This particular post is geared toward eliciting feedback from those who believe that homosexuality is not blessed by God, but are uncertain how to address the issue within church governance and their own congregations. However, I am also interested in hearing from people of all perspectives on how churches with conservative sexual ethics should address personal policy within their own fellowships.
I want your opinion. In recent discussions on Andrew Marin’s book Love Is an Orientation, as well as other posts on bridging the gap between the church and the GLBT community, there has been a recurrent question, “Yes, but how do we address the issue of homosexuality within the Church? Marin gives guidance for engaging the gay community at large, but what about church governance? How does this play out on a practical level? One commenter who is a pastor wrote: “People expect us to have policies on things—Can [same-sex] couples be pictured together in photo directories? Can someone in an active [same-sex] relationship lead a small group?” Then there are the heated discussions at the denominational level. For the past year, congregations within the Presbyterian Church (USA) have been voting on whether or not to open a door to gay ordination (in April the final tally upheld the “fidelity-chastity” clause). Additionally, top scholars from Yale and the like are publishing well-written arguments for the reconciliation of homosexuality and Christianity.
What is the appropriate response to all of this? Do we just close our eyes and sing Kumbaya in hopes that it all magically resolves on its own? Do we scowl and stick our tongues out at those who don’t agree with us? I want to know what you think. Below are some of my own random questions and thoughts to get the discussion going:
What assumptions do we make about other Christians?
In the last post I mentioned a research project in which I interviewed gay affirming Christians with the hope of understanding how some people reconcile homosexuality and Christianity. I quickly realized my assumptions about other people’s worldviews caused miscommunication and frustration. I assumed other Christians viewed God and Scripture the same way I did. But the people I spoke with had a variety of definitions for the term Christian. When I asked one interviewee what the term meant, she indicated she had never broken any of the Ten Commandments. Another interviewee was an avid fan of Marianne Williamson’s A Return to Love—a book that utilizes Christian terminology to describe the Eastern philosophy found in A Course In Miracles. Yet other interviewees ascribed to Progressive Christianity, a movement that believes many paths lead to God and the Bible is not the only sacred text. Some also agreed with Bishop John Shelby Spong’s suggestion of a non-theistic Christianity. Still other interviewees reported an evangelical understanding of the term Christian, believing that Jesus died for the sins of the world.
My point? It became apparent that the question of homosexuality was secondary to the question of how each of us conceptualizes God, Scripture, and the Christian life. Before we even engage in a conversation about homosexuality with a fellow Christian, it is helpful to understand what a person means by that term. How do they picture God? What role does Scripture play in guiding their life? What is that person’s basis for ethics? If I assume someone has the same definitions as I do, I end up talking past that person rather than truly understanding where they are coming from.
What is our motivation for telling another person our views on homosexuality?
You can tell a lot about a person’s motivation for speaking up on the issue of homosexuality by the emotion they exhibit. Are they angry? Sad? Happy? Many conservatives will say they “love” gay people by “telling them the truth.” But these same individuals often seem agitated when speaking truth. Isn’t anger an odd way to express love? Why are those who rail against the “gay agenda” so angry? Is it not because they are offended? Those who become angry in defense of their position (including those in the GLBT community) are primarily concerned with Self. Many conservatives tout the mantra “Protect our families!” The focus is on how one’s own community will benefit if the other camp conforms. This typically results in efforts to force compliance by enacting laws.
In contrast, what emotion do we exhibit when our closest friends are engaged in behavior we believe is hurtful? Doesn’t it break our hearts? Don’t we fret about their welfare? We grieve. We try to reason with them. Rather than manhandling our friends into compliance so we don’t have to put up with their offense, we, instead, long to see transformed lives. Our focus is not on Self, but on Other. We want what is best for our friends, and we know their well-being rests on true repentance. True repentance is not simply behavioral compliance—the Pharisees excelled at that—rather it is a change of heart and mind. This brings us to another question:
What causes us to have a change of heart?
Think about your own life experiences. How do you react when someone yells at you? What if somebody lectures at you without any interest in your perspective? How do you feel if someone assumes the worst about your motives? Clearly, none of us would be persuaded to see things differently if treated this way, and yet conservatives do this all the time when discussing homosexuality. This is because many Christians are not concerned about the well-being of the gay community as much as they are interested in venting their irritation. We want others to conform so we don’t have to put up with their behavior—not because we are heartsick over a gay person’s well-being.
God said, “Come now, let us reason together. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18). Let us reason together. Isn’t this how hearts and minds are changed?
How are we to treat other Christians we believe are unrepentant?
What do we do when we believe another Christian is engaged in sin and they are not responsive to our efforts to reason with them? Do we shun them and treat them like pariahs (not something I recommend!). Jesus suggests, “Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector”—that is, an unbeliever (Matthew 18:15-17).
How did Jesus treat tax collectors?
What is the purpose of shared values in community?
Some seem to believe that the Church should not enforce shared community values. We should let everyone do according to their own conscience. If God tells someone homosexuality is okay—who are we to question that? After all Christianity is not about rules and regulations, it’s about love. If we just love each other it will all work out in the end. Right? I don’t know of many groups that operate on this kind of mentality. If you show up for an AA meeting, you will be expected to support the group’s goal of sobriety. If you go to Soulforce’s online discussion forum, you will be expected to follow the rules or else get booted. This includes not sharing views that suggest homosexuality is sin. And I’m sure if you signed up for the local Rotary Club, they would have certain expectations of you as well. Virtually every group has shared community values; those who cannot agree to these values are usually limited in their ability to participate.
Community is what makes the Christian walk possible. I need to be part of a local church body that reinforces my values on traditional sexual ethics. A church cannot encourage me “day after day as long as it is called Today” if they support a position that makes it harder for me to live out my convictions. This is also why gay affirming churches exist—others want to be in a community that supports same-sex relationships. I would not be elected for leadership positions at most (if not all) Metropolitan Community Churches simply for holding the theological views I do. This doesn’t mean these churches are bigoted; rather, there is nothing inherently mean-spirited about having group values and maintaining them.
What do we expect from leaders in the church—including lay leaders?
If shared values are a natural and integral part of most communities, how are those values maintained? Is it not through leadership? Paul instructs Timothy to “set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity” (I Tim. 4:12). What happens when that is compromised? Recently, I referred to a discussion at Jesus Creed regarding an actual situation where a member of a worship team wanted to remain in the band despite his intentions to date another man. He agreed he would step down if he “crossed the line” and had sex with his boyfriend. It was perceived by some that homosexual dating, as long as intercourse does not occur, is benign. But what about the person in the pew who is struggling with homosexuality? What is he to think when he sees a member of the worship team going out on a date with his boyfriend? And what message does this send to the rest of the congregation? How does this affect the maintenance of shared community values?
What would a new model of engagement look like? How do we practice both grace and truth?
I see a lot of folk reacting to the Religious Right (including me!). Seeker sensitive churches don’t want to talk about homosexuality for fear of looking like hate-mongers and scaring away potential seekers. Younger Christians know there is something unChrist-like about the anger and self-protective attitudes of ultra-conservatives and so throw the baby out with the bath water. No one seems to know what grace and truth looks like. There aren’t many examples of it. What would it mean to speak truthfully about homosexuality, while not fixating on it, and yet not avoiding it? What would it look like to talk about sexual ethics apart from the culture war? And what would this mean for practical church governance and ministry?
70 Comments
June 30, 2009 at 12:55 pm
It is interesting looking at this discussion from the outside, because it seems to be only occurring in North America and Europe and other such diaspora countries (Australia etc.).
In the rest of the world there is simply no support for any such debate in the Christian church.
I don’t see any room for compromise within singular congregations (especially in congregational churches). There might be room under the umbrella of conventions (like COGIC or the Southern Baptists or Episcopal) if that were important to enough people.
In other words, I think that as long as moral standards are important to a congregation then it might be wise for people who believe that homosexuality is ok to worship separately from people who think otherwise although they might both belong to the same communion or umbrella body.
That way, people who strongly believe that homosexuality is immoral do not have to support it in the laity or the leadership; but the church won’t have to keep going over this repeatedly.
Anyways, again, this is strange.
Where I live, the idea (if it even exists here) that a Christian who studies his Bible and concludes that homosexuality is ok is on the same moral plane/equal footing with the traditional position is by definition surreal. Such people would not even be allowed to call themselves “Christian”–and I suspect this to be true for the vast majority of the world’s Christians.
For them, the more pressing issue is to get them to understand that homosexual attractions are not chosen and after that that homosexuals are not the worst kind of sinners.
Christianity in the US and Canada will collapse long before most Christians the world over will ever adopt the idea that a valid reading of the Bible might yield a positive attitude towards homosexuality.
Lastly, the congregational model might help to ease a lot of friction that is caused by the other theological heterodoxies that invariably accompany the “gay is blessed” position (i.e. no virgin birth, metaphorical miracles, no physical resurrection etc.) as Barna’s new study shows.
June 30, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Karen,
Thanks for covering this topic. There are probably a few things I’d like to respond to, but it would be too much for one comment. The first relates to the question you posed of how Jesus treated tax collectors. (Hopefully, I’ll get around to some of others too.)
Something we are hearing a lot about in the realm of bridging the gap brings up an important issue that concerns me a lot and ultimately impacts church governance: the level at which Jesus involved himself with sinners.
He clearly loved them, got close to them and was deeply concerned with their issues, but I do not see that he was ever immersed—a term frequently used to describe the “incarnate” Jesus—in their sub-cultures. That concept might be based more on speculation than scriptural accounts, and completely off track.
I can see Jesus having dinner with many types of people, including Zaccheus the chief tax collector, and attending weddings and such, but I do not see him frequenting and “hanging out” at social gatherings such as homosexual bars, hook-up clubs, drug parties, etc., to spread the good news.
Seeing Zaccheus’ heart when the man climbed up the Sycamore tree is what influenced Jesus to lodge with him. Biblical accounts of Jesus’ involvement with sinners showed humility and an eagerness on the part of the individual for repentance and transformation.
The Bible depicts Jesus’ as quickly addressing issues of the heart—including sin; like with the women at the well, for example. And explains that it was the multitudes who came out to see him as he traveled about the villages preaching. Jesus himself declared, “come to me…and I will give you…”
These accounts seem to contrast a picture of Jesus’ going out and immersing himself in sinful communities, which may be very far from an accurate portrayal.
I do not necessarily want to discourage it, but would urge caution to believers who choose to enter sinful any arenas to witness. (This is not limited to homosexuality.) What some people are strong enough to handle may easily turn out to be a stumbling block for others.
July 1, 2009 at 9:43 am
Kumbaya my Lord…. kumbaya …..
The church I attend is actually seeker sensitive and diversity is one of it’s core values. That being said the Pastor at the church is also the wife of the Executive Director for Living Waters Canada… an inner healing prayer discipleship ministry I’ve been involved with.
My church has a unique way of how the church operates and one thing I admire about this church is that in it’s seeker sensitive church atmosphere the pastors are not afraid to tackle tough issues like homosexuality and not just homosexuality but will teach on what God intends for human sexuality as well as with sexual ethics. They call sin what it is but are creating an environment of grace. The church is also sensitive to those who have been spiritually abused by the church. It really is a church that knows how to do church with such a diverse community. That’s one of the main reason why I’m attending this church.
In regards to your blog post here I’ve enjoyed reading through your post and I’ll be sure to keep coming back because I like your blog.
July 1, 2009 at 10:06 am
One more thing … sorry though I just didn’t know how else to let you know that I fixed the links in my blog posts and if you hadn’t checked out the links I provided in my blogpost I’d encourage you to.
There is one particular Vimeo that if you hadn’t been able to link to the site then I’d encourage you to because I think you’d find the Vimeo interesting to watch and it might fit in with the context of this blog post of yours.
July 1, 2009 at 9:48 pm
hey Sarah, glad to hear you are involved with Living Waters! I went through it about 11 years ago and was on leadership for 2 years. I am close friends with the woman who heads up the LW program in our city and she has such a heart & passion for this ministry and God has blessed her with a faithful team to support her ministry! And you are fortunate to be part of a supportive and grace filled church- God bless!!
July 2, 2009 at 7:59 am
Generally speaking, I think conservative churches should treat non-celibate gay members in the same manner they treat members who engage in premarital sex or choose to leave their marriage (without sufficient reason). While some churches do maintain strict moral policies, there seems to be a double-standard how gay and straight sexual/relationship ’sins’ are handled.
It seems many conservative churches are much more sympathetic to members who have broken their marriage vows or are sexually active before marriage. I suppose it could be argued that conservative churches are showing grace toward divorced and sexual-active singles and therefore should be able to show the same grace toward gay members.
However, my cynical suspicion is that many conservative churches turn a blind eye to straight ’sins’ out of fear of alienating their members/consumers who may shop at more accommodating churches. And yet these same churches are willing to speak out against gay members so they can appear to maintain sexual morality while only alienating a small group of potential members.
July 2, 2009 at 9:57 am
Trinidad– I appreciate your perspective. Its true that in many parts of the world, the debate over homosexuality in the church is non-existent. It is very much a North American, Western issue. Though, I did find it intriguing that even in places as far away and small as Nepal, there has been gay activism and I wonder how that will eventually affect the church there or where you live. I think many Americans tend to think that whatever view we have is progressive and assume that the “rest of the world”–all “sensible” people would naturally get it that homosexuality is natural and acceptable. When, in reality, many other countries and people groups think Western culture, including views on homosexuality, are astonishing.
Grace–I do think we have to be careful about who we are allowing ourselves to be influenced by. If someone has a drinking problem they are trying to recover from, then doing bar ministry is probably not the best choice. We all have weaknesses and strengths that have to be taken into consideration in the type of ministry we do.
Nevertheless, I do not find support for your view that Jesus did not immerse himself. Scripture refers to Jesus as the Light that came into a dark world. God, the Perfect and Holy One, putting on human flesh to walk in dark places–for the very person of shining a light in those dark places. If that is not immersion, I don’t know what is. So, also Scripture says we are sent just as Jesus was sent into the world. We are lights called to shine in dark places. So, what would it look like for Christians to go into dark places?
Jesus never held himself aloof, he is constantly portrayed as engaging with people–of all stripes–including eating dinner with Pharisees whom he at one point called “vipers.” As for the idea that Jesus would not hang out in a gay bar, I question that too. In fact, his associations with certain sinners got him accused of being a drunkard! (Luke 7:33-34).
Sarah–I think its great how your church is able to balance grace and truth. Gracefully discussing important topics of sexual ethics without avoiding it or being antagonistic. I also enjoyed reading your blog post. I have not had a chance to watch the vimeo video yet, but I will do so.
Norm–I agree with you that there needs to be consistency. And I agree that many churches do turn a blind eye to certain heterosexual sexual sins. Though, the communities I have been part of have been fairly consistent. In fact, the seminary I went to declined to give a student his M.Div degree after he got his girlfriend pregnant out of wedlock (just before graduation). The student even sued the school over it, but the seminary would not budge. So, I have seen churches and schools that I have been in address heterosexual sins as well. Though, I would say that divorce is not often discussed. On that note, Scot McKnight wrote on that very topic a couple of weeks ago. You can see his thoughts here: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2009/06/the_story_calle.html
July 2, 2009 at 11:34 am
Hi Karen,
“. . . So, I have seen churches and schools that I have been in address heterosexual sins as well. Though, I would say that divorce is not often discussed. . . .”
I speculate that many conservative Christians do not discuss divorce in the same way they discuss gay ’sin’ out of consideration and sensitivity to divorced friends and family. Nearly everyone probably knows a divorced person and can be more sympathetic to the complexities of a troubled marriage. A crumbling relationship is somewhat easier to witness and understand than internal same-sex attractions.
With younger folks growing-up with more openly gay peers, surveys would seem to show that younger generations of conservative Christians may be more willing to show the same consideration and sensitivity in discussing their gay friends and family.
July 2, 2009 at 11:45 am
Norm–how would you envision that playing out in a practical way in terms of church policy. For example, even though many churches may not discuss the issue of divorce openly, many of them do not actually approve of all divorces. Also, there is a difference in that Scripture gives exceptions to allow for divorce in certain circumstances. So, not all divorce is prohibited.
But, in terms of showing “consideration and sensitivity” to gay parishioners (who are in relationships) in the same way as those who divorce (and remarry) without biblical cause—what would that look like for a church that has conservative sexual ethics. For example, photos in the church directory or leading small groups, etc.
July 2, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Exactly!
I agree with everything you say here.
(As regards Adventists in particular, gay members are so deep in the closet that I could not point to any comparative situation. Out of 20 million or so members worldwide and about 1 million in the United States, the main gay Adventist activist group has only about 1500 members–and that includes straight supporters! I know we still actively discipline members for issues of sexual immorality though. I have seen it on more than one occasion.)
July 2, 2009 at 2:33 pm
And that group has been around for more than 30 years!
Many of its international posts appear to have never been filled either.
July 2, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I seriously doubt that a homosexual attending a conservative church is going to make parishioners aware of their lifestyle. I have attended different churches and attend two now, they both would not turn a blind eye to divorce issues and other evidence of open sinning. I hope there will be some pastors commenting on this post, otherwise Karen are you going to open this discussion up more?
July 2, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Karen,
Sometimes just associating with someone can cause others to find you “guilty by association” so I can see how Jesus could easily be accused of being a drunkard, among other things. They were so offended by him in the first place it probably didn’t take much to find something to accuse him with.
And I have no doubt that Jesus came as a light into a dark world, reached out to sinners and got close to them.
Paul tells us, “Be imitators of me, just as I am of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:1). And then he goes on to say:
-Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)
-But now I am writing to you to stop associating with any so-called brother if he is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunk, or a robber. You must even stop eating with someone like that. (1 Corinthians 5:11)
The latter verses are in sharp contrast to “immersion”. And I would imagine that the writers of the Epistles knew much more about what it meant to be an “imitator of Christ” than we do.
I am not even suggesting, as Paul did, that we do not associate or eat with Christians who are sexually immoral, etc. I have no problem with doing those things and am very friendly toward gays (unless they’re snobby).
We are at liberty to do whatever we want to. I also have no problem with reaching out and witnessing, but I do have strong concerns about the concept of “immersion” in sinful hangouts. I’m not as sure as other people that it’s even what we are asked by God to do.
You don’t necessarily have to have a known weakness to something (such as alcoholism) to be vulnerable to it. By nature, people are very easily influenced and can fall at any time. And also there is the concern about the influence it will bring to the congregation or fellowship, if not the person who witnessed to them.
We may not think that Paul’s instructions are relevant, but deep consideration should be given to the reason he wrote those words. Again, we are at liberty to do as we wish.
July 3, 2009 at 12:02 am
Hi Karen,
“. . . But, in terms of showing “consideration and sensitivity” to gay parishioners (who are in relationships) in the same way as those who divorce (and remarry) without biblical cause—what would that look like for a church that has conservative sexual ethics. . . “
I can understand why conservative churches would not want to recognize gay marriages in a church directory or qualify a non-celibate gay person to leadership. I would hope conservative churches would hold straight members to the same standard such as not recognize straight marriages that result from non-biblical divorce or qualifying non-celibate single straight members to leadership roles.
I not sure why gay married couples, remarried-unbiblically-divorced couples, and sexually-active singles would choose membership in conservative churches that have doctrines they disagree with. I suspect they join these churches because they see their churches as more than just a set of doctrines, but a community and culture.
July 3, 2009 at 12:29 am
I have heard at events where people would balance out the talk and address the divorce and re-marriage issue. It is true that it appears to be more socially acceptable to deal with in the church with a straight couple living together then for a gay couple to be at church and making it known to everyone they’re in a committed relationship.
But I’m thinking that this unbalanced response that we see right now will change in time as people in our generation are more open to talking about homosexuality. Saying that homosexuality is wrong is no longer a good enough response. I believe many pastors just didn’t want to deal with it and so the quick response is just to say the bible says it’s wrong therefore it is without any further explaining on the topic. However, that might have worked in the 40’s and 50’s but we’re different times and the church really needs to learn how best to respond to issues in our day and age. Just like the Apostle Paul when he adapted himself into the culture of the gentiles in order to be the Apostle to the gentiles.
July 3, 2009 at 7:37 am
“I do not see him frequenting and “hanging out” at social gatherings such as homosexual bars, hook-up clubs, drug parties, etc., to spread the good news.” I agree because He was the most intolerant individual that every lived. The religious people hated Him because He didn’t tolerate their nonsense. He didn’t tolerate everyone’s beliefs/views, and His Bride doesn’t have to either. Based on the Gospels, people ran towards Him because of what He was saying. He stood true to the Truth. We are told to abstain from all appearances of evil, there are many other places to be light, to stand out.
July 3, 2009 at 9:53 am
I didn’t even know there was a gay Adventists group, but I suppose nearly every denomination has some gay group.
I certainly agree that many conservative churches maintain a strict sexual/relationship doctrine for all members. However, I have seen some conservative churches — particularly evangelical and megachurches — that seem willing to overlook unbiblical divorce and premarital sexual activity in order to be more consumer-friendly.
July 3, 2009 at 8:21 pm
This is one of those issues people cross their fingers about and hope they never have to deal with. lol
July 4, 2009 at 8:40 am
It is so interesting that we have gotten on the topic of divorces and remarriages within the church that do not have a biblical basis. I recently disclosed my SSA to one of the leaders at my church and our conversation took an interesting turn that actually turned into a brief but somewhat heated debate as to how the church treats non-biblical remarriages versus the standard they expect those with SSA to upheld, celibacy. I was basically told that the church should extend grace to a couple who remarries for non-biblical reasons and that they can ask God for forgiveness for their adultery. When I inquired if the church was willing to extend that same grace to the gay couple who chooses to not remain celibate and if they too could ask God for forgiveness for ‘their particular sin’?, I was met with an appalling ‘NO’ and that these situations are different!?! The person I was speaking with I believe has a doctorate in theology and they threatened to start pulling out the Greek and all that stuff- it was pretty obvious that they were missing my point. Fortunately the debate was short lived as we both recognized it was going down a bad road. In the end I explained why I asked my question and for them to at least acknowledge with me that for the past quarter of a century many christians have grossly abused their reasons for getting divorced only to turn around and remarry and nary a head is turned anymore by the church or it’s members. My frustration right now with the church in this area is to at least be consistent and to not expect one group to ‘toe the line’ while it turns a blind eye to another group which clearly falls under the bible’s definition of sexual sin and/or adultery!
Karen maybe you have already addressed this issue in a previous post but if not I would love to see a future post about this – as far as how the church seems to have a huge double standard in this area. I also plan to do some of my own personal study about divorce and remarriage when it involves a non-biblical basis because from what I have read in scripture it appears to be a no-brainer.
July 4, 2009 at 9:46 am
Amazing Grace: What was your church policy, or better yet, would your pastor comment on this topic here? I haven’t met with my pastor yet.
July 4, 2009 at 11:19 am
Hi Di5,
Didn’t Jesus dine with a prostitute, a tax collector, and other ‘unclean’ folks? Jesus’ seemed to save his greatest intolerance and anger for the self-righteous and hypocritical.
That said, I’m not sure anyone in this discussion has implied that Jesus would hang-out out at gay bars, sex clubs, or drug parties. It seems you’re attempting to perpetuate a very narrow stereotype that the supposed ‘gay lifestyle’ is about gay clubs, sexual promiscuity, and illicit drug use. There are certainly many other gay social gatherings (churches, bowling leagues, festivals, etc.). However, I would also like to think that Jesus would seek those in the most need, so maybe he would meet people at their worse moment of self-destruction (i.e. substance abuse, desperate sex, etc.).
July 4, 2009 at 12:05 pm
My comment was one geared to the exchange between Karen and Grace….see Karen’s answer. Dining at a house is different then what I am commenting to.
July 4, 2009 at 4:18 pm
actually I did not meet with the senior pastor, just two church staff members as I go to a mega church. The one I had the debate with is a woman with the title ‘Reverand’ and on occasion preaches from the pulpit. I was a little taken aback by her comment considering she shared during our meeting that the church receives hate mail whenever she preaches from the pulpit because she is a woman. I would’ve thought that she would’ve been at least a little more sympathetic considering she personally knows how it feels to be on the receiving end of yet another controversial issue in the church- women pastors. To give her credit, I really believe I took her off guard and I don’t think she’s ever been challenged to look at this issue in the perspective that I presented. The good news was she was very kind and supportive in regards to my disclosure and she has already put me in touch with some great connections within our church that I am very hopeful will lead to more education about SSA and more openess about this topic in our church. Who knows, maybe I could encourage her to post about this issue with greater explanation as to where she was coming from but she is a very busy woman and has lots on her plate right
now.
July 5, 2009 at 12:40 am
Norm,
In response to your comment to Di5 based on her response to the comments between Karen and I…
The issue being addressed was not whether Jesus would reach out to those most in need but the “level” of involvement he would have with sinners (active and unrepentant). I think many people misinterpret that based on some of his associations with people who had a reputation for sin.
Past sin does not mean that someone is actively engaged in sin, or plans to continue in sin. Jesus was “accused” of hanging out with sinners. I don’t recall off hand that the scriptures indicate that the people he really got involved with were currently living in sin and unrepentant (that’s the key word).
The NT tells us to be “like Christ” and also to not associate with sinners. So what does that tell us about Christ’s behavior? A lot.
He reached out to everyone, but the Biblical accounts indicate a level of repentance and desire for transformation on the part of the individuals he hung out with. So there is a big distinction. He wasn’t investing a lot of his time hanging out with unrepentant sinners on their turf waiting for them to possibly have a change of heart.
For someone to be continuing in sin in the presence of Christ it would have been akin to the hypocritical, self-righteous attitude you are referring to that turned him off to the Pharisees. Di5 made a good point about how intolerant he was for that.
It doesn’t make sense that he would have rejected the sin of the Pharisees, but accepted the sin of tax collectors and prostitutes.
As for the stereotype of the homosexual lifestyle there is truth behind it, but I am in no way suggesting that it fits all gays. Historically, nightclubs and bars have been the primary social gathering place of homosexuals. It may have a lot to do with the fact that they are a minority with fewer places than heterosexuals to socialize openly among their own peer group, and having a lack of other close ties in society due to the stigma.
Andrew Marin, who claims to have “immersed” himself in the gay community, describes it as such. According to his own testimony, he connected with the gay community by hanging out at the clubs.
I myself was “immersed” in the gay social scene for two years and was a part of it all—in the clubs literally almost nightly, drinking, using drugs, stumbling into dangerous situations with dubious characters, and engaging in promiscuous sex. So I know the goings on.
That is not to say it is the lifestyle of all gays or that it doesn’t exist in the heterosexual world too. But for whatever reasons the percentage is higher for gays, especially males.
The whole point was not to perpetuate a stereotype, it was to address a concern around an issue. And it really had more to do with the “level” of involvement than whether or not anyone should ever enter a gay bar to witness.
July 6, 2009 at 9:48 am
All--Just a couple thoughts on the discussion so far. The divorce issue is important. Indeed there is a double standard. But, this is like saying, “Well everyone else is doing it.” Two wrongs don’t make a right. So it can be a bit of a distraction from the real point and that is how shall the church address the issue of homosexuality in church policy? I would like to go back to that.
It would be great to see some practical application. So, a gay couple that you absolutely love with two young children are coming to your church. They are upstanding people. They know the Bible well and love God. And they want to lead a small group at your church–as a couple. What do you tell them? And in what manner do you tell them? Do you send them an e-mail? Meet with them? Preach a biblical exegesis about how they are living in sin? Tell them to leave the church? Try to listen to their concerns and what is going on in their hearts?
What about the photo directory? What do you do when a gay couple with their two kids step up to the camera to get their picture taken? Do you stop them there in line? Do you have the picture taken and don’t include it? Why or why not? What would you say to them? How do you explain in to their kids?
What about a Christian who, from his studies, sincerely does not believe anything is wrong with homosexuality and he wants to continue worshiping at your congregation? Do you “Remove the wicked man from among you!” as Paul the Apostle suggests?
Let’s discuss practical church policy.
Grace, you write: “The NT tells us to be “like Christ” and also to not associate with sinners. So what does that tell us about Christ’s behavior? A lot.”
Actually, Paul says,”I wrote to you not to associate with immoral people. I did not mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world . . . For what have I to do with judging outsiders?” (I Corinthians 5:9-12).
Also, Psalm 139 says “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold You are there . . .”
God’s Spirit is everywhere. So, how can there be a place that he is not–including the dark places?
Also, you say Jesus was mostly interested in hanging out with those who desired to repent. Yet, Jesus did not come to hang out in a world that particularly desired to repent. In fact, the world killed him–not exactly a repentant spirit. But he hung out with us anyway.
And I John says that we did not love God, but that he loved us first. We did not seek him. There was no one good. No one repentant. That was the state we were in when God decided to first love us. He decided to die for us “while we were yet sinners.” Still unrepentant sinners. That is when he, not only said he loved us, but demonstrated his love for us–by coming to hang out with us in human flesh and reaping our abuse.
Norm–I agree with you that there are a lot of stereotypes about GLBT people and what they are actually doing in their “hang outs.” I never used drugs. Was never promiscuous. Most of my lesbian friends, like me, rarely ever went to gay bars. Though, we did go hiking or hang out making dinner together at someone’s house, or playing guitar or going out for breakfast.
I’ve only been to a gay bar once–when my straight friends wanted to go–and the reason was because the gay bar was cleaner and less of a meat market than the straight dance club down the street. It was a pretty benign place. Didn’t feel much different than eating out at a restaurant. I also don’t think bars are so scary and bad because I’ve never been much of a drinker. Alcohol isn’t a big deal to me. If I go to a bar, its usually because some of my friends want to play pool, there is a good band playing, or they have good hamburgers or something.
I recently asked a friend of mine why some ex-gays are so aggressive in pronouncing how awful the gay “lifestyle” is and my friend mentioned that sometimes when something tempts you, you have to make it out in your mind as being so awful and bad so you won’t want to go back to it. I think there is some truth to that. Thus, the reactivity I see sometimes.
Though, on the other hand I appreciate those who have come from this background and instead of becoming legalistic and reactive use their past experiences to bring grace, compassion and understanding to the issue.
July 6, 2009 at 11:15 am
Karen,
I hear what you are saying. I realize not everyone’s experience with the gay are the same, but that wasn’t so much even the point.
You and many others, such as Wendy Gritter and Andrew Marin, have a lot to share about “bridging the gap” and encouraging people to engage in dialog and relationship with the homosexual community. It doesn’t seem reasonable to encourage this without addressing the fallout. Yet you seem to be asking more questions in that area than providing any answers. And I haven’t really seen any from them either.
In a previous post you gave an example of an adulterer who saw nothing wrong in what he was doing. Your pastor asked the man to leave the congregation and told him that he would not be welcomed back until he changed his ways. You stated that you agreed with the pastor’s decision.
It would be helpful if you could explain why you personally believed the pastor made the right decision. And whether homosexuality deserves special consideration?
And in light of these things, I was wondering if you clarify your own objectives and methodology with the process of bridge building. Some of the questions I presented in another post are very important and will no doubt come up and have to be dealt with:
1) Is the intent of bridging the gap to bring practicing and openly gay affirming homosexuals under the same roof as the main congregation for regular ongoing worship and fellowship? Wouldn’t that chip away at doctrine and influence others?
2) Does bridging the gap involve “love bombing” homosexuals until we are finally convinced they do not intend to ever change their beliefs and lifestyle, and then tell them they are no longer welcome?
3) Should we refer them to another church that embraces what we consider to be sin? It’s unlikely Christ would compromise in that way.
4) Should we tell them that they are welcome as long as they keep quiet about their lifestyle and beliefs?
The subject of whether anger is an odd way of expressing love might deserve a post in itself and may have more to do with church policy about treatment of others than homosexuality. But a couple of things I would like to point out is how often the scriptures use, as a literary tool, the human emotion of anger to depict God’s “feelings” toward Israel, whom He loved so dearly and gave His son to die for; and the example of Christ constructing a cord to use as a whip, overturning the tables in the temple and forcibly chasing people out.
You suggest that the expression of anger is an act of self-interest. And though that may be true more often than not, as a parent I can attest it is not “always” the case.
When Christ made the decision to throw these people out he also had to weigh the needs of these individuals’ “interests” against the need of the body as a whole.
Does this relate to verses in the NT telling us not to associate with brothers who are sinners, nor to be unequally yoked with unbelievers? It is important to note that these verses, respectively, give instruction relating to our associations with both believers and outsiders.
How does all of this impact immersion in the gay community and the proposal for infinite dialog—such as we see among the diverse viewpoints of bloggers participating on the syncrobog? Is it possible that getting too close really serves more as a means of incorporating an acceptance of homosexual philosophy in the church and ultimately influencing others to choose the lifestyle?
Do we risk hurting other church members, or the church as a whole, for the interests of those who choose homosexuality? Where should the lines be drawn? Where would Christ have drawn them? Where would the disciples (writers of the Epistles) who told us to be “Christ-like” have drawn them?
Can you offer guidance in this area along with the encouragement to build bridges and engage in deep dialog with the homosexual community?
As a final note, we are all in need of grace. I wish that we didn’t even have an issue such as this to deal with among members of the body. I’ve experienced enough rejection in my life since early childhood and onward, so I know how it feels, and I’m not one for exclusion of anybody for any reason. Believe me I do not have an axe to grind with homosexuals as people. But is it wrong for me to also have a concern for the church as a whole, or with our families?
Isn’t this is the reasoning behind why we are instructed to limit our associations with sinners. It is not in any way for the sake of judgment of the individual. That is God’s job.
July 6, 2009 at 11:31 am
Hi Karen,
“. . . So, a gay couple that you absolutely love with two young children are coming to your church. They are upstanding people. They know the Bible well and love God. And they want to lead a small group at your church–as a couple. What do you tell them? . . .”
An e-mail or letter seems very impersonal and lazy. I would hope a church leader would at least make the effort to sit down, frankly discuss the church’s doctrine regarding gay relationships, and hear why the gay couple is attending the church.
“. . . What about the photo directory? What do you do when a gay couple with their two kids step up to the camera to get their picture taken? . . .”
It would seem cruel to create a public conflict by confronting a gay family with their kids. I would hope church leaders would allow the photo session and privately confront the gay parents. I would also hope church leaders would make a photo directory exception when children are involved whether they have gay parents, unmarried parents, or unbiblically-divorced parent(s). Undermining a child’s family just to maintain church doctrine seems cruel and short sighted.
From personal experience, I can affirm that it does cause harm for a child to hear their parents are immoral. Until I discovered that my mother did have a biblically-sufficient reasons to divorce my father, I felt I and my family was somehow morally deficient compared to other families at a church we attended.
That said, there is no easy or comforting way to tell kids that their parents’ relationship is immoral and against church doctrine. Similarly, there is no easy or comforting way to tell kids their non-Christian friends and family are eternally damned and they too will be damned if they don’t believe the right doctrines.
“. . . What about a Christian who, from his studies, sincerely does not believe anything is wrong with homosexuality and he wants to continue worshiping at your congregation? . . .”
Many churches — especially evangelical churches — strive to welcome everyone. So, I can’t imagine a non-disruptive attendee being asked to leave for privately disagreeing with a church’s doctrine. So, it probably depends on how vocal the member is in questioning the church’s doctrine and whether the member is willing to accept the difference in doctrine.
Churches, whether conservative or liberal, do have the right and obligation to its members to remove disruptive/disrespectful attendees. In an extreme example, I used to be a member of a church that eventually (after years of patience, discussions, etc.) had to file a restraining order against a long-time attendee whose activism was increasingly disrupting Sunday services. We were very conflicted about the legal action since we strived to be a liberal church that truly welcomed everyone regardless of faith or doctrine.
***
BTW, I hope I didn’t overact regarding my reaction to the supposed ‘gay lifestyle’. Having learned from my ex-gay experience what the ‘gay lifestyle’ supposedly was before coming-out, I’m surprised how incredibly boring my actual gay lifestyle today is. I’ve rarely ever go to gay bars. I’ve never taken drugs or abused alcohol. And, ironically, only learned about and had an interest in sex clubs while in the ‘ex-gay lifestyle’. Once I left the ‘ex-gay lifestyle’, the stereotypical ‘gay lifestyle’ activities no longer held their taboo attraction for me. Similarly, I’m probably just a guilty of portraying the ‘ex-gay’/Christian-’fundamentalist’ lifestyle just as negatively.
July 6, 2009 at 7:43 pm
“The divorce issue is important. Indeed there is a double standard. But, this is like saying, “Well everyone else is doing it.” Two wrongs don’t make a right. So it can be a bit of a distraction from the real point and that is how shall the church address the issue of homosexuality in church policy?”
Hi Karen,
I mean no disrepect by what I’m about to say but how can you ask us to discuss ‘practical church policy’ in regards to an openly homosexual couple, when most churches, or at least the ones I’ve gone to, for the most part, do not ‘practically’ apply church policy to lots of sin, not just divorce? Not to be a cynic here but I believe, just as they softened on divorce, I believe a time is coming, if it hasn’t already, that many churches will soften their views in regards to homosexuality. I guess I don’t have much faith that the church will have consistency, even in matters of openly gay couples, simply based upon their past history with the divorce issue. So for me personally I think this is a mute point. My intent was not that I believe ‘everyone else is doing it’ or ‘two wrongs make a right’, I know better, but rather I believe the church does not do it’s ‘due diligence’ when it comes to upholding church policy.
My sincere apologies for straying off topic and I promise to just read and not make any more comments about divorce while we are on this post.
July 7, 2009 at 9:13 am
Hi Norm,
I appreciate your perspective and agree with much of what you have said. I also agree that an e-mail is impersonal. In fact, a few weeks ago a pastor asked me for some feedback about a particular situation and I strongly encouraged him to meet with the individuals rather than sending an e-mail. Especially because this particular couple had underlying concerns such as whether LGBT could be safe at the church. Its important to listen and hear even if one ultimately decides that having certain stipulations regarding lay leadership is important for that community. If I were the pastor, I would meet with that couple over coffee, listen to where they are coming from and then also clarify the church’s desire to maintain certain ethics. They would still be welcome to be there, but there would be limitations–as there would be if I decided to go to an MCC with my particular worldview. That can certainly be disappointing for the individuals involved, but I don’t believe pastors (whatever persuasion) need to apologize for the values of the group that they deem good for the community.
As for the photo directory. I completely agree that someone should not be singled out in front of everyone. It should be discussed in private with that couple. One of the solutions is that churches need to be more transparent regarding their sexual ethics. I know a lot of seeker sensitive churches that don’t want to put anything in writing so as not scare anyone off. I mentioned this to a friend of mine in the GLBT community and she was really disturbed by this because then a gay person has no clue what to expect. If its clear upfront, a gay couple will be more likely to bow out of the directory knowing the church’s position.
As for the children–that is something that really troubles me and I don’t have good answers for. Like you, I am very concerned about children getting caught in the middle of disagreements between adults and being ostracized in some way. Kids pick up on these kinds of things. It disturbs me when I hear of Christians who don’t let their kids play with the children of a gay couple, etc. These children should not have to endure any of that.
July 7, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Hi Karen,
“. . . One of the solutions is that churches need to be more transparent regarding their sexual ethics. I know a lot of seeker sensitive churches that don’t want to put anything in writing so as not scare anyone off. I mentioned this to a friend of mine in the GLBT community and she was really disturbed by this because then a gay person has no clue what to expect. . . .”
I completely agree. It may be an unfair, single-issue litmus test, but the first thing I want to know about a church is its doctines regarding gay relationships.
It seems many churches hang “All Are Welcome!” banners and some even portray themselves as alternative, non-traditional churches, but actually discretely maintain the same, conservative doctrines of most conservative churches. A church with discriminatory policies regarding sexual orientation, relationships, genders, or faith should be honest and straight forward. Otherwise it seems very misleading and purposely deceptive.
July 8, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Hi Karen,
I have a specific example of how this successfully played out at my old church in Chicago. Keep in mind that Chicago is a liberal town and the average age at this church hovers around 30. While the church takes a conservative theological stance when it comes to sexual ethics (and so do most of its congregants), people aren’t as freaked out by homosexuality as they might be in some suburban church. You’ll even see lots of folks from this church at the Pride parade because Pride happens to be the event to go to in Chicago that particular weekend. It should also come as no surprise that the church has a close relationship with the Marin Foundation and strongly supports what Andrew is doing.
That being said, a lesbian couple sat down with a staff member of this church and basically said “We love your church -the teaching, the worship and the community -but are a couple and do not feel spiritually convicted to dissolve this relationship. Do you have any problem with us being a member of your community as long as we agree to disagree on this one issue?”
The staff member basically told them that they are more than welcome to be part of the community but part of ‘agreeing to disagree’ would have to be the couples’ acceptance of the church’s policy prohibiting them from having any kind of leadership role.
Apparently, it worked out pretty well. The girls even joined a couple’s small group and were well accepted at the church.
When I went to this church, I was pretty vocal about my Side B status and would tell anyone who’d listen why I was not trying to change my orientation and how groups like Exodus and Focus on the Family got it wrong.
I suppose an ironic benefit of the gay rights movement is that conservatives struggling with SSA aren’t treated like freaks the way they would have been a few decades ago…
July 8, 2009 at 8:57 pm
I asked and got a copy of my church’s constitution and their by-laws too in Word format. But first I want to write what my senior pastor said on someone’s question regarding homosexuals being discriminated against. He said, “Gay-bashing is wrong. They should have equal protection. They are not a minority group. If they come and want to go further in the church, then they must obey the Bible. Sexual issues were to be addressed by church leaders. We are to be pure people. Jesus bought the church through His blood. I Cor. 6. Paul said to flee all sexual sins. Leave it behind to obey the Word of God. How can you combat Homophobia in the church? You can’t. Grace church tries and Grace is committed to sexual purity. We don’t compromise.” He then read I Cor. 6:11 and said, “such were some of you”. I wrote that as fast as I could in church that Sunday. Regarding the photo directory, the church hasn’t done one for years but through asking I was told that you had to be a member to be in the photo directory. As for becoming a member, there were more requirements than I ever remembered. The church requires that you go through a membership class, sign a covenant, be interviewed, then voted on at presentation. The thing that blew me away was the section on Unity and Support under member responsibilities. Members were to preserve unity, pray for one another, no gossiping, etc. Under the Discipline section, this is part of it: 1. Purpose – Discipline is the exercise of the authority given the Church by the Lord Jesus Christ to instruct and guide its members and to promote its purity and welfare. The purpose of discipline in this Church shall be to restore the erring member to fellowship and to maintain the purity of the body.
2. Misconduct – Members who bring reproach to Christ and His Church by persisting in conduct unbecoming to a Christian shall be admonished and counseled by the Pastoral Staff and/or Elders. If this admonition and counsel fails to restore the offenders, they shall be subject to discipline by the Church membership upon recommendation of the Elders and a majority vote of qualified members present and voting at a regular or special business meeting of the Church. Once this process of discipline has begun on account of misconduct, members may not resign their membership until the process is complete.
So that is a little insight as to what I think would occur in my church. I have attended other churches and knew they had policies but never read them. However, the Christ-centered churches that I was exposed to did not turn a blind eye to known sinning. My own dad had to step down and leave when his marriage was in turmoil.
July 9, 2009 at 9:46 am
P-thanks for sharing your thoughts. It sounds like the church you attended in Chicago is where I am currently at with things. The one thing I have not resolved and I would be curious as to your thoughts is where does church discipline come in? Is church discipline an archaic idea? Do we do people a disservice when we fail to emphasize the importance of certain values for the good of those involved in sin if we truly believe that sin harms those involved in it? When and how would we speak into a gay or lesbian couple’s life that is attending the church? And are there reasons for how we engage and respond with Christians who are practicing and affirming homosexuality, than say a couple of college students having pre-marital sex? Thoughts?
Di5–Thanks for sharing where your church is at–it is helpful to actually see what kinds of policies are out there. The one challenge I see on the issue of homosexuality and church discipline is that some Christians are confused about whether it is right or wrong. Its one thing to enact church discipline for someone engaged in obvious grievous behavior–such as an adultery–where its hard for even those involved to deny they have done something wrong even if they are obstinate about it. Its another thing to try to enact church discipline with someone who sincerely believes that sexual orientation is like race and gender and that there is nothing sinful about a monogamous same-sex marriage.
Also, as I mentioned in the first bullet point of this post–the idea that the term Christian means very different things to different people and that includes those who have very different views and approaches to Scripture itself. Perhaps the first place to start is not with the issue of homosexuality in such instances, but addressing the deeper theological and spiritual concepts of God and Scripture? I am not sure.
July 9, 2009 at 2:54 pm
You know… I think what’s important here is the grace of God and His redemptive work being central to everything we do in our church’s from church policies to the lifestyles that we promote in the church.
What are the lifestyles that we promote in our churches? For the majority of our church’s we want to promote the “Christian lifestyle” and this can be so different from person to person.
Is the church we attend promoting homosexual relationships? And if not then we still need to keep the grace of God and His redemptive work central to the choices we make and the responses we give to those who might challenges some of these fundamental beliefs and convictions that most church’s have.
To the gay couple with children attending church and wanting their picture in the church directory? The question is, what standards do we have in our church’s. Do we refuse another couple living together with their children to be posted in the church directory? Do we allow for the single person who goes to the bar every weekend getting drunk and stoned to be placed in the church directory? Is there a set of rules and regulations the church has in regards to allowing people to be in the church directory or not?
I think in all fairness the church would have to look at how the church responds to other issues like the heterosexual couple living together outside of marriage regardless if they have children or not.
I once was asked a question in regards to Music Pastoral Administration where I was asked a difficult question about who I should allow to be apart of the worship team or not. It was a tough question to answer for sure and I think it would apply here as well.
Some church’s would not allow for people acting out in “sinful behavior” to be apart of the worship team and would place a set of rules and regulations on each person who wishes to participate.
Every one of us wants to feel as though we contribute something to our communities and to many of us whether gay or straight that involves our church communities.
I think the argument with the church directory is a mute point. If the church is actively pursuing to reach out preemptively and in a way that does not compromise their fundamental beliefs and convictions and do so preemptively the church would inevitably be faced with some of these decisions because the gay and lesbian people will start attending the church because they will feel as though they’re apart of the community.
I believe that when it comes to leadership roles within our church’s it becomes a different issue altogether because if our church has a fundamental belief and conviction that homosexual behavior is sinful we would hope that the people in the leadership level would if nothing else be committed to living a celibate life. And like any other person stepping into a place of leadership it’s achieved by a few different ways.
First — the individual reflects the core values and beliefs of that church community.
Second — the individual is committed to learning and growing in ones faith.
Third — the individual has shown a level of maturity in ones faith.
Fourth — the individual would be in unity with the church’s core beliefs and values and reflect that in their leadership as well as in their teachings.
It then ceases to be about the person’s past and the issues that the person has to reckon with and more so about the individual reckoning with life issues and if they are coming into agreement and unity with their church’s core values and beliefs and in the place of leadership how well they can walk out the church’s core values and beliefs. I say this because, at the end of the day it doesn’t matter where the person comes from but rather the persons maturity in their faith and ability come into agreement by living a life that is an example for others to follow, whereby their lifestyle becomes a reflection of the church’s core values and beliefs.
Being apart of a community is something entirely different then being apart of the church’s leadership within that community.
For example … in the context of a Post Gay testimony would the Metropolitan church allow me to begin a bible study and teach without accountability?
I think the church would want to know if I’d be coming to that church and willing to come into unity with their core values and beliefs before I step into a place of leadership within the Metropolitan church.
I believe if our church’s core values and beliefs is that God does not bless same sex union and that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful then we’d want for the individual to show the same respect in that if they desire to be involved in leadership positions, are they coming into unity with the church’s core values and beliefs? And if the answer is ‘no’ then I don’t personally believe that the person should be in leadership of that church but would I disfellowship the person or take away privileges that involve being apart of the church community? No.
And I also believe that if the individual wants to lead a small group it would have to depend on the individual person and their relationship with the church and church’s leadership and how the individual person show’s the church they are coming into agreement with the church’s core values and beliefs.
As for myself there is an environment that does not help me in the direction that I am taking my life which includes going to night clubs and bars. I cannot go into those places whether it is filled with gays and lesbians or straight people regardless as to who the patrons are I cannot go into that environment. I have no problem having lunch or dinner in pubs and for me, it doesn’t matter if the patrons are all gay or all straight or mixture… a pub is a pub. However, there was this one point I was looking at this painting of this man and woman both nude. It was right in front of me and I just couldn’t keep looking at the nude painting. So, I asked the gay couple I was eating dinner with, inside this gay pub if I could change seats with one of them so that I wouldn’t have to keep looking at the nude painting.
Was this a religious thing on my part? No, it was just understanding my own personal limitations and what was helpful for me at that particular time in my faith and healing journey. What makes it religious is that when I force my religious boundaries based upon my own personal weaknesses and define that as what true holiness is and then say those who don’t live their lives in like manner are evil sinners.
And so, a fellow Christian may have no problem having a few drinks of alcohol whereas for myself I rarely ever drink and if I do I restrict it to literally one drink and not because I think that’s what true holiness and purity is but rather I makes these choices based upon my own weaknesses and ability to drink or not to drink. I’m allergic to alcohol and so I can’t drink it without an allergic reaction, it’s purely for practical reasons I make the choices and don’t judge the other because they watch TV shows that bother me or drink one or two more drinks then I would or life a lifestyle contrary to the one I’d live. And in part, this gives the freedom to allow for my friends to be open and transparent before me and true to themselves because they usually know that I am friends with them and not their “Christian self” or “gay self” I am friends with the individual person.
July 10, 2009 at 3:38 pm
It is ironic.
July 10, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Sarah–I appreciate your thoughtful reflections. You bring up some good concepts of leadership vs. community or individual vs. community etc. This brings up more questions:
What is the church community? What is its purpose? And how does that community operate when there are disagreements about core values? Yes, there may be a restriction regarding leadership, but how does that affect community? Or does it?
What is sin? How does it affect the individual? How does it affect the community? What is our response to it and why? What are we seeking or trying to do?
Is the church a body for evangelism or for growing believers? Or both? How does that play out in community? Are there are expectations of some members that are different than others depending on where they are at spiritually? And how do those different expectations play out? For example, is church discipline appropriate for some but not others? Or not at all?
Thoughts?
July 10, 2009 at 9:05 pm
P- We’re going to have to agree to disagree on some things. I’m neither Side A or Side B because for me, there is a continued work of change in my life and I’ll continue to testify to this change recognizing that it’s not about “converting me to being straight” as is relating as a heterosexual woman which is a far cry to where and what I used to be. I just cannot ignore the powerful testimony in my life and many others. And I believe that there are myths and misconceptions about ex-gay ministries and to me part of bridging aught to be to discuss these myths and misconceptions as well. Otherwise, we then just start arguing over a bunch of lies and things miscommunicated.
In my own thinking … I have this one question
Is the idea of “bridging” just another form of trying to get people to accept and even bless homosexual behavior? If not, what then is it?
Karen – I think the church by and large is really confused with this and many church’s have different perspectives on what community is and how as a church this should be reflected. I believe a lot of church’s have unfortunately become spiritually abusive when it comes to their idea of community and even more so when we consider “church discipline”. I have issues with church’s who practice “church discipline” and don’t think I would attend such a church. I don’t think we can even see “church discipline” with the first century church. I think there is even a biblical concept to the “unrepentant” like a “non-believer” which supports the idea of extending grace. It might be different when one chooses to walk away from homosexuality and so for me, I feel I have more responsibility to walk out my faith with integrity, honesty, with purity and righteousness but I wouldn’t presure my friends in the GLBT Community to live the way I do and to embrace my faith even if they attend church with me.
The founder of the Vinyard church’s said something I think could actually apply this …
It’s the 3 B’s and in this order :
1. Belong – being in relationship with a group of
people and feeling of being welcomed.
2. Believe – then there comes a belief, a growth in faith and understanding of the scriptures.
3. Behave – behavior is almost always if not always the last thing to change in a person’s life.
Often times in our church communities we have this backwards. We want people to behave a certain way before we can accept their belief/faith and it’s like in order to be welcomed into community the person has to prove their belief/faith. And too, I also believe that so many people in our church’s today get confused between their role and the role of God’s Holy Spirit who alone brings about the conviction in our hearts to bring change when He calls us into making these changes. I can talk and talk and talk till I’m blue in the face but unless the Spirit of God is placing conviction into another person’s heart in regards to what I say then what I say and do is not really affective. And so, I’ll testify, and I’ll stand when people question me but try to just walk out my faith and come into agreement with what God is doing in a person’s life. I’ll correct doctrinal error but correcting another person has to be done in the right context and more often then not my friendships with people does not provide the right context to bring about correction. I’ve personally been hurt by that and I wouldn’t want to hurt another in that same way. At the same time, my mentors, my spiritual director’s, my teachers, more often then not have the right context to bring correction to me. And so, then the question is, what does this correction look like? I think often times church’s cross boundaries when they bring what they think is correction. The point to correction is for redemptive and reconciliation purposes. If what we do works against what we’re trying to accomplish then something would have to change.
What is sin?
Simple – “missing the mark” – sometimes we know when we sin and sometimes we don’t know when we do because it’s basically not quite getting the truth and embracing the truth.
How does sin affect the community?
Remember the story of Annias and Safira? I hope you know who I mean. The story in the book of Acts when two people stole from the Lord’s tythes. The end result is the two were punished by death but interestingly enough if I remember acuratly enough it was the Lord who brought punishment.
The story of Idol worship with Israel. Because of sin in the camp, because of Idol worship Israel would be defeated but interestingly enough as is, when Israel consecrated themselves, turned with fasting and weaping and mourned over their choices Israel would be unstoppable in every battle they would face.
The story of Moses and the two men who held up his arms. When Moses would let down his arms and hands Israel would lose but he kept them extended Israel would win. Community when not in unity brings devistation upon the camp but in unity brings a force that is unstoppable in the Kingdom. The question really is, what does this unity look like? And in context to Jesus and his death and resurrection how have things changed and in what things remain?
I think sin in the camp still affects the community but I believe that if we have the heart of King David regardless if things are in order or not, possibly, and the grace of Christ would suggest this, and believing it’s different for each individual person, when we have a heart of repentance we have a heart that’s open for the Lord Himself to bring correction and conviction and with repentive hearts we eventually turn from our own ways and to the Lord’s way. Back in the times of Israel and the battle before Christ it was important for the camp to be holy and pure in order to come up against the enemy but today Christ makes us holy, pure, and righteous and enables to enter into the holy of holies and don’t have to fear death but rather what happens when we enter into the place of the holy of holies the Spirit of God reveals to us what is sin and I think then it would be truly rebelliousness to look at what the Spirit of God is telling us is sin and say it is not and continue to live a life that is contrary to the one that God would want for us after God has revealed to us what His desires is for us.
July 10, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Karen, not sure what you are wanting now from commenters since the things you ask, I am pretty sure you already know the answers and how things should be handled. And I know that you would line these issues up with the Bible as would any righteous servant of God, speaking with guidance from the Holy Spirit. The thing I don’t understand is why at times you will use the scriptures to correct a post and other times you’ll let obvious errors regarding the Bible&God stand. And I certainly hope you will address those errors now. I’m not asking for bibliolotry either.
As to small groups, I think they’re good, and as for my church anyone is welcome. The leadership wants them to be filled with neighbors and friends not just church people.
As to churches and their stances, I have heard many men of God state that churches in the U.S.A. are weak, ineffectual/no discipline, without strong boundaries Karen, would you agree based on what you have read and heard? Lastly, Karen, I know you know what the church is, again can’t figure what you’re up to, writing a book maybe?
July 11, 2009 at 10:58 am
Di5 – Karen is so right when she says that people in the church are confused and then presents another issue. How do we respond to those who really honestly believe that there is nothing sinful about being in a committed same sex marriage and how do we respond to a person who sincerely believes that a person’s sexual orientation is like a person’s race or gender. This brings much confusion into the picture.
As for the U.S I’d disagree with the church’s in the U.S being anything but passive or weak. Certainly from my Canadian perspective I’ve come to admire how American’s can be so bold in their faith. As for myself, I’m so used to church’s in my area skirting around conflict, being passive, and compromising by becomes more and more liberal in theology. If anything, perhaps there are church’s in the States that need to tone things down a bit. ie. Rev Phelps and his militant Baptist church just needs to basically stop what they’re doing and the way they’ve responded is just absolutely horrifying, horrible, distasteful, and it’s anything but reflecting the character and nature of Jesus. That church just doesn’t need to tone it down a little they need to just simply stop their campaigning and abuse towards people in the GLBT Community.
July 12, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Are there two Sarahs commenting now? I think there are? Maybe one of you can use an initial from your last name or something else so we can distinguish between the two Sarahs?
Sarah, you write: “I believe a lot of church’s have unfortunately become spiritually abusive when it comes to their idea of community and even more so when we consider “church discipline”. I have issues with church’s who practice “church discipline” and don’t think I would attend such a church. I don’t think we can even see “church discipline” with the first century church.”
Then you write: “I’ll correct doctrinal error but correcting another person has to be done in the right context . . . my mentors, my spiritual director’s, my teachers, more often then not have the right context to bring correction to me. And so, then the question is, what does this correction look like? . . . The point to correction is for redemptive and reconciliation purposes.”
What do you see as the difference between “church discipline” and later the concept of “correction.” I also do not care for the term “church discipline”–it has baggage from churches that have done so in a spiritually abusive way. Yet, you seem to see some legitimacy for correction that is done for redemptive purposes.
I would be interested in how you see the two concepts as distinct. And what church discipline looks like–on a practical level–when its carried out. And what, on the other hand redemptive correction–on a practical level looks like when carried out.
You also mention that you believe sin still affects the community but seem a bit ambivalent about how we should respond to that concern about how sin may affect the community. In what ways do you think tolerated sin affects church communities today? And what is the proper response to that “sin in the camp” if it does indeed affect the community? I agree with you that the Spirit is important for conviction of sin–but does God sometimes (or even often) speak to us through other people in the context of community? Scripture says we are to meet together day after day as long as it is called Today to helps us remain committed to God in the face of the sins that tempt us. If we apply that Scripture to the concept of community and its role in helping us to walk in purity–what does that look like, particularly if there are members in the church actively involved in what the church believes is sin?
Di5–What errors do you feel that I am not addressing? Perhaps what you are picking up on is my desire to hear from other people. While I often give my opinions on things, I want to hear what other people are experiencing and thinking. Also, on the subject of church discipline, it can be much more complex than just a simple answer. I am still processing what the best way to respond when there is a lesbian or gay couple that wants to attend a church with conservative sexual ethics. I know, for example, that Melissa Fryrear started attending church with her lesbian partner at a conservative church. The members of the church warmly embraced them both even though they had conservative sexual ethics. I think it was about a 2-3 year process in which she attended that church, became a Christian and then slowly ended her relationship with her partner. After she became a believer (or came back to God–not sure if she became a believer as a child), there was a period of time where she had to wrestle with God on the homosexuality issue–to figure out what it was that God wanted from her. That didn’t happen over night. What if during that 2-3 years, the church decided to immediately implement church discipline? She and her partner would probably have left the church and, who knows, maybe she would have never gone to church again.
This is an example of what I mean that on the issue of homosexuality its not so cut and dry. Yes, homosexuality is wrong, but some do not realize that. Not in the same way that they might intuitively know that stealing wrong, etc. Does that make sense?
July 13, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I think I’m the only one who links my comments up with my blog
In regards to Melisa Fryrear …. I’ve been to a couple of Love Won Out conferences in my area and heard her speak. I’ve also spoken to her in person. Her parents and church fellowship never affirmed her homosexuality but embraced her as a person with all that was in her life. I think the experience that Melisa Fryrear had with the church is a rarity to find among church’s. I think it was also the church she attended Sunday School at and so perhaps there was a little bit of history there for her with that particular church. And that makes a difference in regards to our experiences in a church fellowship.
And Wow! You ask amazing questions and make me think a little more to what I’m saying. I think what you might have picked up on is unresolved ambivelence I feel towards church’s.
I just attended a church I grew up in last Sunday and I sat through a sermon with the preacher saying that the Christians need to tell their Christian brother or sister whenever they see them making decisions or acting in a certain way that’s not biblical. I cringed throughout most of that talk. The reason for this, is that many times boundaries are violated when another “Christian” believes it is their duty and a mature response to “correct” the attitude or choices another “Christian” is making. All too often we find people violating boundaries, the person making the correction seems to believe it’s “their right and service to God” to bring correction to another who’s making immoral decisions in their life. And all too often the person trying to present a false religious self is the person (in my experience) who has felt the need to bring “correction”. All the while I wanted to point out the obviouse to that person. But… that same person was unwilling and not open for me to bring “correction” to that person because according to them I was the one who needed the correction not them because they’re the ones that is “growing in the Lord” all the while not seeing the real issue at hand. And I believe here’s a key point here. We need to see the real issue at hand and come along side a person while coming into agreement with what God is doing in that person’s life. It’s the farthest thing from pointing out the sin in another person’s life but rather affirming the message that God already spoke to the individual.
Bringing correction is so negative and usually done violating the boundaries of the other. We are called to lift up, to encourage, to build up one another in the faith but pointing our finger at the other person and telling that person of all the ways in which their sin is manifesting in their lives works against the work that God is doing in that person’s life. That person already knows the sin that God Himself is addressing. He will bring about the conviction in our hearts to turn from sinful behavior as it relates to that person’s individual relationship with Jesus Christ. And if we don’t respect that person’s individual relationship with Jesus then we may knowingly or unknowingly create frustration in that person’s life when there doesn’t need to be frustration.
Jesus yoke is light, He carries our burdens and there is something wrong when we cannot let go of the burden of the sin in our life, place it at the cross of Jesus Christ and continue to stand in our faith. When another person says something that is not affirming what God is saying to that person then we may place more burden on that person that Jesus never intended for that person to carry. A LOT of the shame many people in the GLBT Community carry is not what God wanted to but it’s the voices of all the condemning words thrown at them with little if not no regard to that person’s individual relationship with Jesus because the idea is that, if a person is attracted to the members of the same gender then they can’t be a Christian. Although, I believe that God desires for us to come into and embrace whole heterosexuality even if same gender attraction is a factor.
A mentor or a spiritual director most often then not has a more personal relationship with an individual… they are more the Pastor then the guy who preaches from the pulpit. And in that relationship the two share their personal life and if an individual seeks a mentor or a spiritual director then they are asking for that mentor or spiritual director to have the freedom to speak into that person’s life, to either encourage or to confront but it’s a relationship formed through mutual trust, mutual understanding of each other, and it’s an obvious thing that if somebody seeks out another for direction that’s essentially what it is and it’s something that is formed often times because the person seeking to be mentored from another or seeking spiritual direction feels safe and understood by the person that was asked to bring cousel, direction, and mentorship. There is a contract layed out if you will either spoken or unspoken but it’s understood.
In my understanding, church discipline has been in the past, from what I’ve observed it’s brough shame and humiliation to one or more people, it’s brought a sense of abandonment to that individual because often times with regards to church discipline, the person being disfellowshiped is part of that the discipline.
I can remember this one guy at the church I grew up in decided to forge two signatures and take some money from the church. I’m not sure how much but it was a sizable amount, perhaps a few hundred dollars. The church decided to deal with the issue in-house instead of charging him with theft and fraud. Part of the “church discipline” is that the members of the church were not allowed to speak to this individual and the individual was not allowed to speak to anyone unless he was approached by somebody and even then he was forced to limit the conversation and be silent about the issue. And then, after a while, pending on how well the individual observed the time of being “disfellowshiped” he would then be allowed to come back into full fellowship.
If you ask me, the who process there placed shame and guilt on him needlessly when really the church is suppose to be advocates for the cross of Jesus Christ and His grace afforded because of what Jesus Christ did on the cross. The whole point is this, the guy acknowledged his wrong doing, he confessed it was wrong, he was obviously feeling ashamed and guilty. It is at that time the church really needed to not “Show” that he did wrong because he knew he did wrong. This whole experience should have been redemptive and should have brought reconciliation towards those he forged the signatures of but instead it was anything but a redemptive experience. Ask me if this man is any closer to his relationship with Jesus Christ? What happened is that he became one of many people I’ve seen leave the church more messed up then coming in and when I looked at this cycle of needless casualties of war basically, I thought enough is enough, I can’t be apart of this church anymore because I sensed that eventually, that treatment I’d come to experience myself.
Another time, there was a teen couple who ended up getting pregnant. The leadership of the church forced the couple to confess what happened and basically tell the church what they did wrong and the consequences of it. And they encouraged the couple to get married. The couple ended up getting a divorce and the guy involved left the church more messed up then when he first came to the church.
The only positive church discipline that I’ve seen was when a bible college couple got pregnant outside of marriage but they kept the pregnancy a secret right up until the woman went into labour. I thought she was pregnant but I didn’t say anything… I just felt it wasn’t any of my business I had my own issues to work through. The end result is that the couple was supported, they had to step down from ministry for a time and also address the issue up front because there was an addition to their family that they couldn’t keep a secret anymore and they addressed the issue to minimize the gossip. But the point is, they were the only couple in this situation who were fully supported and the shame and guilt they faced was acknowledged. Within a year the two were back in full time ministry, married, and still married and I believe they now have two children and still actively involved with this church.
And my whole thinking to this is that what I’ve seen over the years is total inconsistency. So, of course, the area of “church discipline” I’m going to have this ambivilence. Done right, I think brings about Christ’s redemptive purposes in that person’s life but done wrong creates mass confusion, more shame and more humiliation that really does nothing but tear a person down and sets the individual up to walking away from the church and their faith altogether.
Does this help clarify what it is that I’ve tried to say?
July 13, 2009 at 1:13 pm
So, what I hear you saying is that you are not against church discipline– you are opposed to church discipline when it is done improperly . . .
Here is an article by Kevin Miller called “Church Discipline for Repetitive Sin” published recently in Leadership Journal.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/communitylife/discipleship/churchdisciplinerepetitivesin.html
One of the things I like about what he writes is: “Listen for ’sin beneath sin’ and ‘grace beneath grace’ . . . . Usually, when a guy comes to me to confess his sin, he does not take either sin or grace seriously enough. He feels bad for his sin—I shouldn’t have visited the porn site—but he doesn’t usually see his sin as addictive, progressive, and capable of damning him to hell. Neither does he take grace seriously enough. He thinks the truest thing about himself is that he’s a sinner. But the truest thing about him is not the fact he visited the porn site but the fact he is created by God, loved by God, and has a hunger for God.
So as I listen to a confession, I listen for “the sin beneath the sin” and for “the grace beneath the grace.”
Here’s what I mean:
When listening to the person confess his sins, I usually find that the sin, especially an addictive one, didn’t just accidentally happen. No, instead, it came as part of a cycle: Stress, fantasy, indulgence, brief release, deeper guilt. Usually, what pushed the bike pedal on that sin-cycle was not just lust, but something deeper: shame, anxiety, self-loathing, passivity, narcissism.
Probably the most common “sin beneath the sin” I hear is self-pity: “I do all the work in this relationship.” “Given my education, I should be earning more.” “I realized, ‘I’m 30, and I’ve never had sex.’ ”
I may point out what I hear, or sometimes, I’ll ask the person, “What do you think was the sin beneath the sin?”
I also listen for the grace beneath the grace. In this person before me, even though he has fallen into sin again, there’s a spark of hope, of remorse, of wanting to change. There’s a vocation, a true call of God on this life. There are spiritual gifts and graces waiting to be released more fully.”
What do you think about this article’s take on the subject of church discipline?
This is an article more related to those who know they are struggling with sin–it doesn’t quite address what do about those who see nothing wrong with what they do–as is often the case with homosexuality. But its an interesting article. Your thoughts?
July 13, 2009 at 2:02 pm
My Pastor boldly spoke the truth of the scriptures and never hesitated to address all the bible teaches is sinful. My Pastor also expressed a grace that was uncommon, so here we find a balance.
It can appear to be prideful because sometimes people present the truth in a way that’s prideful instead of coming at it with humility understanding that we all sin and all have fallen short in one way or another. And often times what we see is not necessarily the words being spoken as prideful but rather the way in which the message was conveyed.
As far as reaserch is concerned you should check out the following link …
http://narth.com
They have some detailed research that shows how complicated it really is. Research shows more of a multi-cause. One would have to factor in home environment, one’s relationship with both parents, trauma, as well as Social environment, Religious environment, as well as genetics. To suggest that there are genetics involved is not the same as saying that there is an actual gay gene and it’s not to suggest that people are born homosexual because research doesn’t prove people are born homosexual and research hasn’t yet proven any one thing to be the soul cause to homosexuality. There is more research out there that show environment that a child grows up in as well as how the child perceives their early childhood experiences in relationship with both their mother and father. The point isn’t with how loving parents are because well loving parents and good parents, religious parents will have children come out as being gay. We can look back at our relationship with our parents and say with the mind of an adult that it was good, my parents did everything they could, they were good parents, Lord knows they weren’t perfect but neither am I, I wasn’t abused and my parents didn’t neglect me.
But that same child could have had parents who were loving and good parents but the child in his or her early development could possibly have had needs the child was unable to convey to his or her parents. Perceived truth as a child with the mind of a child and the vocab and social/behavior skills of a child will affect the child more so then looking back at early childhood years with the mind of an adult that can bring certain experiences into context to get the truth.
Sometimes boys are more sensitive and need more affection from their fathers and even with fathers already good and affection perhaps there needed to be more but our society is conditioned to not accept the needs for boys to be affirmed in the way a lot of girls take for granted in many cases. Sometimes, messages growing up will affect us whether we know it or not and it will influence the way we think or act. It influences our behavior. It influences the cycle of addiction, the sin beneath the sin.
I would think that often times straight people in the church will see “same gender attraction” and lable that as sinful. But if we look at the sin beneath the sin then we can find out what the real issue is. It’s not a sexual issue and it’s not same gender attraction but it’s what is underneath it all that needs to be addressed.
Everyone is different, everyone processes their early childhood experiences and their relationship with their parents differently and so the testimony’s will also be different.
All we can do is take a look at the statistics and see the common factors involved with male and female homosexuality.
You know, there is a significanly high percentage of people who identify as Transgender who have been sexually abused… that’s not to say that everyone has but that’s a very high percentage that has to make one wonder if we can factor in sexual abuse and how that might affect one’s abilit to identify with their own gender.
There is also an alarming high rate of lesbiab women who have been sexually abused in their early childhood.
With men and male homosexuality there is a very high percentage of men who find themselves with feelings of ambivilence towards their mother and there seems to be a conflict in their relationship growing up and the boys inability for various reasons to really connect physically and emotionally with their fathers even when the father is good and there is still a good relationship with their father, there is still a lack of connection… meaning, there could have been this need for more. And among women there is a high persentage of lesbians who have either a poor relationship with their father and what grew would be this ambivilence but sometimes there’s a breach in mother/daughter relationship that would lead the girl to identify more so with her father and be closer to her father then her mother but at any rate there is an alarming high persentage of women that have some sort of breach in their relationship with their mother. That isn’t to say that their relationships can’t be good relationships … it’s just to say that somewhere along the way as a child reasons as a child and responds as a child they become affected by what they see and hear which isn’t necessarily what happened… again, it’s the perceived truth which might not necessarily be the truth.
So … there is more research that proves a multi-cause rather than the cause of simply being born homosexual. There is nothing in any research to affirm a person’s belief and ideology to suggest that they were born gay because researches have yet to find a gay gene. And so, for some who believe that their sexual orientation is the same as race and gender… while research finds that there is genetics that make a person’s race and gender fixed there isn’t any research that shows that a persons sexual orientation is fixed much like race and gender and so therefor opens up the possibility for change.
As far as a biblical response … I should hope that the Pastor speaks boldly from what the scriptures do teach but I should also hope that the Pastor also see’s the scriptures in light of the context in which the original message in the scripture is given. Context is everything, there needs to be a proper exigesis done with the scriptures and so if the bible teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful then we can’t minimize it but I hope that the Pastor can bring into context all sexual sinful behavior as well lest the church becomes a liberal church and teach something entirely different from what the bible actually teaches.
And if a person want’s to suggest that they were born gay and is as fixed as their race and gender I would in the right context confront that because there is absolutely no scientific research done to date that has proven the born gay theory.
As of right now the theory of being born gay is just that, a theory and I say this as a person with same gender attraction but I also say this as one who has experienced levels of change believing that I’ll see more over a period of time ….however long that may take. I just believe because I’ve experienced some change then I can experience yet even more change then what I’ve experienced thus far.
July 13, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Sarah–I agree that homosexuality appears to be multi-causal. Also, I recommend Warren Throckmorton’s blog (see sidebar links) as a good resource for research on the subject.
I think every human being under the sun has both biological and environmental factors that contribute to acting in ways that are contrary to God’s design. Most men for example really wrestle with their sexuality and their desire to have sex with many different women. That is a strong drive due to natural hormonal levels.
The question is–how do we address sin in a person’s life given all the factors that may contribute? Do we rationalize the sin because they “can’t help it”? Do we collude with people’s underlying issues such as self-pity that sometimes lead to continued sin (as Kevin Miller points out as an example of the sin beneath the sin). For example, perhaps my problem is not so much the SSA but my interpretation of that (e.g. “This isn’t something I chose and so why should I have to deal with this. I am just going to give in and let God work it out in the end.” or “God screwed me over by letting this happen to me, so why should I care about following him” or “God probably hates me anyway”, etc etc). There are any number of thoughts that underlay our behavior, and its good to process those.
The fact is, our struggles are not just going to go away. It doesn’t matter what our issues are. There is always going to be something. And that is why we are exhorted to encourage one another, admonish one another in love, discipline our body for the race that is set before, etc etc.
Note to all: I do not want to get sidetracked into a conversation about the causes of homosexuality. So please keep the comments directed at the topic at hand–church polity. Thanks!
July 13, 2009 at 2:41 pm
You’re right and I agree with a lot of what you’ve just written here but ….
To say that one who struggles with SSA always does is not necessarily true. Temptation isn’t the same as struggling. But even temptations no matter what the issues changes. And the powerful draw that one particular sin has on us becomes less powerful in Christ and what used to have a stronghold over us not matter what that stronghold is will over time lose it’s powerful grip.
And so, one who used to identify with their sexual orientation may come to the place where they don’t. One who is struggling with porn addiction will one day not act out. One who has had a history of drug abuse will one day live a life beyond their drug addiction and in much the same way I believe, because it’s been my experience to live a life beyond homosexuality or even yet like myself Transgender Sexuality.
I don’t understand myself the reasoning of some people… I sincerely don’t and I wrestle myself with that.
I’m not trying to continue commenting on causes of homosexuality but I thought you first did, at least I thought I read a comment of yours that I was attempting to comment on. Maybe I read something that wasn’t there…. I’m not too sure anymore and have a migraine but I went into all of what I did in response to what I thought you had commented on.
Sincerely
July 13, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Sarah, Melissa’s bio is all over the internet. The sources state they were two different churches.
July 13, 2009 at 10:00 pm
I found this true story link from a blog I occasionally read and I think it does a great job of encompassing alot of what we have been discussing about homosexuality and church polity. It is based upon a true story that happened within a church in regards to a same sex couple with children who started to attend a Baptist church. It really made me stop and think and I believe we will start to see more and more of this same story unfold over the coming years within our churches. And for the very reason the author addresses- many churches are NOT having the difficult conversation about homosexuality and I believe they naively hope it will just go away…….it’s definately worth the read!!
http://highcallingblogs.com/blog/covenant-stories-no-right-answers/2812/
July 14, 2009 at 10:36 pm
When I was very new in the Lord, I was put square on the front line with an issue of church discipline. My small group leader and a new friend of mine/a group attendee were having sex. The friend did not want the sex, felt she was being pressured, knew it was sinning against God and her body. So I confessed this all to my spiritual mentor what this friend was telling me/how it was affecting me too. That mentor shared it with the pastor-her husband also my mentor too. Well, under biblical guidelines, I had to be the one to go to this small group leader otherwise it would have triangulating. I won’t write much more tonight other than I botched it and had to do it again. Then a core of church leaders got involved. Interesting that at that time our small group was doing the study: Called and Accountable by Henry Blackaby, who is a Canadian pastor(Sarah). I have also had someone correct me that I didn’t think should have, complained about it to a leader with my mother coming along too, and kinda lost that argument. But I still didn’t think it was right. If memory is right my mother was scared that I would go back and chuck it all because of these highly unusual stressors. She had prayed for years for me and was astounded over the spiritual warfare events. The Lord however held me tight. Glory to Him.
, they cried and were amazed. This revealing came sometime after the former events.
Thirdly, I in the past have attended different denominational churches with my lovers, certainly not steadily, at times my partner’s request, if anyone had a clue they didn’t tell me. Nor did they at my present church. When I did give a testimony to a small group of people, coming out
July 17, 2009 at 8:05 am
What happens if science does show this?
How does that change church polity?
What will happen to Christendom the morning after a “gay gene”is found? (By way of speculation only…)
Bad theology leads to bad policy in my humble opinion.
July 17, 2009 at 11:14 am
Sarah M.,
I just caught this, that you struggle with “Transgender Sexuality”. What does that mean to you?
My interest in asking this has to do with my own life: God led me to the understanding that I was born intersexed. (Now, I realize that you may not agree that intersexed and transsexual are the same thing…but they are perhaps awfully close.)
My personal opinion is that the Church will not deal with intersexism or transsexualism because it is too mind blowing, and homosexuality (and its root causes for example) are just too much to handle on its own.
I have tried to speak with Christian ministries that are cutting edge with the issue of homosexuality — they are listed on Karen’s blog list, but they are not interested. Some day very soon, this will be front and center.
God is preparing me now, giving me the green light to tell anyone and everyone (with no regard to the consequences to myself as gay people once had to face when they “came out”) that I am intersexual. If it is one at a time, I will get the word out. And, no, Oprah should not be needed as a venue; the Christian church should be for once out in the front about something like this.
Because my question is this: How do I live beyond myself when being, as an adult both male and female *is* myself?
July 17, 2009 at 3:58 pm
You are correct that the church can barely handle homosexuality as it is. I wonder how they’ll seek to confuse the intersex vocabulary when the time comes around (although it is already confused as it is already)?
July 18, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Hi AM,
Well, Transgendered Sexuality used to be something I identified with but it’s become a foreign concept. I used to be Transgendered but I now identify as a heterosexual woman created in God’s image … I could unwrap that a little more as to how I can say that I identify as a heterosexual woman today even with same gender attraction.
It’s not a struggle because I have reckoned with it, I have reckoned with same gender attraction and Transgenderism of which both no longer has the hold on me it once did.
I used to identify in the masculine. I looked like and acted like one of the guys. I dressed in men’s clothing and had a guys hair cut … I looked the part.
Today I look like, act like and feel very comfortable as a woman and see men as other instead of me being one of the guys. I have also come into transitioning into being one of the gals which many people say is an impossible change but that’s the change I testify of. So … no I don’t struggle with it. I would view struggling as different from temptation.
This is the first time I have heard of the term Intersexual. And yes, you and I would disagree on what is to be male and female. I don’t believe that people can be both but I hear what you’re saying because obviously this is how you see yourself and believe you are.
There are a lot of terms floating around and sometimes wonder how these terms come into existence. It’s only to show for the diversity within such an already diverse group of people. Hope this doesn’t offend anyone but it appears to be that anything goes. People experiment with their sexuality, people are on different sides of the scale and are at different places in regards to how their sexuality fits into their everyday life.
It’s not really about the terminology although I think that the church could potentially get caught up in it but potentially miss the point altogether. The church would be less confusing if ( for those teaching conservative views …) to teach sexual sin in the plain context that scripture teaches it.
July 19, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Sarah,
Thank you for responding to my question on how you related to being transgendered.
I would very strongly caution you to not make the remarks which you did when intersexism is a proven, verifiable medical condition. A quick search of this is very readily available using the Internet. There was no such information available to the general public when I was born — just surgery and hormones.
Please, before you tell me this does not exist, consult with medical professionals who have delivered intersexed babies and endocrinologists who treat them.
Yes, I could go on believing that I am fully female, but my medical history, including a check up at the age of 13 to make sure that my “hormones were O.K.” says otherwise. Along with a very long consultation with my mother by the Gyn.
If you are truly interested in enlightening your knowledge read, “What Gender Am I?” by a person named Cynthia on the Chicago Daily Reader. Unless you are willing to proclaim that her father (a medical doctor) and all the other individuals involved were “believing something” rather dealing with reality, I really don’t know what to say.
If you had a psychological issue with being female (i.e. you were sexually assaulted) and felt you needed to protect yourself by wearing men’s clothing, then that is one thing.
But, please do not judge those of us who were in fact subjected to prenatal hormones and have lived as a gender our brains are not or not entirely.
Comments such as yours give me the further impetus to come forward to the whole church or Christendom. The need for everyone to know about the reality of intersexism (not a made up term for those wanting to believe it) is tremendous. Your post simply reiterates the reality of the need for education. It kind of reminds me of the imprisoned Galileo for his astronomical comment at the hands of religious folk.
By the way, if you are still not fully comfortable living as a female (which you say you are, and I give you the courtesy of believing — which you did not give me), you might check into your medical history. You have the right to know it, today, unlike I did when I was a young teen-ager.
July 19, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Sarah,
(I hope this comes below your reply).
If you don’t know what an intersexual is, I must say that I am extremely surprised.
Anyone who is even moderately well-read (in general; not to mention on the topic of sex and sexuality) would know what an intersexual was.
It’s not enough to claim to be “confused” when there is a wealth of information out there about the issue.
I’d strongly recommend that you read up on the issue. Even Wikipedia is a good start.
Asking how the term “intersexual” came into existence is like asking how the term “male” came into existence. Go look up the word in a good dictionary and encyclopedia–and let me tell you; it’snot a matter of how the individual “sees oneself”.
(I’m highly surprised to be honest…)
July 19, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I am really taken aback.
It’s one thing to believe that the church ignores intersexuality because it doesn’t know how to deal with it (which I believe).
I never imagined that there were people who didn’t know what intersexuality was!
Maybe I am the naive one…
What was disappointing was that instead of looking up what it was or asking you for a definition, she decided to run with whatever ideas were in her head and give you advice based on that.
Maybe this is a reminder to me that we can often disregard people that exist outside of our circle of familiarity as being unimportant or insignificant.
I think I really need to work on that myself in my own life.
July 20, 2009 at 10:22 am
Hi folks,
The intersexuality question is important. Let’s be respectful as we talk with each other about it though. Many people do not know what intersex means and there is no stupid question on this blog. No one needs to be shamed because they don’t know what all these terms mean.
That being said, I recommend exploring the Intersex Society of North America: http://www.isna.org/
They have a post that distinguishes between Transgender and Intersex. These are two different things: http://www.isna.org/faq/transgender
Also being intersex does not mean one is genderless or that one is two genders.
http://www.isna.org/faq/not_eradicating_gender
http://www.isna.org/faq/third-gender
Its important to distinguish between those who lost genitalia as infants (e.g. botched circumcisions) and those who were born with ambiguous genitalia or have had hormonal influences etc. In any case, one can obtain genetic testing to determine if you are genetically female or male. Additionally, most intersex individuals gravitate toward a gender. Puberty often makes this more clear if it wasn’t previously. The problem is when surgeries are done at a very young age and then later puberty contradicts the assigned gender.
Going back to the objective of this post–what can the church do to better address the needs of those who are intersex? How should this be handled from a theological perspective?
July 20, 2009 at 12:08 pm
In answer to your question regarding the church: They should listen to people like me who have lived with it.
And Karen, I am sure that you know this but the Intersex Society does not have all the answers as no one has all the answers regarding homosexuality (why it exists, why God does not change it in certain people, etc..).
Theologically, aren’t we all still working these issues out? I mean, isn’t that why we come to your blog and others in the first place instead of just saying, “The Bible says this and this is what it means unequivocally, case closed.”
If someone has all the answers that they are *assured* came from the Throne Room itself, please share them with the rest of us. But the last that I checked, we ALL see through a glass darkly. Perhaps especially so in areas of sexuality. Let’s have humility and (gasp) an open mind if that’s possible without worrying if we are theologically “incorrect”. My salvation is in the Person of Jesus Christ Himself, not my own limited human understanding.
July 20, 2009 at 1:37 pm
An interesting note is that intersexed people are not alone in the dilemma about how to best handle sexual conduct for those who have medical conditions that throw a wrench in observing Biblical ethics.
I’m really not up to speed on the definitions of the many terms used in relation to homosexuality, etc. But I am highly conservative about who fits the bill as being genuinely intersexed. I’ve always viewed it as people who were born with some degree of both male and female genitalia.
If someone looks and acts more like the opposite gender, or says they know they were born in the wrong body, I would not quality that as true intersexism.
Due to hormonal and genetic influences some women are more rugged and even have excess facial hair, while many males are slighter in appearance and have less than average facial and body hair. Some people define this as transgenderism and may want to qualify it as an exemption from observing Biblical ethics.
But these characteristics are fairly common in the human race and many heterosexuals also fall into this category. Conversely, many homosexuals have physical characteristics that are extremely representative of their birth gender—very feminine females and very masculine males.
It’s interesting to look at the case of conjoined twins Abby and Brittany Hensel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkKWApOAG2g
They are clearly two separate souls, but face a major dilemma when it comes to observing Christian sexual ethics. How will they define and deal with the issues of adultery, fornication, or incest?
I believe that those born truly intersexed fall into the same category as the twins do and have special considerations. God allows for that under some circumstances (I think). For example, it’s my understanding that an infant who dies will receive salvation by the believing of the parent. Normally, a person is only saved by their own believing, not that of someone else for them.
But we certainly cannot throw out or redefine sexual ethics for everyone based on the fact that some people genuinely have special circumstances.
And I do not see what is percieved as transgenderism to be a valid argument not to observe Biblical ethics.
It is important to remember that God defines human sexuality only as male and female. I think we create stumbling blocks for ourselves by the use of too many labels. They complicate our hearts and minds and draw us away from the simple truths of God’s Word.
I think it’s also important to remember that we are under grace and have liberty to do as we want. The believer has the freedom to choose homosexuality and will not lose their salvation for it (I don’t think).
But in the end it’s really a matter of choosing what God in His wisdom knows what will be in our best interest for ourselves and others (for reasons we may not fully understand) both in this life and eternity. I don’t think God has ever arbitrarily made rules for just for the sake of controlling us.
July 20, 2009 at 1:56 pm
It is interesting that you say that too many labels complicate our hearts and minds and lead us away from the simpler truths of God. It was God Who lead me on the journey to understand that I had been born intersexed. Did it complicate things? Things were already complicated and confusing since childhood, so if anything it elucidated things. And it does lead one into deeper truths of God which perhaps some of you don’t believe, but I have had to seek Him in ways that perhaps not many “straights” have had to.
God defining only male and female: if that is the case, why are eunuchs specifically mentioned in the Bible? Why not leave that category alone and call the castrated man a man? But that is not the case of what we read in both Testaments. For some reason, it was important for the definition or label eunuch to be added — whether born that way or made that way (as Jesus talks about).
Probably intersexism is too intense of a topic here. I formally withdraw it.
July 20, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Hi Karen,
I thought some of what we were talking about was great!
In order to think about all these terms, weather transgendered or intersexual it’s good to be informed about these issues in order to take a look at the person’s circumstances, their life issues and how these issues will affect a person as well as their spirituality and perhaps even faith.
How we handle these topics is important. I think sometimes we complicate things too much.
The bible is very clear on what God intended for human sexuality. Because sin and sickness has entered into our world people do get sick, people do become ill, people are born with reproductive organs of both male and female and that’s just the reality of some people and the church must learn how to not only present the scriptures teachings on human sexuality but it’s also important for the church to learn how to deal with these things from a more practical perspective. And the church by and large is just not ready to deal with the administration aspect when it comes to these issues.
I guess in some cases we can look to the scriptures where it references the eunic, the male castrated nearly right from birth because it was the practice, the custom of his people to do that… how can the eunic understand the scriptures … then appears I believe Peter or one of the disciples who shared with him the gospel, the eunic believed and was baptized.
But being born with male and female reproductive organs … I don’t think is necessarily the same thing as Transgenderism and same gender attraction. I believe the two are completely different. But I do believe the church and society will respond the same to both and unfortunately we have the unhealthy extremes that can be harmful to the person who might come to church seeking to know more about the Christian faith or have faith but seeking to allow for their faith to grow.
At any rate … what does the bible teach in regards to human sexuality?
We have to understand that we must teach the whole of scripture not just the parts we like but also have to dig deeper into the parts of scriptures that call us to commit a life of being conformed into the likeness of Jesus Christ and a life time of faith. Faith and obedience, grace and truth, Justice and Mercy… we see in the character of God this fine balance between these and it’s a rarity to find a church that can do the same.
I just recently attended this training for small group leaders in my church.
You know, to be apart of the leadership and pastoral team of this church we must adhere to certain biblical teachings in regards to who God is, as Trinity, Father, Son, and Spirit and we must also adhere to what the scriptures teach concerning human sexuality between one man and one woman. The leaders and pastors are expected to adhere to this and allow these truths to daily walk out our faith with respect to all of this.
Some people because of circumstances, be it physical or because of circumstances ie. they live celibate lives because they are attracted to the same gender and being in a heterosexual relationship might not be seen as a possibility and so they live celibate lives.
The bible is clear on behavior as to what is sinful and what is not but the bible is incredibly grace filled for people having to walk through circumstances in their lives that seem to be something that is out of their control.
The bible does not say that same gender attraction is sinful but the does teach that it is sinful to sexualize the same gender attractions and then to act upon these feelings.
I believe that no matter what the situation is, there needs to be a fine balance between grace and truth as well as Justice and Mercy … and when it comes to church business I believe we need to keep these things in mind.
Should we allow for people acting out in sinful behavior to be apart of a ministry in a church community?
Well, I don’t know about you but I think I sin every day and so if having a requirement of being sinless in order to participate in ministry I wouldn’t qualify but if the requirement is to daily walk out my faith in humility with a repentant heart is then I do qualify and perhaps so would those with same gender attraction as well as those born with both male and female organs.
If a church tells me that I cannot serve in ministry because I am attracted to the same gender I might as well find another church and that’s sort of a red flag for me because left to my own devices I cannot ON MY OWN change my attractions but I believe this is a work that God can do.
My point is this, true transformation in a person’s life is a work for the Lord to accomplish in our lives and our part is to live with humility and a repentant heart, turning away from all known sins in our lives and allowing for God to reveal to us the sin that still remains in our lives, in our hearts, and in the way we think.
If a church does not see this then I’d advise people not to attend that church because it might very well be a spiritually abusive congregation that has no understanding of the incredible riches of God’s grace… true, we need to live holy and pure lives before the Lord and also true, we need God’s grace and forgiveness every day because of our daily battle with sin. And I’m not just talking about what we’d think as the BIG sin but the sin that manifests in subtle forms. And it’s the subtle sin that is easily hidden that brings corruption into the camp … after we have fed ourselves with the subtle forms of sin the subtle forms of sin then grow into those BIG sins….
July 20, 2009 at 2:24 pm
The thing to remember though which some might take the story of the Eunuchs out of context. The story of the Eunuch did not affirm homosexuality and stepping outside in any way or form of what God intended for human sexuality.
A Eunuch was castrated right from birth, some might have had same gender attraction sure … but the story of the Eunuch is not amount marriage, nor is it about human sexuality. It is about becoming a disciple of Christ and learning what that means, yes, for the Eunuch who for all intents and purposes lived a celibate life after their conversion to Christ.
There is one resource I found really helpful … but some might not appreciate the source but I think it’s worth it to watch and also to think about …. it basically goes into a teaching on how the Apostle Paul brought his teachings in regards to human sexuality into context based upon how Jesus responded in his day. I can’t do justice but it’s a good clip to watch …. kinda lengthy but good.
Here’s a link to my blog
http://sarahmelnychuk.blogspot.com/2009/06/bridging-gap-synchroblog-my-experience.html
Look for a link closer to the bottom that will read
” Pure Passion ” … read my contribution as well if you’d like. Contrary to popular opinion I do not bite
I just have my own beliefs, core values, and testimony in Christ.
July 20, 2009 at 3:23 pm
AM, I am interested in what you are saying. To others, A true believer/leaders will adopt a Christ-centered policy and will be loving towards you/others. I know this because we are commanded to love one another and to do so in deed and truth I John 3:18. But we can’t in and of ourselves do that. The Holy Spirit through us can keep us open and loving towards what ever is that person’s lifestory that brought them into their church/my church. A loving church can usually be judged right at the front door and/or from the pulpit.
July 20, 2009 at 4:17 pm
yup
July 20, 2009 at 4:45 pm
And there is no reason why someone shouldn’t be loving toward me or others — that is the whole point I am making. I am not unloving toward the couple, divorced and remarried (apart from adultery), even though I find that quite problematic from the standpoint of being extremely hypocritical. IOW I am not begging or looking for acceptance. Quite the contrary, I am saying that people such as myself are here already on this earth by the Sovereign will of God.
I’m fascinated how so many people here point to Scripture as having cut and dried, black and white answers for everything. I wasn’t raised a Fundamentalist, Bible church individual, so admittedly to a large degree I cannot understand it.
Even the idea of eunuch can be subject to several different interpretations, meanings, etc… Who is right; who is wrong? The more spiritual among us can claim (I suppose) to greater clarity.
But there are so many issues that the Bible never touches on — ideas we deal with today — for example, artificial insemination. God clearly intended from the Garden of Eden discussion with the couple that man and woman were to have sexual intercourse to reproduce.
Alright, then: how can we adapt it otherwise? And yet devout Christian couples use this scientific method all the time, sometimes with donor sperm and egg. God told Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply” — taking that as perfect intent, only fertile couples should be allowed to marry. No marriage for the menopausal per this paradigm of the perfect Garden.
I feel like I’m falling on deaf ears many times here. I’ve gotten the impression that many of the people who currently post here are very much Fundamentalist in their interpretation of the Bible. We seemed to have more of a cross section in the past. I’m not going to lie: I don’t think that the Bible has the answer for every dilemma in life. There, you can stone me.
Seriously, there is much that is not understandable, and I think that the more we try to intellectualize and sort it through, the more legalistic and Phariseeical we get.
Karen is about to shut down this blog for a month as she leaves for her new adventure. I have been both challenged and disheartened by being here — but it ain’t never been boring!!
God speed to all of you as we pursue Him, each as the Holy Spirit leads.
July 20, 2009 at 5:27 pm
You made the point that you didn’t go to a church. And you have been making the point that you should be accepted. I think my post is staying on topic which was about church policy. Lastly, many times I have read people here that use the words *I think* regarding scripture, frankly, that brings in a lot of error. I want to be responsible in what I write. Not being real familiar with the fundamentalist label, I am not going to wear it.
July 20, 2009 at 6:48 pm
God made a covenant with Abram when he and his wife Sarai had been infertile for a long time. There are other God-blessed infertile marriages. Many adults today who are seeking God’s will for them in a spouse are past the years of conceiving, maybe because of coming out of harmful living, so His intent will be done. He can’t be anything but good to His own.
August 21, 2009 at 11:31 am
Hi Karen are you back on now?
August 21, 2009 at 1:38 pm
WOW Karen, 67 comments thus far on this post?
This type of post from you is one of the big reasons you were awarded as a bridge builder. Thank you!
August 21, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Di5–Indeed, I have landed in Durham, North Carolina and have regained some sanity (just a small amount) after my crazy month of travel. Now I have to hit the books. Classes start on Monday. I miss the blog and interacting with you all, and I am sad it may be awhile before I can write another post. I have to see how my schedule looks over the next few weeks.
Bridgeout–thanks so much for the award.
I’m glad you found my blog. Its been good to “meet” you.
August 22, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Hi Karen…glad you made it though your journeys safely. Welcome to the East Coast, US of A.(Hunker down girl…it be hurricane season!)
I wish you all the best with your studies and endeavors.
God Bless