I have always been a terrible blogger, but I hope that can change. Read through old posts dealing with my various travels if you desire, but that is no longer the purpose of this blog. I have decided that it is sinful for me to continue being complacent and ignorant about the tensions between homosexuality and Christianity. This started with a facebook note, which I have reproduced below, but the conversation is too large for that. Please understand that I have made no changes to the original note, even though it is not perfect and I now see that some of the things I believe are based on very poor information. Hopefully these things will change in the coming months and years. For now, I welcome all comments, even anonymous ones. I also welcome emails sent to spirit7spark@gmail.com. When people start getting hurt, the rules will change.
The facebook note:
So a few weeks ago we had the annual ACU sex talk for Chapel credit. There was a panel of Bible professors, ACU staff, and "real folk" at the front and we could write questions on note cards for discussion. The usual laughter and half-baked thoughts from students and faculty alike. "Is anal sex...sex? I mean, like, if you look it up in Webster's...and it doesn't lead to children..." "I had a friend of a friend of a friend who masturbated in front of his girlfriend and then fingered her and she got pregnant." Beautiful. Sex only refers to making babies, thus all sex with condoms or when it's not her time of the month is not sex, and we should avoid anal sex because there's a one in a billion chance that someone might get pregnant. Bravo, Christian thought, bravo.
After a while, the card came, like it always does. "I am gay." Silence. The laughter will come later in the freshman dorm rooms and in the Bean tomorrow. Only one person has the boldness to make a response, a single guy, a member of ACU staff who "struggled" with homosexuality in his youth. The answer was unique to ACU culture but the same one we've all heard a thousand times (those of you who go to this university), "I don't know what to say...it's hard...there are people here to help you...please come talk to me afterward if you want." The idea that someone might be able to change their sexuality is revolutionary and counter-cultural, but this was a lame promise. The guy seemed so sad and dejected, not someone I want to talk to for advice. It was clear that there has been no radical joy-giving transformation that made everything okay, even though that seems to be what we imply will happen, praise Jesus.
This is absolutely unacceptable. No debate. We as a community have absolutely no idea what to do about this issue. And most of us don't care. After a sleepless night and many hours of thought, here is my response to the card, assuming that it is twenty years down the road, I am Bible or English professor at a Christian university, and I am married with kids. It's not perfect. I don't even know if it's adequate. Please help me refine.
"There's really only one way to start with this. I am not disgusted by you. I am not afraid of you and you don't gross me out. I don't know you, but if you introduced yourself to me tonight or if we met in an elevator tomorrow, I wouldn't mind being your friend. If I am eating in a restaurant and you walk in, I will not leave or tell you to leave. If there's an empty chair at my table, you are welcome to sit down. Are you good with kids? My wife and I will pay you to babysit sometime, if the opportunity arises. I am not afraid of the influence you will have on them. I want you to influence them. Are you already a part of a loving community of believers? Because I want you in my church. We need you in my church. We need your voice more than a new worship minister. And if you've ever heard a Christian say otherwise, I want you to know that it is they who are condemned before God Almighty--NOT YOU.
"If you are in a relationship with another guy right now, and you are reasonably close in age and you listen to each other and support each other and make sacrifices for each other, then in my heart of hearts I feel that you are doing better than most heterosexual couples and that you are right with God. But the Bible--the book that I love and have based my very life upon--is ludicrously unclear about whether or not it is fundamentally wrong for two members of the same sex to have this kind of relationship. The stuff in the Old Testament is in the Old Testament. The same problem with tattoos and long hair and the fact that Christians eat pork and don't really keep a Sabbath. When it's used in the New Testament, it's almost always used as evidence of human depravity, rather than a warning against it's dangers. It almost always appears in a list, thus equating it with things like adultery and idolatry and murder-- to an ancient mind, undebatable examples of human sin. The idea that two humans of the same gender can have the same relationship as a husband and wife except for one unimportant difference took thousands of years for humanity to come up with. If you ask me, 'Is it wrong?' I must say 'I, a professor of theology, don't know,' and that is unacceptable. We need the greatest Christian minds of our century to be thinking about this question. I need you in my church.
"If you are here today and you feel that these urges or this kind of love is a contradiction to your Christian faith, I want you to know that you are in good company. There is a group on campus called Center Peace run by Sally Gary. They meet once a week for love and support and they do not accept easy answers about this issue. I do not know whether our "orientations" come from genetics or from the first crucial years of our development as children, but either way, I think that we have no control and sometimes even no awareness of the matter until adolescence and early adulthood. But there are many of us who were born with demons, and we have to fight them. If a heterosexual loves one other person and one other person alone, would run across the world for them and die for them, and they are married to someone else, then that person has the bitter responsibility of living in unrealized love. If someone is born or becomes a pedophile and they claim Christ as their Lord, then there is no excuse. Celibacy is the only option. The only question is whether or not consentual love between two people of the same gender is or is not wrong. We need you in our church to help us answer that question. We need you, we need you, we need you."
Comments? I hate that I am comparing homosexuals in general to pedophiles. That completely changes the debate, but the comparison is unbearable. The stuff we use to put down dogs at the vet is painless and quick, while the stuff we use for lethal injections in prisons has questionable effects, yet no politician will ever suggest a change because of that unbearable comparison. What do we do?
Joshua
Hmmm, this is a very difficult and delicate topic of discussion. On my part, I enjoy this conversation, not for its awkwardness but for its unanswerability. Christians, this is in very broad terms, struggle so hard to put an answer to this question. But what I think we should be doing is loving those who have chosen a path less traveled. We have no right to dispensing answers where we have no business bestowing them. God is the Father and the Judge, He is the only being worthy enough to answer this question. And so far, He has refrained from doing so. Why? Well, perhaps that is His way of giving us an answer. Perhaps what He is trying to tell us is that we are not meant to worry or to persist. Yes, He wants us to be free thinkers and to question, but not to rise above our station in order to create an answer. All we need to be doing is loving and caring. Let Him do His job of teaching us to love and trust and let us do our job of listening and learning. I, for one, would prefer to show love than judgment. Where's the logic in judging when we live by the Golden Rule?
ReplyDeleteIf you were approaching human sexuality from creation theology, what light might that shed on this issue?
ReplyDeleteThank you so so much for your comment, Nickie. Your response is slightly different from most anything I've heard before, at least in nuance. I'm always a fan of looking at problems in the world and seeing if they might actually be a form of God's grace. The difficulty of this question might be a good thing, might put mankind in its place and force us to love each other when it's hard.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the question isn't unanswerable for many people. They are absolutely set. I'm wondering if all of them are wrong. Certainly love is the most important part of this debate. The second greatest commandment. Yet one fourth of the greatest commandment is loving God with all of your mind. That's part of what I'm trying to do here. I have come to believe that it is sinful for someone of my faith and intelligence to be complacent or ignorant about this issue.
The idea that consensual love between two members of the same sex is essentially the same as heterosexual love has the power to set people free from opression and violence. It has the power to free up repressed desires. It has the power to change the world. Ideas have power, even though they are just ideas. I'm just not sure if this one is true or not. But perhaps, just maybe, another idea also has this power. I am willing to take a lot of heat for pursuing that idea. I think that one way to heal our broken cultures and churches is with intelligence, and that is what I'm. Always with love, though, always with love.
As for the anonymous comment, I'm not sure without context exactly with you mean. My first guess would be that you are talking about the natural order of things before Eve ate the fruit. Can we imagine homosexual relationships in the garden of Eden? Lot's of problems there, not the least of which is how confusing the creation story is.
ReplyDeleteBesides, this is why the genetics debate is so significant. If people are born with this, if it comes naturally to them, then what does that mean? Also, some of the major writers in queer theory claim (to my understanding) that all of us are homosexual on some level but that we repress it. The term often used is "homosocial desire" but it is very confusing to me and I need to look at it again.
I have a lot to say...
ReplyDeleteFor the creation statement, my interpretation would be that the person is saying in short "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". BUT even if you take an evolutionary, survival of the fittest, concept, homosexuality does not make sense. There is no possible manner that any part of homosexuality is advantageous for the homo sapien species. It is very counter-productive.
I agree with Nicki on the love part. Love your neighbor, your enemies, as yourself. Love the sinner hate the sin. And in such we should love those who are different from us; the Greek, the Jew, the Scythian, the Moore, the thin, the fat, the Muslim, the Morman, the Baptist, the heterosexual, and the homosexual.
I also partially agree with Nicki in her judgment ideas. I'm sorry if this is assumed, but I like things to be specific. We must not judge one another, but that does not mean that we should be unaware of what is going on to the people around us. I'll use Josh's paedophile example. If you have a person who has struggled with pedophilia, and has shared this with the church, so you are aware of it, attending your church, you should love them like a brother, however, it would be foolish to let them babysit your children. Now this isn't judging them, but being aware of who they are, and acting accordingly.
Josh, you make a statement about how the Bible is ludicrisouly unclear about homosexuality. I must say that I disagree. In the New Testament, especially in the letters of Paul, it is urged quite frequently to stay away from sexual impurity. "Now wait a minute," you may say, "this doesn't spell out anything at all." But remember, being the son of a Pharisee and growing up in a university town, Paul was well versed in the Old Testament, and if you reference Leviticus 18, it clearly spells out the sexual immorality that Paul would have been referring to. Among the listed acts in that chapter, most of which are heterosexual, is the command of not to lie with a man as you would with a woman. You may argue that it was an Old Testament Command, and that Jesus came and changed all that, but remember Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."
Now this brings me to another point. We have defined (at least in this argument) homosexuality as a sin. Now I would like to point out that most people have struggled with a sexual sin of some sort, and assume that sexual demons use similar tactics when overwhelming a person. Your thoughts become action, then action addiction, then you either fight it and overcome, or drown in it, and eventually give in.
With this in mind, I would like to reference an article that God brought to my attention the other night in relation to my own life, but which is applicable.
"REPENTANCE....
The meaning...leads to the defining repentance as that divinely wrought conviction of sin in the heart that the soul is guilty before God, and a resolute turning away from sin in which the sinner identifies himself with the gracious act of God in redeeming him. Repentance involves both a change of mind about sin, and a change of heart-attitude toward sin. It is at the time a renunciation of sin and an acceptance of the Holy Spirit's enablement to holy living....
Repentance is always conjoined with faith, however, and man must act, once illuminated by grace. Where there is true faith there will always be true repentance; and conversely, where there is not true repentance there can never be true faith.
Repentance is necessary to salvation. Jesus asserted that it was a necessary condition (Matt. 3:2,8; 4:17), while both Paul and Peter identified it with true salvation (Acts 20:21; II Pet. 3:9).
There are two aspects of repentance: the act of repenting, and the state of penitence. The act of repenting involves sorrow for both the fact of sin and the acts of sin in the life of the sinner. It precipitates decisive conviction of sin and resolution to change. The act of repentance, however, leads to the state of penitence in which the whole nature of man is changed so that he becomes identified with the grace of God, living in abhorrence of sin, with continual renunciation of it in his life."
Zondervan's Pictorial Bible Dictionary - Repentance
Now I believe that repentance and penitence should be applied to the lives of every Christian. A person who claims Christianity, but is in the practice of actively sinning, as opposed to renouncing the sin from their lives, may not be Christian. It is not our right to judge this, cause we can't see their hearts, but as their brother in Christ we should approach them about the issue, or be there to fight beside them against satan's attacks.
I believe this is especially applicable to homosexuality. It is a sin, and if there is a person attending church who is choosing to live in that sin, as opposed to fighting it or renouncing it from their lives, then I think it is appropriate to approach them about it, in the way described in the New Testament (which I have spent ten minutes looking for this exact verse but have been unable to find) where it describes approaching a person first by yourself, then with another brother, and then with the elders, and if it still doesn't stop, you throw them out. Paul describes the throwing out part very plainly in I Corinthians 5 (Expel the Immoral Brother).
Lets face it. There are a lot of good people out in the world, in our workplace, in our church. Striving for goodness, however, is not striving for God. There is a difference. Should we scourge the pestilence of homosexuality as sin is dealt with in the Old Testament, I don't think so. Should we go around tolerating and living among this sin, absolutely not. Jesus states to, "...be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." Matt. 10:16.
Now I alone cannot persuade your thoughts one way or another, that is your (and arguably God's) decision to make. But in light of the facebook tagging I assumed you wanted some input on the subject. Thus, my current opinions have been stated. Love the sinner. Hate the sin.
Agape
I agree with you, Josh, that the Bible is "ludicrously unclear" about this subject. You and others might enjoy this blog post from Real Live Preacher: http://www.reallivepreacher.com/node/868. He has articulated quite well several problems with the way many Christians approach Scripture in regards to homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good and thought-provoking post. However, the sad and unfortunate truth is that 'evangelical' Christians have already lost this debate in not only Churches but the poltical arena as well. Most 'main-line' churches already welcome same-sex couples and anglican Church in America has also already made it's decision publically. Homosexuality is not in the DSM and will not be in the 'future' DSM whenever it comes out. It is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in the public work-place, yet private schools can because of religious beliefs (a key word and notion in this debate -- belief). And as a former ACU student who was politely dis-charged from campus by the ever-present dean who name sounds like Christ-mas (not Easter), I can testify that there are homosexual students at ACU in both the undergraduate departments as well as in the graduate school (even the Graduate School of Theology).
ReplyDeleteHigh quality academic work has already been done to unpack the 'American' notion of individual rights which has created most of this mess in the first place. On another note, the Roman Catholic Church has a plethora of information regarding human sexuality and the proper function of human sexuality -- if one is looking for a 'consistent' position look there -- celibacy, the rhythm method for birth control, and Church annulments for divorces -- but then you are doing sacramental theology -- which makes most protestants, particulary southern evangelical protestants leery because instead of Seven, protestants only like 2, maybe 3 (Baptism, Eucharist, Marriage -- no confession, no confirmation, no holy orders, no annointing of the sick).
And if one is solely going to be pragmatic (and thereby throughly American) with one's Christian life, it might be better to focus on things like the rising rates of Autism in children, ecological facts about climate change and human nutrition, health-care in America, unemployment rates, staggering figures of debt (student loans and otherwise) or the growing wealth gap that is starting become apparent with the new administration (class warfare and a quasi-caste system in America).
Still a thought-provoking post, but locus of authority in the text alone died a long, long time ago and most honest academics (particulary text-driven academics like the English Department) would probably agree. Just watch Stephen Cobert interview Bart Erhman and ponder how 'this' blog changes the very notion 'academic' conversation. Then you are back to media and what kind of media you consume. Then you are back to epistemological notions like faith and trust -- which are fundamentally irrational, yet essential to life in the post-9/11 digital world (or as I heard on NPR yesterday -- the '2nd Life World') that can be organized around a lab-top or an i-phone.
Gabe
P.S. Here's a question: What's the difference between a priest, a pychiatrist, and witch doctor?
P.P.S. What's the difference between Joshua (Jesus) and Joshua in the Old Testament?
P.P.P.S. How does one define family?
Thank you for the time and thought you put into your post, Doug (flaminfish53).
ReplyDeleteI posted the original facebook note without revision, but one of the things I'm already regretting is the "ludicrously" of my "ludicrously unclear" bit. That puts a lot of blame on the Scripture and takes a lot of the blame off of us.
A few comments on your comments:
Homosexuals are incredibly advantageous to the human species. Throughout the centuries they have gifted the world with some of the best art and the most beautiful things. They have made us stop and think about our sexuality, and they have forced us to consider issues of tolerance, love and coexistence. And most amazingly, they have done this without reproducing themselves. Natural selection says that "anomalies" kill themselves off eventually. Yet they have survived and endured throughout history. Hitler could conceivably kill all the Jews, but he could never kill all the homosexuals. Now isn't that interesting? They're here to stay. Their almost...natural. You really just can't say things like "There is no possible manner that any part of homosexuality is advantageous for the homo sapien species." I know what you mean, but that wording is so unkind and unacceptable. It would also mean that my aunt and uncle are not advantageous to the humans species because they are sterile together. My aunt is a nurse. My uncle is a fantastic artist and a very kind man. He keeps the family running at holidays. Even if their marriage isn't advantageous, they are, and I don't know if they could do what they do without being together.
You are probably right about the pedophile and babysitting. However, I am much more concerned with more subtle things. Do I tense up when the pedophile waves to my child? Do I glance across the pew during the children's choir performance to see what he or she is doing? Does he or she notice? How does that make him or her feel?
I am surprised that you pick the OT passages to base your beliefs on. Consider a few things. The two passages from Leviticus are chapters 18 and 20. 18 lists a bunch of sexual sins by saying "Do not..." and then giving a reason why (usually "this is detestable" or "this will dishonor you"). 20 gives the punishment for each of these sins, usually ending in death. You say that Jesus did not come to abolish the law. Do you believe, then, that we should put homosexuals to death?
I, like you, also believe that Jesus did not come to abolish the law. He did, however, come to be the last and greatest interpreter of the law, and what he said, essentially, is that Christians are obligated to follow the heart of the law, but not the laws themselves, under the new covenant. In some ways this is harder. Not only can we not murder, we must also strive to control our anger (Mt. 5:21-22). In some ways this is easier. I don't believe that we are bound any longer by half of Leviticus 19:28 as it's traditionally been interpreted, "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourself." It's still probably not a good idea to cut yourself in mourning, but in an age where tattoos are no longer associated with pagan cultures, in an age where people tattoo Bible verses on themselves in Greek and Hebrew, I think they are fine. I also think it's fine to cut the hair at the sides of my head trim my beard, which is prohibited in the verse before. I do NOT think it's okay to degrade my daughter by making her a prostitute, which is prohibited in the verse after. I don't know of a present-day Christian group that says they follow the OT laws literally in their entirety and is consistent. If I am willing to say that half of a verse applies and half does not, then you can probably say that homosexuality is still wrong but that putting them to death is wrong too, but you'd better have a reason for it. Meanwhile, I need to figure out why I am considering that homosexuality might be OK while I still have a problem with all of the other sexual sins listed in Leviticus 18.
I am curious about your theology of Satan and demons. I believe in spiritual warfare, but I am not so sure that every temptation comes directly from a demon's voice (or Satan--what if I'm important enough? Or do you think that he's omnipresent?), and I'm especially suspicious about there being a sex demon and a greed demon and an anger management demon all mixed together inside of me telling me what to do.
I would be wary of referencing the Zondervan Pictoral Bible Dictionary in an online debate. If you were talking to me face to face, it would be fine, but when anyone can read it, I'm afraid it might be perceived as putting forth a quaint little picture book as advice on how to deal with a very VERY difficult issue. If it speaks to you, that is good, but I wouldn't expect it to speak to everyone.
As for excommunication, I have a hard time agreeing with you there at present. The passage you were looking for comes from Matthew 18:15-19. The story may appear somewhere else, I don't know. A couple of things. First, the last step is to tell the "church" about the issue, not the "elders". Now, wait, that's confusing. When Jesus was talking to people, the Church didn't exist yet. I need to do a better study of the historical context and Greek here, but I'm thinking that the author of Matthew, living in a Christian community at least several decades after Jesus' resurrection, is envisioning his kind of first century church in this passage. I don't have my Greek New Testament with me and am by no means a Greek scholar yet (probably ever), but I'm guessing that the word here is one that means "assembly" but was given the connotation of "church" by first century Christians. What kind of assembly did the author of Matthew live in? Is this in any way comparable to modern day churches? Can the whole church be involved in this process when it has 2,000 members? Most of the situations I've heard of where the "elders" come in at the last step have ended very badly. Are these actions endorsed by this particular passage?
Also, the last part of vs. 17 says "if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." Notice, Jesus does not tell them to treat the sinner as HE would treat a pagan or a tax collector, but as YOU would. So who's you? Well, if 18:1 is any indication, the disciples. Would the disciples treat pagans and tax collectors like Jesus treated them or like their culture treated them? If in the way that their culture treated them, are you comfortable with saying that we should treat unrepentant homosexuals like the Pharisees treated tax collectors and pagans?
One final problem: this passage only endorses this plan of action if the sinner sinned against "you", this time referring to whoever is following the Scripture's plan of action. Did the homosexual sin against you, if he or she sinned?
You also referenced 1 Corinthians 5. A few things that are interesting. Verse 2 essentially calls the church out on feeling proud about accepting all tax collectors and pagans "like Jesus did". It's true that if the church lets everyone call themselves Christian, then they stand for nothing. Verse 11 tells us to expel drunkards, slanderers, and the greedy, among others. If you think this passage applies to homosexuals, are you willing to be absolutely consistent with the idea and excommunicate greedy materialistic Americans as well? Verse 1 is especially interesting to me: "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and a kind that does not occur even among the pagans: A man has his father's wife." If the "pagans" are our surrounding culture today, isn't it interesting that homosexuality is exactly the opposite kind of sin (if a sin)? It is one that the culture is thinking a whole lot about. The church is far behind. When the Corinthian church let a man sleep with his mom, the outside culture could look in and say that the Corinthian church was immoral. When your church does NOT let a homosexual sleep with a homosexual, the outside culture can look in and say that your church is immoral. Now isn't that interesting?
We already talked a little about loving the sinner and hating the sin on facebook chat, but I am reminded now of C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters. (C.S. Lewis also seems to have a theology of Satan that I have a hard time buying, though I love the book and think that he does a lot of it with tongue-in-cheek.) The senior demon tells the newer one that he can't keep his Christian from praying for other people, but that he can tweak the prayers so that he is always praying "for their soul" and never for them. Why would a demon want us praying for a soul and not a person? I need to find the quote.
Thank you so much for your input and the long conversation Saturday night. I know it feels like I keep trying to persuade you to my "side", which is still developing, but you've made me stop and think about a lot of things.
Joshua
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, Gabe. I don't quite understand how some of them apply to this issue, though I have my guesses. I am especially appreciative of the echoes of postmodern thought in your comments, which have a lot to offer to this discussion.
ReplyDeleteSorry that this response isn't very long. I spent too much time responding to Doug. I thank you for your input, though.
Joshua
OK Uncle Larry here. I live in Austin where being gay is just a fact of life. The gay people in the community are very open about their sexuality and so are the ones I work with. Some are Christians and some are not. My stand on either subject is based on who the person is not what the person is. A good friend of mine was raised Latter Day Saint but has since moved to non-believer and that is fine with me although I don't tell him that I pray for him, I think he knows that I do. I have open conversations around him about Elisa's and my beliefs and he is OK with that and I listen to him about his beliefs and I am OK with that because he is my friend and I like him because of who he is and not what he believes. I see God's miracles every day and he sees evolution taking place. I believe in evolution but only because God allows it to happen. He thinks that people who believe God created Heaven and Earth in 6 - 24 hour days are pretty dumb. I think that God's days are different from our counting. A day to God could be 100 million years to us. Just a dot in time. But certain fundamentalist believe it could only happen as they see it and that is OK too. What I believe is my faith and my faith comforts me. It gives me peace to know God has a finger on all things and that everything is happening by his grand design. He knows when I make the wrong free-will choice and when I make the right ones and he knew those choices long before I was born. But free-will allows me the freedom to be me and that is important as well.
ReplyDeleteSo what you decide about gay people and Christianity is neither right nor wrong it is simply free-will. The best advice I can give anyone is look at the individual and like them for who they are and if you find that difficult then you are like everyone else. Sometimes we find it very difficult. Follow your heart and your faith and you will be led in the right direction. A recent survey was taken on how many people are Christians and they said that the number of non-christians had risen dramatically to (you ready for this) 19%. Only 19% control that we have no prayer in schools any more. Only 19% say we can't pray in public places. The problem lies in the fact that as Christians we respect what other believe and allow them their rights (or wrongs) without saying anything to anyone in power to change this course. By the way it was only 9% non-christians when Madeline O'Hare had everything changed. We have voices and we must use them. What the media picks up are the hard core fundamentalist that there can only be one way and that is their way and makes all Christians look like mindless sheep. It will continue because everyone wants the feel safe and only the radicals want the change, the 19%.
So basically what I am saying is that you choose the people you like based on who they are and not what they are. You do not have to agree on everything but you have to make a stand for yourself of what you think is right. The old WWJD was great at it's time but none of us know what Jesus would do. We can only do what we can do and use the word of God as a guide. You will always run into hardcore people out in the real world and your choice is to like them or not based on who they are and not what they believe or what they are. Only then will you have the opportunity to affect change. Here is another question for you. If we still had prayer in school would Columbine have happened?