not married in the traditional sense, which includes life-long singles, priests, widows, etc. By “call” I just mean the calling by God to live according to His will. We all have it, and what our call constitutes depends upon our situation. Sometimes God keeps us from marital sex for specific purposes; other times, the situation is such that marital sex will simply not be available to us, perhaps for our whole lives. According to traditional Christianity, having homosexual desires is one of those situations. I would not at all want to single any type of person out; we all have callings, and sometimes they are very demanding.
I certainly wouldn’t force this ethic on anyone, or run up into my gay friends’ faces and tell them, “You must be celibate! You’re called!” Not everyone – including not every Christian (yes I do consider those who disagree with me on this moral issue Christians) – agrees with this ethic . But I think this ethic is reasonable, livable, and I know some live it and live it well.
Kyle
The ‘traditional interpretation’ is just that: an interpretation. So is the ‘liberal’ one.
Hence the discussion …
Richard,
I understand that there is debate about the homosexuality passages. Some argue that they are just about unloving same-sex relationships. The traditional interpretation, though, is that these texts are indeed about homosexual sex itself. So it is controversial whether or not the Bible addresses same-sex sexual contact simpliciter, or just a certain kind of same-sex sexual contact.
to clarify:
Please believe me when I tell you that most gay Christians do not experience their orientation as a calling from God. Nor do heterosexual Christians appear to recognize that celibate homosexuals have a special calling from God and rush to benefit from their wisdom or defer to their devotion.
Frankly, other than when it comes time to tell gay people what to do, no one seems to really believe that they have a calling from God.
Kyle,
Would it be accurate to say that absent this unknown full rationale upon which you rely, such a contradiction would seem evident? In other words, other than the unknown reasons that God has chosen not to make clear, the prohibition would appear inconsistent and arbitrary?
If so, we have a starting point.
First, I wish to address what I think is a misconception. I think you misunderstand what it is that I consider to be cruel and capricious.
It is not, necessarily the prohibition of sex. Were that applied across the board then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Rather, it is the allowance, celebration, and assignment of sex as a “religious mystery” for some… but not for others. And the distinction as to who gets it and who is “called to celibacy” appears to lack clear purpose.
Which leads me to a particularly irritating point.
First, let me agree that were God to call any of us to celibacy, we would be blessed to follow his calling. But I am weary of those who decide that God has called others to what they certainly feel no calling towards.
And, unless your doctrine is different than mine, God does not base his calling on attributes or categories of persons. God’s calling is always to individuals. And, oddly enough, when God calls, he doesn’t get lost and have to have someone else pass on the message.
With a calling from God, there is clarity that God has a special role for you. That your calling achieves a unique purpose. And there also comes a measure of grace that compensates. When God calls, he doesn’t lightly tap on the door and leave a pamphlet on the step. You know it.
Please believe me when I tell you that most gay Christians do not experience their orientation as a calling from God.
And please also believe me that telling a gay Christian that they are called to celibacy will appear to them to be particularly insensitive and thoughtless response. It is perceived as cavalier to repackage a Levitical prohibition as a “calling from God” – regardless of who is being “called”. Let me illustrate: the next time your wife disagrees with you about anything, tell her that God has called women to silent obedience. You may find that you, too, have been called to celibacy.
I also want to discuss the “physical aspect” which many Christians believe to be so important. While I know that some faith traditions place a great deal of emphasis on specific sexual acts (hence the “missionary position”), to a large extent Protestant Christianity has blessed pretty much any sexual expression within marital confines. And there isn’t a “physical aspect” that isn’t appreciated with much gusto by heterosexual Christians.
Really, when it comes down to it, this “moral importance” is only on the gender of the parties, and not on the “physical aspects”. Or, if otherwise, they don’t seem to find it morally important enough to raise objections to non-gay people. (Which takes the arbitrariness off of God and onto those deciding who gets condemned and who gets overlooked).
But to conclude, I do think we are in some points of agreement. I do believe the Holy Spirit is moving today. Thirty years ago, no churches were welcoming or accepting of those whom God chose to create gay. Today gay people find welcome in perhaps half of congregations with support and encouragement in perhaps a third. And in those churches in which tradition holds sway, many are looking for a common ground, a new understanding.
The Lutherans and Presbyterians and Methodists are all trying to decide whether they should offer marriage rites. The Episcopalians and UCC passed that a ways back. And while some scoff at the “liberal pseudo-Christians”, they aren’t the only ones who are changing.
Consider the nation’s largest protestant denomination. In the Southern Baptist Convention, as little as five years ago, it was God’s Divine Truth that homosexuals have chosen a life of debauchery and sin out of their wicked desire to flout God and his laws. It was a choice, choice, choice, choice…. and on the echo went.
But today, while everyone is still in agreement that it’s sin, sin, sin, sin… they’ve begun a conversation in which there is recognition of attraction as an uninvited uncultivated attribute (but behavior is still a choice, choice, choice…)
Clearly the Holy Spirit is moving. Will he draw the body of Christ back to tradition? Will he lead to a new understanding?
I guess we will see. And I suspect that it won’t be a very long wait.
Kyle
From a theological/biblical perspective, one must remember that the Bible does not actually address the issue of loving same-sex relationships (unless the David-Jonathan, Ruth-Naomi and Daniel-Ashpenaz relationships had a sexual element, which is, in at least one of these cases, a possible interpretation when hermeneutics and linguistic analysis are applied to these stories). All the (apparent) references to ‘homosexuality’ could be interpreted as references to sexual abuse and/or exploitation, rather than same-sex intimacy per se. There is an on-going lively debate in the Church on this issue (which is really a range of issues, of course: ‘homosexuality’, just like ‘heterosexuality’, is not the monolithic thing that extremists of various kinds sometimes like to make out), as we all know.
I’m sorry, I have the tendency to qualify myself to death. I’m often afraid of being misunderstood.
By saying same-sex desires are also different, I just mean they are obviously different because they are directed to the same sex – not that they are automatically lust or anything. And again I’d want to differentiate between the physical aspect of that orientation and the emotional, only the former of which is inconsistent with traditional Christian morality. Gay people aren’t prohibited from all types of loving relationships with people of the same sex on the traditional ethic…
Also in my original post, while I was saying that homosexual attraction is similar in many ways to heterosexual, obviously it is still different, and when put into practice, different in a morally important sense to many Christians. If it were EXACTLY the same, then again, I think we would have a contradiction on our hands.
Whoops, a couple typos there: “for whatever reason.” Also, I should have said “heterosexual sex in the context of marriage” is the only permissible type of sexual expression.
Timothy,
I personally see nothing *contradictory* in believing in a loving God and the traditional position on sexual expression. The full rationale behind it may be beyond my ken, but to me that’s different.
I’ve given serious thought to what I would do if I was called by God to refrain from sexual activity for the rest of my life or whatever reason. Such a thing is really hard to speculate about with any kind of accuracy – who of us has that kind of clarity into our own hearts? But I do know that many Christian persons, gay and straight, have been celibate their whole lives (by call, situation, or both), and that while they testify to it being a challenging road, they do not view it as cruel, or a horrifying burden, or a consignment to loneliness.
If sex were the highest means of intimacy, joy, and fulfillment, or if we could not flourish without sex, then it would be cruel and arbitrary for God to keep it from us. That would be a downright contradiction with the goodness of God, and an untenable position because of it. But short of that, the fact that I do not fully grasp the reasons behind heterosexual sex being the only permissible form of sexual expression is not enough of a reason to look for another way of understanding it, in my mind. Given how little we know about what’s good for us, it is not at all surprising that we would not quite grasp all of the “why’s.” There’s an irreducible element of trust and faith when it comes to God’s commands.
All that said, I truly am open to the tradition being wrong on this point. It has been wrong before. And as you noted, we better make sure we are right in our interpretation before we call people to a taxing point of discipleship. But I do think those Christians who dispute Christian tradition and traditional interpretations of the Bible bear the burden of proof, for the church has generally been guided in the right direction by the Holy Spirit (though not infallibly).
Kyle,
And there, Kyle, is the thinking Christian’s paradox.
And that is the thinking Christian’s dilemma.
This question goes to the base of what we believe about the nature of God and the infallibility of our denomination’s doctrinal position. And it’s too important to get it wrong.
If God’s decision is just arbitrary, then he is a cruel and capricious deity, one unworthy of praise. If we misunderstand his position, then we run the risk of allowing our own misunderstanding to be a horrific burden on others.
Dishonest Christians try to give God cover by either fabricating or disseminating false witness. Gays die 20 years younger, they are all promiscuous, they can change, blah blah blah. So therefor God has an out, a reason for what appears to you – and to them – to be an arbitrary and very cruel expectation.
Honest Christians don’t have the freedom of lying to themselves and others.
I have long since reconciled my faith and my reality. But I have sympathy for those who are still struggling with the paradox. I only hope that whatever conclusion you reach, that you would be willing – today as you are, not “if I were gay” – to accept the same conditions.
David, I agree. I support civil rights for gays, and think the church is doing more harm to itself than good by seeking to impose traditional Christian morality on those who don’t hold it. And as a straight man, I only speak out of experiences of those I know and whose testimonies I read.
In the latter sense, if we are part of a traditional church, I think we can compassionately tell persons if they are in a certain situation that they are called to a certain behavior for their Christian discipleship – even if we are not so called. So a single man can exhort a married man to marital faithfulness as part of his calling in Christ, even though the single man is called to something different because of his situation.
I realize many gay persons don’t feel that Christian discipleship calls them to celibacy. I respect this. But if one is in the context in which people do believe this, I don’t think it is lacking in compassion or understanding to exhort believers in various circumstances to be faithful to their specific calling in Christ.
Teresa,
I think there are two possible senses of “calling.” One is what you identified: being called for a specific purpose by God in a special way. But I think in a broader sense, we can speak of being “called to a life of Christian discipleship,” a calling all Christians share, whatever that entails for them in their situation. For an example of the latter, see Phil 3:14: “I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.” I think this is speaking of the general calling to Christian faithfulness we all have as Christians.
Kyle said:
If you should happen to be gay, Kyle, then I would respect your decision to apply this perspective to your own life — it reflects your values and understanding of your faith. It is when one makes that decision for another who does not share the same view or interpretation of scripture that I see a problem.
And I do get that homosexual orientation also means that emotional intimacy is easier with someone of the same sex. And honestly I see nothing inconsistent with this and the traditional sexual ethic, nor do I have any reason to deprecate such relationships. It is only the sexual aspect of same-sex relationships that falls short of traditional Christian sexual values. My point is that within those confines, I believe love, intimacy, and companionship are more than possible, and that such a life is reasonable and dignified.
Richard,
Yes, I know. It just sounded like you were asserting something as a fact, namely, that the Bible does not address homosexual sex in the context of a loving relationship. I think that itself is something controversial…etc. Sorry if I misunderstood you!
Kyle
I do agree that homosexual attraction is, in many important senses, just like heterosexual attraction. It is spontaneous and unchosen. And I certainty don’t think homosexual desires are morally analogous to desires for drugs, alcoholism, kleptomania, etc.
As a traditional Christian, unfortunately I can’t get around believing that homosexual attraction is not the way things are supposed to be, and that homosexual behavior is contrary to God’s will. I’d love to – it would be a much easier message for my gay friends – but I feel that I cannot (though my mind is always open to better ways of reading the Bible and church history). I realize that this is just a flat stumbling block for those who see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexual sex, and a sharp point of disagreement. And I understand how and why someone could reasonably disagree with the traditional position.
But as a believer in God’s goodness, I have to believe and trust that there is a reason why sex is only permissible within heterosexual marriage in God’s eyes. There must be something about having a man and a woman (in a marital context) that makes sex the religious mystery it is supposed to be, even if one has exclusively same-sex attraction. I do not believe God’s commands are ever arbitrary, even when we cannot quite see the rationale behind them in our limited perspective, and even when they call for great sacrifice.
(And I truly don’t say any of this as someone who feels he is “more righteous” for being heterosexual. I don’t see it as a spiritual achievement of any kind).
It’s definitely true that being gay is different from being single, because singles often have the option to get married. At the same time, this is not always true, though many in the church act as though single heterosexuals are guaranteed sexual satisfaction. God may call a straight person to lifelong celibacy as well, and sometimes situations are such that persons live without sexual intimacy most, if not all of their lives. And as Theresa noted, this can even happen within heterosexual marriage.
I don’t think it’s quite right, though, to say that the traditional position bans us from love of either sex, regardless of our sexual orientation. I believe a traditional Christian who has gay desires can have relationships of deep intimacy, affection, joy, and love, with both sexes, apart from homoerotic sexual expression, though I don’t deny that resisting homosexual sexual desires throughout one’s life is a very high calling. After all it is the church, not marriage, which is supposed to provide us with our primary source of intimacy and relationships. A life without sex need not at all be a life of loneliness, a life without deep affection and intimacy with people whom we love in various contexts and of both sexes, a life without companionship, etc. If we see sex as the pinnacle of human relationships, then Jesus missed out, as did Paul and many other lifelong “singles” (I don’t even care for that term anymore).
I don’t pretend to have all the answers, or to have them infallibly. But I do think it is possible to live the traditional Christian sexual ethic as a homosexually attracted person, and I do believe it is reasonable. Wesley Hill is a great example of someone walking that path.
Kyle
The ‘traditional interpretation’ is just that: an interpretation. So is the ‘liberal’ one.
Hence the discussion …
@David Blakeslee:
“And although some prefer to avoid this truth: a small number of people do change their attractions.”
How many?
Kyle,
And there, Kyle, is the thinking Christian’s paradox.
And that is the thinking Christian’s dilemma.
This question goes to the base of what we believe about the nature of God and the infallibility of our denomination’s doctrinal position. And it’s too important to get it wrong.
If God’s decision is just arbitrary, then he is a cruel and capricious deity, one unworthy of praise. If we misunderstand his position, then we run the risk of allowing our own misunderstanding to be a horrific burden on others.
Dishonest Christians try to give God cover by either fabricating or disseminating false witness. Gays die 20 years younger, they are all promiscuous, they can change, blah blah blah. So therefor God has an out, a reason for what appears to you – and to them – to be an arbitrary and very cruel expectation.
Honest Christians don’t have the freedom of lying to themselves and others.
I have long since reconciled my faith and my reality. But I have sympathy for those who are still struggling with the paradox. I only hope that whatever conclusion you reach, that you would be willing – today as you are, not “if I were gay” – to accept the same conditions.
David, I agree. I support civil rights for gays, and think the church is doing more harm to itself than good by seeking to impose traditional Christian morality on those who don’t hold it. And as a straight man, I only speak out of experiences of those I know and whose testimonies I read.
Kyle said:
If you should happen to be gay, Kyle, then I would respect your decision to apply this perspective to your own life — it reflects your values and understanding of your faith. It is when one makes that decision for another who does not share the same view or interpretation of scripture that I see a problem.
And I do get that homosexual orientation also means that emotional intimacy is easier with someone of the same sex. And honestly I see nothing inconsistent with this and the traditional sexual ethic, nor do I have any reason to deprecate such relationships. It is only the sexual aspect of same-sex relationships that falls short of traditional Christian sexual values. My point is that within those confines, I believe love, intimacy, and companionship are more than possible, and that such a life is reasonable and dignified.
I do agree that homosexual attraction is, in many important senses, just like heterosexual attraction. It is spontaneous and unchosen. And I certainty don’t think homosexual desires are morally analogous to desires for drugs, alcoholism, kleptomania, etc.
As a traditional Christian, unfortunately I can’t get around believing that homosexual attraction is not the way things are supposed to be, and that homosexual behavior is contrary to God’s will. I’d love to – it would be a much easier message for my gay friends – but I feel that I cannot (though my mind is always open to better ways of reading the Bible and church history). I realize that this is just a flat stumbling block for those who see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexual sex, and a sharp point of disagreement. And I understand how and why someone could reasonably disagree with the traditional position.
But as a believer in God’s goodness, I have to believe and trust that there is a reason why sex is only permissible within heterosexual marriage in God’s eyes. There must be something about having a man and a woman (in a marital context) that makes sex the religious mystery it is supposed to be, even if one has exclusively same-sex attraction. I do not believe God’s commands are ever arbitrary, even when we cannot quite see the rationale behind them in our limited perspective, and even when they call for great sacrifice.
(And I truly don’t say any of this as someone who feels he is “more righteous” for being heterosexual. I don’t see it as a spiritual achievement of any kind).
It’s definitely true that being gay is different from being single, because singles often have the option to get married. At the same time, this is not always true, though many in the church act as though single heterosexuals are guaranteed sexual satisfaction. God may call a straight person to lifelong celibacy as well, and sometimes situations are such that persons live without sexual intimacy most, if not all of their lives. And as Theresa noted, this can even happen within heterosexual marriage.
I don’t think it’s quite right, though, to say that the traditional position bans us from love of either sex, regardless of our sexual orientation. I believe a traditional Christian who has gay desires can have relationships of deep intimacy, affection, joy, and love, with both sexes, apart from homoerotic sexual expression, though I don’t deny that resisting homosexual sexual desires throughout one’s life is a very high calling. After all it is the church, not marriage, which is supposed to provide us with our primary source of intimacy and relationships. A life without sex need not at all be a life of loneliness, a life without deep affection and intimacy with people whom we love in various contexts and of both sexes, a life without companionship, etc. If we see sex as the pinnacle of human relationships, then Jesus missed out, as did Paul and many other lifelong “singles” (I don’t even care for that term anymore).
I don’t pretend to have all the answers, or to have them infallibly. But I do think it is possible to live the traditional Christian sexual ethic as a homosexually attracted person, and I do believe it is reasonable. Wesley Hill is a great example of someone walking that path.
@David Blakeslee:
“And although some prefer to avoid this truth: a small number of people do change their attractions.”
How many?
Exodus would have to tell Paul that he is rejecting “God’s best” for him.
I don’t think this is radical at all. In fact, I would bet that most faith traditions, especially Orthodoxy and Catholicism both believe that what Paul is suggesting is to use that energy, to channel it in a way, that it is used purely for God. I believe this is a/the source for clerical celibacy and even for monasticism
Theresa
SG- You nailed it Te, as the Native American Indians said, “Walk a mile in my moccasions”
Emily K# ~ Aug 16, 2011 at 5:09 pm
“I don’t think straights will ever get it. What we feel is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as what they feel, just with a person of the same sex.”
This statement is a bit of an over-generalization. While it is true that SOME people (straight or otherwise) don’t (or won’t) recognize how gay and straight relationships can be the same, differing only in the genders, that isn’t true for all of them.
the difference between gays and singles is that singles always have the option of entering a “Godly” relationship and having their needs met there. Gays have no such option in the church.
Exodus would have to tell Paul that he is rejecting “God’s best” for him.
I don’t think this is radical at all. In fact, I would bet that most faith traditions, especially Orthodoxy and Catholicism both believe that what Paul is suggesting is to use that energy, to channel it in a way, that it is used purely for God. I believe this is a/the source for clerical celibacy and even for monasticism
@Kurtis and Kyle, thank you, both, gentlemen for being considerate, gracious, and understanding; especially, doing so in not “having been there”. Also, I do think my former comment was not particularly kind. For that, I apologize.
Kyle, yes, you’re absolutely correct about the place of ‘single’ people in our society (str8 or gay). Thankfully, though, half of America is probably in one form or singleness or another: hoping to be married, divorced and not yet remarried, widowed, just plain asexual single, gay or what have you. So, it is far easier to live in singleness today than ever before. For that, I’m truly thankful.
But, I, also, understand being dismissed in many social settings; because, singles often are perceived as not bringing much to any event. However, as Kurtis mentioned, being gay and chaste is not by far the hardest thing in the world. Str8, married persons often have many, many crosses to bear … many of these may limit sexual intercourse, if not altogether prohibit it. When understood, every individual has at one time or another, sometimes quite often, some very hard things to bear … often alone.
So, I don’t want to give the impression of being the ‘victim’ or play the card of … “how terrible my life is”. But, it sure does rankle me at times, when some str8 persons make light of what life is like for us homosexuals. I need to work on being more understanding and less judgmental of them. I’m sure I’ve indulged in the same behavior at times.
I think the following lyrics from the song, Don’t Laugh at Me, sung by Peter, Paul, and Mary are apt for all of us:
Theresa
SG- You nailed it Te, as the Native American Indians said, “Walk a mile in my moccasions”
@Kyle: that’s what I was trying to say. Thank you.
Things like this make me wonder why Paul would prefer chastity. All I can imagine is that he must be saying that he wishes people would channel their need for intimacy (all kinds) back towards the community of faith, making them family.
Most believers will find that radical, possibly cultish, but that seems to be the implication.
Teresa and Emily, I have never met either of you, but I appreciate what you’ve written on these posts and hurt along with you, though I confess I can’t really know what it is like. My post wasn’t to belittle your struggle: rather my hope was to point out that other commands are meant to be similarly hard: if poverty doesn’t make you evaluate giving away all you have (honestly) or if you think even slightly about pointing out “all you do for a church” then to quote the lolcat: ur doin’ it wrong.
Following Christ should sometimes feel lonely, though for you it is worse
than most; the community is supposed to help with that. To the people not doing everything on their power to love and care for you: remember you will be called on for every idle word. Every. Last. One.
Emily K# ~ Aug 16, 2011 at 5:09 pm
“I don’t think straights will ever get it. What we feel is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as what they feel, just with a person of the same sex.”
This statement is a bit of an over-generalization. While it is true that SOME people (straight or otherwise) don’t (or won’t) recognize how gay and straight relationships can be the same, differing only in the genders, that isn’t true for all of them.
Emily K – You articulated the situation very well.
I don’t think straights will ever get it. What we feel is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as what they feel, just with a person of the same sex. So it’s a cruel fate to be born with this state of being that, were the switch flipped (so to speak), would be celebrated, encouraged, and even revered. By that single fact, that we fall in love with those of the same sex instead of the opposite sex, we are determined to be in the realm of drug users and kleptomaniacs. I really do not understand the mentality that can twist this into making sense.
If roles were reversed and straights were told that the people they fell in love with were beyond their reach solely because of that person’s gender, you can bet there’d be an outcry of anger and desperation.
And even most conservative christians admit today people don’t choose to be gay (“But you can choose your behavior! :D”). So why exactly would they think we’d eagerly participate in a religion that treats us as such pariahs?
@Kurtis and Kyle, thank you, both, gentlemen for being considerate, gracious, and understanding; especially, doing so in not “having been there”. Also, I do think my former comment was not particularly kind. For that, I apologize.
Kyle, yes, you’re absolutely correct about the place of ‘single’ people in our society (str8 or gay). Thankfully, though, half of America is probably in one form or singleness or another: hoping to be married, divorced and not yet remarried, widowed, just plain asexual single, gay or what have you. So, it is far easier to live in singleness today than ever before. For that, I’m truly thankful.
But, I, also, understand being dismissed in many social settings; because, singles often are perceived as not bringing much to any event. However, as Kurtis mentioned, being gay and chaste is not by far the hardest thing in the world. Str8, married persons often have many, many crosses to bear … many of these may limit sexual intercourse, if not altogether prohibit it. When understood, every individual has at one time or another, sometimes quite often, some very hard things to bear … often alone.
So, I don’t want to give the impression of being the ‘victim’ or play the card of … “how terrible my life is”. But, it sure does rankle me at times, when some str8 persons make light of what life is like for us homosexuals. I need to work on being more understanding and less judgmental of them. I’m sure I’ve indulged in the same behavior at times.
I think the following lyrics from the song, Don’t Laugh at Me, sung by Peter, Paul, and Mary are apt for all of us:
@Kyle: that’s what I was trying to say. Thank you.
Things like this make me wonder why Paul would prefer chastity. All I can imagine is that he must be saying that he wishes people would channel their need for intimacy (all kinds) back towards the community of faith, making them family.
Most believers will find that radical, possibly cultish, but that seems to be the implication.
Teresa and Emily, I have never met either of you, but I appreciate what you’ve written on these posts and hurt along with you, though I confess I can’t really know what it is like. My post wasn’t to belittle your struggle: rather my hope was to point out that other commands are meant to be similarly hard: if poverty doesn’t make you evaluate giving away all you have (honestly) or if you think even slightly about pointing out “all you do for a church” then to quote the lolcat: ur doin’ it wrong.
Following Christ should sometimes feel lonely, though for you it is worse
than most; the community is supposed to help with that. To the people not doing everything on their power to love and care for you: remember you will be called on for every idle word. Every. Last. One.
People need to be hugged often and reminded that they are important to thers.
Teresa,
I think most heterosexual Christians who declaim homosexuality give very little thought to the acute loneliness that must be battled in a life of chastity. Though I will never know what it’s like to be called to be chaste my whole life (I am now a married man), I was single since puberty, and fully sexually chaste for about ten years before I was married. And I rarely dated until about 7 months before I got married to my wife.
I was lonely. I remember a haircut being the most sustained touch I would have. Our world is such that if you do not have a spouse or a “romantic” partner with whom you have sexual intimacy, you have a hard time fitting in or finding an accepted and available means of intimacy with other human beings.I do think there are ways to live a fulfilled and happy life of intimate relationships as a chaste person, but our world is tilted away from that, even our Christian world which idolizes marriage and family.
That’s another thing. As a single man in the orthodox church I was constantly seen as a part to made whole by a spouse, rather than a full person seeking basic relationships with others. Unless the church is willing to be family to homosexuals – REAL family, not distant, cordial relationships filled with “niceties,” it has no business calling people of any sexual orientation to a life of discipleship and chastity. Unless we live Jesus’ view that the church is our more basic family, our moral views about the practice of homosexuality and the proper use of human sexuality (or any other forbidden sexual contact) will be nothing more than a consignment to loneliness and misery.
People need to be hugged often and reminded that they are important to thers.
Kurtis, et. al., it’s become very apparent over these last months of participation on this Blog, that most of the polarization that goes on here is based on a person’s place in society.
The rub here from what I can garner is that most participants who are str8 have seldom the empathy or understanding of what they demand of others. Certainly, there are a few who get it, and I respect them greatly. Most others, though, coming from a position of privilege, blithely demand from others that which they’ve never done, nor could possibly ever do. They casually say we’re mentally ill, suffer from sexual dysfunction. They, themselves, have little respect for chastity … and, generally seem to think if they’re quoting the right Bible verse, they’re right … and, we’re wrong.
Yes, there are ex-gays on this Blog. I respect their views, because “they’ve been there, done that, bought the t-shirt”. They’re living the embodiment of their views.
I’m a homosexual who is pursuing chastity. Certainly, I don’t think it’s the worst, Kurtis. But, it does irritate me, to say the least, when I find that usually those who aren’t homosexual seem to think they know what’s best for those of us who are.
I know this discussion has been going on from before this post, but let me remind some that while the prescription of chastity for people attracted to the same sex seems awful, it’s hardly the worst.
Jesus tells the rich ruler to sell everything he has. He tells a loyal family member to let a dead loved one rot. The Holy Spirit kills a couple for lying about the size of a gift to the church. Let’s not even visit the Hebrew part of scripture.
Chastity is demanding; so is the rest of the Bible. Cognitive mediation yes, but also partial (and continuing) transformation by the Spirit coupled with extravagant grace.
I’m reminded of that scene in “Where the Heart Is”: “Lord, forgive us again the fornication we commited even this morning on this kitchen table….”
Kurtis, et. al., it’s become very apparent over these last months of participation on this Blog, that most of the polarization that goes on here is based on a person’s place in society.
The rub here from what I can garner is that most participants who are str8 have seldom the empathy or understanding of what they demand of others. Certainly, there are a few who get it, and I respect them greatly. Most others, though, coming from a position of privilege, blithely demand from others that which they’ve never done, nor could possibly ever do. They casually say we’re mentally ill, suffer from sexual dysfunction. They, themselves, have little respect for chastity … and, generally seem to think if they’re quoting the right Bible verse, they’re right … and, we’re wrong.
Yes, there are ex-gays on this Blog. I respect their views, because “they’ve been there, done that, bought the t-shirt”. They’re living the embodiment of their views.
I’m a homosexual who is pursuing chastity. Certainly, I don’t think it’s the worst, Kurtis. But, it does irritate me, to say the least, when I find that usually those who aren’t homosexual seem to think they know what’s best for those of us who are.
I’m beginning to just find this all rather humorous. I finally get comfortable with myself and American Christendom is going all wonky over people such as me. Such is life.
Actually a great many of American Orthodox Jews are accepting of gays and lesbians (yes, male and female homosexuals); not just the Reform sect. The most visible anti-gay Jews are of the ilk I dubbed the Black-Hatted Patriarchy, who seem to focus much more on what separates themselves from every other Jew (and therefor, makes them better people) than what unites us and sustains us.
Ironically, the founders of JONAH come from the Reform sect, and seem to be motivated largely by bitterness over having gay children than any kind of doctrinal purity.
But this is not the point. The point is, just say that the Bible (or the Talmud, whatever) forbids our love. Saying “well, for heteros it’s something beautiful to be celebrated, but if it’s a same sex couple it’s something to be reviled and hated [hate the sin, afterall]” just doesn’t make sense to me outside of a conservatively interpreted religious context.
Frank, your entire comment is quite simply … wonderful, insightful, well-spoken … splendid.
Yes. Thumbs Up.
The following 2 quotes of yours, Frank, are of the essence of what being homosexual means for a good many of us in our ordinary lives.
David Blakeslee,
The arguments you’re making are facile, dirty-mined, and shallow.
They’re facile because not being able to have a third wife (except through divorce and remarriage) isn’t comparable to the burden of having to live your life alone and knowing that from an early age. Believe me when I say having cancer twice and seeing the better outcomes of those with partners who take part in their care, gives me pause about how I will live my life without a partner.
They’re dirty-minded because they reduce the human capacity for the selfless love of another to a sexual kink.
They’re shallow because they assume that gay Christians haven’t given any thought to how to live a moral life when you Christians haven’t given the first thought of how you’d live your lives if you were in our situation.
Even if I create an identity around chastity (which I did), I still have “Biblical Christians,” Catholics, and Mormons insisting on having the right to persecute me in employment, housing, education, and military service.
As for the comment about anti-gay conversion therapy, some small number of people do “change” but they were probably bisexual to some degree to begin with. Even if the average gay man had some small probability of conversion (which no study ever addresses- why do Christians hate statistics?), how is endorsing the choice between persecution and conversion for gays, in away that effects even the chaste, an ethical solution?
Moreover if same-sex love with or without consummation is what one person knows of his ability to love another absolutely selflessly, how is it right to extort that person into renouncing even the love itself?
How is it ANY different from the persecutions Christians have faced to force them to deny their faith?
Actually a great many of American Orthodox Jews are accepting of gays and lesbians (yes, male and female homosexuals); not just the Reform sect. The most visible anti-gay Jews are of the ilk I dubbed the Black-Hatted Patriarchy, who seem to focus much more on what separates themselves from every other Jew (and therefor, makes them better people) than what unites us and sustains us.
Ironically, the founders of JONAH come from the Reform sect, and seem to be motivated largely by bitterness over having gay children than any kind of doctrinal purity.
But this is not the point. The point is, just say that the Bible (or the Talmud, whatever) forbids our love. Saying “well, for heteros it’s something beautiful to be celebrated, but if it’s a same sex couple it’s something to be reviled and hated [hate the sin, afterall]” just doesn’t make sense to me outside of a conservatively interpreted religious context.
We’ve all done this, have we not? I certainly have.
I been in conversations where I haven’t had any meaningful comprehension … but, I’ve acted as if I had. And, yes, I didn’t have a clue … only my wild assumptions. I think I’m better at being honest, most times; but, I can’t say this still doesn’t happen to me.
On the other hand, David:
And, although some people prefer to avoid this truth: a large number of people do not change their attractions.
David, both statements are true. Which one takes precedence, where and when,
depends on “whose ox is being gored”.
David B.,
MY IQ, not to mention my spirits, go up when I read the kind of post you wrote today @ 10:35 a.m. – thank you so much for the critical thinking.
Mary,
😀
Emily,
Take the Christian religion out of the equasion and ask a Rabbi the same question. Some with give you the Torah rationalization why the Jewish religion restricts sexual activity to a man and a woman, along with all the other Jewish law associated with that (mikvah, etc.), while others (Reformed) will tell you that it is probably ok for two women to be sexually active with each other. It probably boils down to what an individual is willing to accept as right and then also be willing to accept what goes along with that decision – not blame it on a religion.
Well, David, I’m glad that you have acknowledged that it is a small number.
Anyone waiting for that to happen to them might just as well wait for all their numbers to come up in the lottery (which would be a lot more useful). After all, that too does unquestionably happen to a small number of people.
Hehehehehe. Constant reflection on conversations with others.
Frank, your entire comment is quite simply … wonderful, insightful, well-spoken … splendid.
Yes. Thumbs Up.
The following 2 quotes of yours, Frank, are of the essence of what being homosexual means for a good many of us in our ordinary lives.
ok, but I don’t understand why the gender of the person you are attracted to excludes those people from building a relationship with “cognitively mediated” sexuality and faithful monogamy. The only thing different is the gender.
I mean I guess if you go by certain arbitrary readings of scriptures, sure, you can say “this is allowed but this isn’t.” But trying to justify it further by introducing some kind of reasoning into it seriously has me lost.
Just say “the Bible says so, so it must be this way.”
David Blakeslee,
The arguments you’re making are facile, dirty-mined, and shallow.
They’re facile because not being able to have a third wife (except through divorce and remarriage) isn’t comparable to the burden of having to live your life alone and knowing that from an early age. Believe me when I say having cancer twice and seeing the better outcomes of those with partners who take part in their care, gives me pause about how I will live my life without a partner.
They’re dirty-minded because they reduce the human capacity for the selfless love of another to a sexual kink.
They’re shallow because they assume that gay Christians haven’t given any thought to how to live a moral life when you Christians haven’t given the first thought of how you’d live your lives if you were in our situation.
Even if I create an identity around chastity (which I did), I still have “Biblical Christians,” Catholics, and Mormons insisting on having the right to persecute me in employment, housing, education, and military service.
As for the comment about anti-gay conversion therapy, some small number of people do “change” but they were probably bisexual to some degree to begin with. Even if the average gay man had some small probability of conversion (which no study ever addresses- why do Christians hate statistics?), how is endorsing the choice between persecution and conversion for gays, in away that effects even the chaste, an ethical solution?
Moreover if same-sex love with or without consummation is what one person knows of his ability to love another absolutely selflessly, how is it right to extort that person into renouncing even the love itself?
How is it ANY different from the persecutions Christians have faced to force them to deny their faith?
There are a group of men in the world who are attracted to many different kinds of women, inherently, repetitively and sometimes compulsively.
Their attractions do not change, but they create an identity around monogamy.
The biological argument about attractions and drives and identities has its obvious weaknesses, which should be confronted from time to time. Sexual attractions are designed to be cognitively mediated, not simply expressed.
Also, Willow Creek has it correct: according to Christianity, all sexual expression outside monogomous marriage is an expression of our “brokenness.” Christianity is an equal opportunity offender here.
And although some prefer to avoid this truth: a small number of people do change their attractions.
David B.,
MY IQ, not to mention my spirits, go up when I read the kind of post you wrote today @ 10:35 a.m. – thank you so much for the critical thinking.
Mary,
😀
Emily,
Take the Christian religion out of the equasion and ask a Rabbi the same question. Some with give you the Torah rationalization why the Jewish religion restricts sexual activity to a man and a woman, along with all the other Jewish law associated with that (mikvah, etc.), while others (Reformed) will tell you that it is probably ok for two women to be sexually active with each other. It probably boils down to what an individual is willing to accept as right and then also be willing to accept what goes along with that decision – not blame it on a religion.
No, the problem is that people really don’t have any idea. They say they know – they act like they understand – and in their quiet moments, they have no clue – only assumptions.
The problem is people think it’s about “identity” and “behavior.” You can change your identity and you can alter your behavior. What people at fundamentalist non-denomination Christian churches don’t get is that for us gays, expressing our sexuality physically within the bonds of a loving relationship is NO DIFFERENT from a heterosexual expressing their sexuality physically within the bonds of a loving relationship.
So if our sex drives are the same, heteros are at least given the option of marrying and having a romantic and sexual outlet that way. Gays are told to keep it corked up because we cannot marry.
If straights would only imagine if they were forced into the same situation maybe they would understand why having our natural loving desires compared to one’s “natural inclination” to alcohol, addiction, greed, and lust angers and hurts us so much, and doesn’t at all speak to us in a “truth-in-love” manner at all.
Teresa,
😀
Thanks, Ann, for clarifying. Well said.
Teresa,
I believe that Frank’s primary objection, which he referred to in his comment, is shared by many who identify (personally or openly) as gay or lesbian and yet is not understood by others.
I think I do too but out of an abundance of caution I didn’t want to make any assumptions. I think it is too important to think I know what he is referring to based on my own perceptions. I want to understand what he is referring to.
I was using Frank’s words – gay and lesbian. I think anyone can identify as anything they want and often do. Sometimes children and adults resort to making up identities for others that are unsolicited and many times unwanted.
My question was posed to Frank because he has a valid concern and rather than assume what a proper remedy would be, or worse, ignore his concern, I asked for specifics instead.
Ann, I don’t understand the last sentence of your statement. I don’t particularly identify as lesbian except in an appropriate setting. Notwithstanding that, I believe I understand what Frank’s getting at. You seem to be trying to state something about “identify as”. What’s that mean to you?
Ann, what specifically do you do as an ‘inclined person’ to understand us? This is assuming you’re not homosexual.
Teresa,
😀
Frank,
What specifically should inclined people try to understand about gays and lesbians that you think they are not trying to do now? Your primary objection is one that I think is shared by many who identify as gay or lesbian and is not understood by those who do not.
Frank,
What specifically should inclined people try to understand about gays and lesbians that you think they are not trying to do now? Your primary objection is one that I think is shared by many who identify as gay or lesbian and is not understood by those who do not.
My primary objection to what Hybels has to say is that he claims to love gays and lesbians but his love has not made him inclined to try to understand anything about them. His Christian Sexual ethic demands that gay people live and die alone, and he doesn’t even acknowledge the severity and cruelty of that demand.
Bill Hybels may have done the best he could within the limits of his beliefs, but so did Abraham when he bound his son Isaac and prepared to slaughter him. Rabbinical sources claim that Isaac never spoke to Abraham after that.
@ William :
You’ve made a very important point here. Furthermore, those of us ‘church types’ who have pastoral responsibility for young people must always be aware of the potential and actual dangers of seeking – even with the ‘best will in the world’ – to ‘sell’ any kind of partial ‘ideologically-driven’ position to those for whom we have a ‘duty of care’.
@ David Blakeslee:
Irrespective of any action by TWO, there was a very good reason why it was right that Exodus’s iPhone app should have been pulled. It was aimed at gay youth and gave access to serious misinformation on research by Gary Remafedi, Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Minnesota. As Remafedi wrote in The Guardian (UK):
Willow Creek deserves at least some credit for getting up AFTAH’s nose!
It is always difficult for churches to please everyone, and they are probably getting something wrong if they do. And I must admit to a sneaking admiration for churches that end up pleasing nobody …
I do agree with Norm that Willow Creek would do well to give a clear indication of its thinking on the issue of human and civil rights for LGB persons, whilst perhaps also clarifying its understanding of ‘biblical ideals’ and ‘Christian morality’ in the context of the subject of ‘homosexuality’ (which is a very broad subject, as we all know).
What else could Hybels could have done? Denounced Schultz and called for a boycott of Starbucks? I don’t know much about Willow Creek, but my impression is that typical megachurch consumers are first and foremost devoted to suburban conveniences.
Contrary to slick marketing, PowerPoint sermons, modern-sounding self-help shtick, and progressive-sounding inclusiveness, at the heart of most megachurches is the same old, narrow-minded, fundamentalism. Instead of being evasive and secretive, it would be refreshingly honest if Willow Creek simply admitted its position on gay marriage and damnation of non-believers.
Dr. Throckmorton – did you ever respond to that letter attacking you from Steve Baldwin?
@ William :
You’ve made a very important point here. Furthermore, those of us ‘church types’ who have pastoral responsibility for young people must always be aware of the potential and actual dangers of seeking – even with the ‘best will in the world’ – to ‘sell’ any kind of partial ‘ideologically-driven’ position to those for whom we have a ‘duty of care’.
Willow Creek deserves at least some credit for getting up AFTAH’s nose!
It is always difficult for churches to please everyone, and they are probably getting something wrong if they do. And I must admit to a sneaking admiration for churches that end up pleasing nobody …
I do agree with Norm that Willow Creek would do well to give a clear indication of its thinking on the issue of human and civil rights for LGB persons, whilst perhaps also clarifying its understanding of ‘biblical ideals’ and ‘Christian morality’ in the context of the subject of ‘homosexuality’ (which is a very broad subject, as we all know).
Remember the iPhone Ap.
Change is guided by TWO.
What else could Hybels could have done? Denounced Schultz and called for a boycott of Starbucks? I don’t know much about Willow Creek, but my impression is that typical megachurch consumers are first and foremost devoted to suburban conveniences.
Contrary to slick marketing, PowerPoint sermons, modern-sounding self-help shtick, and progressive-sounding inclusiveness, at the heart of most megachurches is the same old, narrow-minded, fundamentalism. Instead of being evasive and secretive, it would be refreshingly honest if Willow Creek simply admitted its position on gay marriage and damnation of non-believers.
Dr. Throckmorton – did you ever respond to that letter attacking you from Steve Baldwin?
Remember the iPhone Ap.
Change is guided by TWO.