A few years ago, a friend of mine who is a well-known leader in the emerging church movement told me that many evangelical leaders are quietly questioning their traditional stance on homosexuality. These leaders are open to a gay affirming position, but have kept quiet for fear of alienating their congregations. However, now evangelical leaders—and not just in emerging circles—are testing the waters more publicly. Last year Tony Jones of Emergent gave a nod to the gay affirming position on his blog. Likewise, Brian McLaren, often ambiguous, has encouraged churches to be agnostic. And in two weeks, Highlands Church, in Denver, Colorado will be hosting “The Evangelical Church and Homosexuality,” a symposium featuring gay-affirming speakers Justin Lee and Mark Achtemeier.
Lee is the founder of Gay Christian Network and Achtemeier is professor of theology and ethics at Dubuque Theological Seminary. Both men have a unique ability to speak to evangelicals due to their own religious backgrounds. They understand evangelical culture and they know how to appeal to the way evangelicals think. This will likely make them persuasive in shifting more conservative churches to consider a gay-affirming position on homosexuality. In a recent address, Achtemeier recounted how he came to support gay marriage and ordination. His views are well worth exploring to examine how and why some conservatives might come to a gay affirming position. Below are quotes from his address (the subheadings are mine) with a few of my own comments:
1. Forming real friendships with gay people challenged stereotypes:
“. . .opportunity opened up for serious conversation and friendship with some quite remarkable gay Christians. This was new for me. When you are a firebrand exclusivist, hurling thunderbolts and belching fire against the opposition, gay people with any sense tend to avoid your company, or at least they avoid telling you they are gay. As a result, what I knew about LGBT people was pretty much defined by the authors I agreed with, and flamboyant stereotypes presented in the media.”
“Like so many traditionalists, I was accustomed to thinking of homosexuality as a kind of destructive addiction, a disordered inclination toward damaging behaviors that was comparable in some respects to alcoholism . . . I also assumed that a gay lifestyle must certainly involve a fairly casual attitude toward scriptural authority and an inclination toward personal self-indulgence.”
“I was expecting to find self-indulgent individuals, who were inclined to elevate their own personal gratification above any serious wrestling with Christian discipleship. My prejudices could not have been more mistaken. What I found instead were devoted Christian believers, filled with grace and a loving concern for the downtrodden that frequently put me to shame.”
My response: I have said before on this blog that the religious Right often shoots itself in the foot because of the gay stereotypes they foster. I believe the ex-gay movement has also contributed to this problem with its template testimony of “I had a bad childhood and that’s why I am gay” or “My gay life was horrible and promiscuous.” If that is the only story people hear about homosexuality and they later meet a healthy, well-adjusted gay Christian, it really challenges one’s presuppositions. When conservative propaganda does not match up with the real life gay people that folk encounter, it is easy to see why some, like Achtemeier, begin to question their beliefs.
2. It is possible to be gay affirming and still uphold Scripture:
“I hold firmly to the reformation principle that Scripture alone is the highest authority for the church. I further believe that experience is often an unreliable guide to truth, being the product of a nature that is corrupted by sin and self-interest. . . But struggling with this, I came to realize that this important affirmation does not exhaust what needs to be said about the way the Bible and our everyday experience interact with one another. Let me illustrate what I found with a little piece of humor that Saint Augustine threw into an Easter evening sermon he preached in 407 A.D. The joke comes in the course of comments on 1 John 2:6, where it says that those who abide in Christ “ought to walk in the same way he walked. “ Well what does this mean, to walk in the same way that Jesus walked, asks Augustine? Jesus walked on water! So surely walking in the same way he walked means we should walk on water, too. Doesn’t that make sense? We chuckle at this. But why do we immediately recognize this as a joke? It’s not like Augustine’s suggestion isn’t biblical, after all . . . So why don’t we fasten on these stories when we hear John telling us to walk in the same way Jesus walked? The short answer is, this particular way of interpreting the Bible contradicts our experience.”
My Response: Achtemeier did not have a chance to go into his re-interpretation of Scripture during his address. Thus, I cannot comment on his approach. However, I don’t believe his example of Jesus walking on water is a good analogy when it comes to homosexuality. If I read him right, he is basically saying that because it may be impossible for a gay person to go straight, then we should not force the issue. I agree we should not try to force sexual orientation change, but lack of change in sexual orientation does not, then, demand a gay affirming stance. There are many conditions and temptations that are unchangeable, but we don’t consider them God-blessed simply because they are immutable.
3. If gay Christians who try to live celibate lives become suicidal or depressed, this is an indicator that we are trying to push something that is not of God. God’s ways are always life-giving.
“If you can get an alcoholic to stop drinking, you expect that person’s life to get better. Addiction to drink is morally, physically and spiritually destructive; So putting away the bottle leads to human flourishing. Indeed, it’s not unusual to hear people saying “I got my life back” when they talk about recovering from a destructive addiction. If homosexuality is a destructive compulsion like alcoholism, one would surely expect to hear similar sorts of testimonies about it. However much of a struggle abstinence might be, embracing it ought to be life-giving. But I began to encounter testimonies that showed a very different pattern . . . I remember one very devout individual who came to me wanting to talk . . . After years of courageous prayer and struggle, doing exactly what the church and I myself would have counseled, the result was a broken spirit, overwhelmed by despair and anger, ready to renounce the faith and give up on God, seriously contemplating suicide . . . When this person encountered a different understanding of the Bible’s counsel, re-opened to the possibility of finding love as part of a life-journey, and found fellowship in a supportive community of dedicated Christians, the results were simply breathtaking. I saw this person blossom, the waves of depression rolled back, and a vibrant, joyful Christian faith re-emerged. None of this made any sense whatsoever if homosexuality was a destructive compulsion like alcoholism.”
My Response: My understanding of what Achtemeier is saying here is that Scripture points us to what is life-giving, and if gay Christians who have tried to live an obedient, Christian life (by abstaining) end up worse off than before, then something is wrong. I have to agree with him that something is wrong. Though, I am not sure I would come to the same conclusion he has. The recent post, What if You Don’t Change, touches on this. In my own observations, I have seen many reasons why trying to live a single celibate life leads to more despair including: 1) the person is living a closeted life in fear of anyone finding out they are gay 2) a person is focused on trying to change their sexual orientation and despair results when change does not occur 3) there are unresolved feelings of worthlessness; the sexual attractions make a person feel they are sinful and unloved by God 4) rejection from friends or family if one discloses. These are all common reasons for despair that do not have to lead us to conclude homosexuality should be affirmed. I also experienced that despair, but when I came out of the closet, stopped fixating on trying to change my sexual orientation, and realized how much God loves me whether or I am gay or straight, I found much relief. I also have many wonderful people in my life who are not gay affirming, but love me no matter what. All these positive things occurred without me (or my friends) having to affirm homosexuality. The fallacy is in believing that one has to be affirming in order to resolve these other issues. Once these other issues are resolved, the only real remaining challenge is single, celibacy, something I do not think has to lead to despair.
4. Those who are trying to live celibate lives came out of destructive pasts. These individuals confused the dysfunction they experienced (drug addiction, etc) with homosexuality itself. The drug addiction was the problem, not the same-gender relationship.
“Now I would be less than honest if I did not mention the stories that run counter to this pattern I have been describing. I sat in committees at the 2006 and 2008 General Assemblies and listened to testimonies, organized by our friends at One by One, from individuals who had found it healing to move out of a gay lifestyle. I sat there listening to these stories, pondering what to make of them, and suddenly it occurred to me that nearly all of them involved moving away from situations involving either promiscuity or abuse. Not a one of these testimonies told a story of being involved in a loving and healthy same-gender partnership, which the person then decided to leave as an expression of Christian commitment. I realized that these testimonies actually served to confirm what I had been thinking. Of course promiscuous, exploitative or abusive sexual expressions were destructive and unhealthy, and these testimonies I had heard followed exactly the patterns the Bible would lead us to expect: Turning away from sinful patterns of exploitative, abusive and promiscuous behavior led to life and flourishing in the lives of these people.
My Response: This view has also been popularized by the movie Save Me. Many individuals in the ex-gay movement have come out of promiscuity, drug addiction and abusive pasts. However, it seems this template has also been exaggerated because it is the paradigm the ex-gay movement and the reparative therapy movement have created: “If you are gay, it must be rooted in dysfunction.” The fact of the matter is not all people who leave homosexuality do so because of a miserable life of dysfunction. On this point, Achtemeier is simply uninformed. However, I don’t blame him for not knowing since voices that say otherwise are drowned out by religious Right and ex-gay stereotypes. For the record, I was never promiscuous, never abused drugs, and was not sexually abused. I did not stop being in lesbian relationships because I was miserable. I stopped because the Spirit convicted me of sin. I recently posted a video of three gay people who also testified to leaving homosexuality for spiritual reasons and not necessarily due to abuse or other dysfunction.
(Note: I testified at the PC USA General Assembly hearing in 2008 with OnebyOne and thus, Achtemeier did hear a testimony from someone who did not describe a dysfunctional past. In fact, I purposely wrote my testimony to highlight that. You can see the text of it here).
5. The Bible says “it is not good for a person to be alone” (Genesis 2). We are designed to be in relationship. Lifelong celibacy is not healthy or realistic.
“It turned out that there was another biblical understanding readily available in Genesis 2. You remember how God creates the world in six days and declares all of it “very good.” But there is one aspect of the original creation that God declares “not good.” In Genesis 2:18 God says, “It is not good that the human being should be alone; I will make a helper corresponding to him.” Genesis describes God’s creation of human beings for intimate fellowship with another person. This is not a choice that we can simply reverse or undo. It is deeply inscribed in our nature as human beings. The amazing thing about understanding homosexuality in this new way was that suddenly everything I had been seeing made perfect biblical sense. There turned out to be a substantial theological literature describing how spiritually and psychologically damaging it is to deny that aspect of our nature that is described in Genesis 2. I am referring of course, to the Reformation critiques of mandatory celibacy . . . Using Calvin’s terminology, marriage is the help God has provided for dealing with the necessities he has implanted in human nature. Marriage is given to us, not just in a form that responds to our need, but in a way that is positively sanctifying and life-giving and permeated by grace. If, as Calvin insists, it is foolish and rash for individuals to turn their backs on this divine gift and calling, how much more so when an entire church acts to withhold this gift from an entire class of human beings!
My Response: I agree with Achtemeier that we are naturally designed to couple with another person in marriage. But, is an inability to marry or have sex truly that catastrophic? Is celibacy impossible? Does it cause psychological and spiritual harm? What about those who are forced into single, celibacy because they are unattractive or have a severe disability? What about those who endure single, celibacy because they cannot find a suitable mate? Are these individuals doomed to a neurotic life? This sounds a bit too much like the message I have heard from the conservative church that expects everyone to marry and if one doesn’t there is something unhealthy and mentally deficient about that person. I also question whether deep, intimate love can only be found in marriage. Achtemeier sounds like those in the gay community who say you are doomed to a miserable, lonely life without marriage. Certainly, single celibacy is no walk in the park, but does not life have greater meaning beyond marriage? I would argue that the problem is not with single, celibacy, it is in the ways we respond and cope with it. Life has far greater purpose for us as believers than whether or not we marry. There are many people who have used their single celibacy to serve God—for some it was chosen, for others not. I think of Amy Carmichael, Bruce Olson, John Stott and Henri Nouwen, just to name a few.
We need a little perspective here. Single, celibacy is hard. But, it’s not the hardest thing a person has to endure. There are many others who face a much harder lot in life. I have my health, my family and friends, a good vocation and a roof over my head. My life is meaningful and rich. Not everyone is so fortunate. Some people are starving to death; some live with crippling illness or chronic pain; others are subjected to the ravages of war or poverty. There are even those who suffer in lonely marriages, having discovered that marriage is not always what we idealize it to be. God never promised us that life would be easy or fair. But, he does promise us that we can trust him even when life is difficult. In our pampered American existence, I am afraid we have forgotten what it means to be a disciple of Christ.
Your thoughts?
181 Comments
November 7, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Karen,
Great uptake on your post.
I am a str8 female who has had some gay attraction over the years, but it was flowing without any stops and go’s or judgments. It just was. So I am oddly confused about your position as I have never come from a religious perspective regarding my sexuality, nor do I intend to.
Since sexuality and the church is the ever ongoing issue of the times, I do find it all rather interesting.
You say you are not “gay-affirming”, but you are out and gay. I’m wondering. If you are not gay-affirming, then are you gay-rejecting? And if you think gay sexual thoughts, do you try to remove them from your psyche due to shame?
The reason I ask this is because you say you have a pretty charmed life, yet it hasn’t “blossomed” like the fellow who came out of celibacy to find love and a possible lover and aligning it to be ok in the Christian world. He may never find a lover, but he took off the lid of celibacy and opened up his options which made his transformation “breathtaking”. That’s pretty cool.
So I’m a little confused where you are really hailing from as you call celibacy something you “cope” with which is quite different from “blossoming” as this other fellow did. If Genesis is correct in that God made us to be together, is not this fellows interpretation of sexual shamelessness the way to go? I’m also a little confused as to how beating yourself over the head with celibacy, (I only say that from the examples of what people go through with this situation) somehow brings you closer to God. Is beating yourself up somehow Godly? Pavlov’s dog if you will?
I seem to look at folks who recant homosexuality for religion somehow sexually imbalanced in their beliefs; either through the “your bad” messages in scripture, or they grew up in a religious household that banned their sexual nature as some sort of evil, or both. That seems to be a form of psychic abuse that seems to be evident in many who go your path.
I don’t think a person has to be promiscuous, drug induced or anything quite so aggressive with which to decide to throw the baby out with the bathwater and try to “escape homosexuality.” I think just growing up in a Christian anti-gay household / nation could do the same thing.
You also say you left homosexuality. How can you “leave” what you say you are?
These are the questions that leave many people, str8 and gay, thinking odd thoughts about gay celibate people. It seems to be coming from negs rather than pozs. Str8 people don’t go celibate because sex is “bad” or it’s not God’s way, or not God’s best, but that seems to be the message you are sending. And in that, it might be construed as judgmental gay bashing and to some extent, traitorous to your own gay community. Somewhat like a black guy saying black is not God’s way, though he is obviously black. It seems that would be defeating for everyone.
I think it is quite good that religions are waking up to sexuality as a good thing, and not bad. There are so many rules with religions and sexuality, and now the divorce rate is blisteringly high. Something is awfully amiss. I think as a people, we need to regroup and get the negs out of all sexuality and see it for what it really is, not others’ interpretation as a basis. That is a true giving up of power, and in this case, for something very full of holes as it seems to not be working perfectly as expected.
So it is truly an interesting thing, as everyone has their different stories.
November 8, 2009 at 2:55 am
Karen, you have written another wonderful post. You put into words so well what I think at different times on some of the issues you write on. Thank you.
November 8, 2009 at 4:33 am
Absolutely bang on Karen. Well done.
November 8, 2009 at 5:44 am
Thanks Jeff and Peter!
Francene (AKA Kurt)–thanks for your comment. Is there a reason you are using a different name now? Your IP address and use of lingo “negs” give you away.
I think its important that those who comment be consistent in using the same name even if its a pseudonym.
In any case you bring up some good questions. You write: “You say you are not “gay-affirming”, but you are out and gay. I’m wondering. If you are not gay-affirming, then are you gay-rejecting? And if you think gay sexual thoughts, do you try to remove them from your psyche due to shame?”
Gay affirming is simply lingo that means one believes homosexuality is blessed by God. Those who are not gay affirming believe that homosexuality is contrary to what God wants for human sexual relationships. As for my sexual thoughts–as I mentioned in the post, I do not try to change my sexual orientation. Nor do I have shame over my sexual feelings. I am a sexual person and have various thoughts and feelings like anyone else. It is what it is. I do try to “take my thoughts captive” in that I don’t think its appropriate to lust after someone. But that would be the case whether I was straight or gay.
You also write: “The reason I ask this is because you say you have a pretty charmed life, yet it hasn’t “blossomed” like the fellow who came out of celibacy to find love.”
Who are you to say my life hasn’t “blossomed”? I am happier and healthier in the years since not being in lesbian relationships. This is not because I didn’t enjoy my relationships with women, but because sin kept me from reaching my potential. My life has definitely blossomed in amazing ways.
You also write: “I’m also a little confused as to how beating yourself over the head with celibacy . . . Is beating yourself up somehow Godly?”
I am not beating myself over the head with anything. So your statement is nonsensical to me.
You write: “I seem to look at folks who recant homosexuality for religion somehow sexually imbalanced in their beliefs; either through the “your bad” messages in scripture, or they grew up in a religious household that banned their sexual nature as some sort of evil, or both. That seems to be a form of psychic abuse that seems to be evident in many who go your path.”
I can understand that since we have different views on this issue that you would think I am “sexually imbalanced in my beliefs.” I think its naturally to attribute negative connotations to someone else’s views when the views are not something we agree with. I think its important to listen to someone else’s story and at least try to see why that person believes what they do rather than making negative judgments about them simply because it doesn’t jive with your particular perspective.
As for negative messages of guilt and shame that someone may have picked up. Certainly that happens and its unfortunate. I had to wrestle with that in my own life. And it was a wonderful day when I realized God loved me no matter what. But ironically, it was in recovering from that negativity that the power of God’s love and grace finally enabled me to stop being in lesbian relationships.
You write: “You also say you left homosexuality. How can you “leave” what you say you are?”
Thanks for bringing this up. I actually try to avoid using phrases like “leaving homosexuality.” Its ex-gay lingo–residual from my ex-gay days. It simply means “stopped being in gay relationships.” It refers to the activity one is involved in, not the attractions.
You write: “And in that, it might be construed as judgmental gay bashing and to some extent, traitorous to your own gay community. Somewhat like a black guy saying black is not God’s way, though he is obviously black. It seems that would be defeating for everyone.”
You think I am a traitor? You are quite judgmental of those who have different sexual ethics that you do.
People often associate sexual attraction with skin color, gender, ethnicity, etc. However, I do not see them as being at all the same. Homosexuality has to do with desires and behavior, being black or a woman is not defined by feelings or behavior. To me homosexuality falls squarely in the realm of sexual ethics. I simply have different sexual ethics than you do.
You write: “I think it is quite good that religions are waking up to sexuality as a good thing, and not bad.”
Sexuality is a great thing. It was a wonderful invention of God. In fact, it is because it is so powerful and sacred that it is not a child’s toy to play around with flippantly. God gave this gift to us with important directions so as to enhance the beauty of it. When we do not follow God’s boundaries it diminishes the gift.
November 8, 2009 at 8:45 am
Hi Karen,
This isn’t “AKA Kurt”, but I am using his computer at his home for the weekend. Kurt says it is ok to tell you this. I am actually here for the weekend discussing surrogacy with “the guys.” Kurt turned me on to your blog and it has brought up interesting discussion.
We have differing opinions about the gay celibacy thing. He thinks it is another way for people to be, I think it’s part of the coming out process; to be acceptable and “affirmed” by all, including God. Tammy Fay said it perfectly, “God made us all from dirt, and he didn’t make any trash.” So I have to give it to God that he has great plans for gay people in relationship too. Look at Ellen and Elton, are they not doing God’s “best”?
As far as your lesbian relationships, str8 people also have ones that may not aspire to the perfection of God, look at the divorce rate. So I am a bit skeptical of gay people who leave gay relationships for “God” saying it’s not God’s plan and is sinful, as I think the negative programming still has something to do with it.
I think they are not resolved with their version of God at some level or they would not get into the “better than less than” scenario which hurts other gays in the process.
My sense is that people who are truly resolved in this issue do not hurt others. With the way things are happening with religion and gays in our culture, it seems you are on the side that hurts gays in that; you hold that being gay celibate is God’s plan for gays and gay sexual relationships are a sin. That is a sweeping hurtful position. How does that help the struggling kid in a right wing home to get past his/her guilt and have a great life with a same sex partner if you are calling it sin and not God’s best? Are not you simply another branch of the hard religious right on this topic? I know you aren’t trying to change your orientation like “ex-gays” might have you do, but isn’t that about where it ends?
November 8, 2009 at 9:16 am
Hi Francene,
I am sorry for mixing you up with Kurt. You guys sound alike. Well then, welcome to the blog.
I am not sure what I can say to help you understand where I am coming from. I do hear what you are saying and I can totally see how celibacy seems like such an odd thing to people. And if two people love each other and don’t seem to be hurting anyone, what is the big deal? And, I can see how from your perspective that it would appear as though I am promoting something that unnecessarily restricts people. And thus seems to be mean or “traitorous” in some way. If I were in your shoes I would find it all rather curious and odd myself.
But, I hope that you will give me the benefit of the doubt that I am a compassionate and kindhearted person who truly cares for the well-being of others. I have every incentive for wanting to approve homosexuality. Do you really think it is because I find some warped pleasure in asceticism that I am depriving myself? I would rather not live a single, celibate life. But, I do so because I have a strong conviction in my spirit that there are sexual boundaries that were not meant to be crossed.
You can dismiss me as being brainwashed by fundamentalism. Or, you can try to understand me and why I think the way I do. I spent ten years sorting through all this, including reading pro-gay theology with a very open mind. This is not a decision that I came to lightly and I hope that you will give me some credit for that even if its not an experience that you personally can understand.
If you are not a Christian, I wouldn’t expect you to understand why there are certain sexual ethics that the Christian community ascribes to (not just on homosexuality, but pre-marital sex, etc). If you are not a Christian, I wouldn’t expect you to understand this notion of “sin.”
But if you are a Christian and you believe that there is something called “sin” then perhaps you can understand some of what I am saying. By sin, I just mean something that goes against the ways of God. God is the source of every good and perfect and loving thing. To go against God’s ways is to move away from what is good. So, when I choose not to engage in something I consider “sin”, I am deliberately moving toward what is good. God is love and so going his way is to move toward love (and by love I don’t mean sex).
Jesus had sexual ethics. He said that “adulteries” and “fornications” defile a person. That is, certain sexual relationships are actually damaging to a person–even though they might feel good (otherwise why would we do them?). Sex is powerful and wonderful and sacred and its meant to take place within a certain context. So to flip the tables, from my perspective, I could say that it is you who are causing harm by encouraging people to engage in relationships that lead away from from what is true love–since true love is only found in the ways of God who is love (note again God is love, not God is sex).
Do you believe that there are certain sexual boundaries? If so, why or why not?
November 8, 2009 at 10:12 am
The use of the word “sin” packs an unruly punch at all gays when a religious person says it’s a “sin” to be sexual and gay. It brings up all kinds of hellish fear. This is my sticking point with religion and sex in general. The heavy hammer if you will. I know you are trying to “tread lightly” but to hold that gay sex is immoral and not God’s way for all gays promotes the hell fire and brimstone position and puts many at risk of being beaten killed or suicidal. I see it as one more tentacle of heavy religious sexually meddlesome ways. I just can’t sugar coat that, which you seem to want to do.
I have sexual boundaries. They are within the context of my sexuality, as I see healthy gay sexual relationships are also. My sexual boundaries, like most, are within the same as Christians, but without the death knell “sin” aspect. I wanted just what every str8 woman has always wanted, a loving monogamous relationship with the man of my dreams. I would never hold that relationship template just to myself, I see it as true for gays as well.
I watched the clips of the 3 people on the video, but was dismayed that there was not one aspect of anything gay affirming on stage. It makes me think the “brainwashing” is so thick, that to affirm gays at all in religion is somewhat hopeless. But I am hopeful that this upcoming conference will bring more fundamentalists to see the light about gays and become gay affirming.
Regarding the “feel good” aspect. Gay lovers do not stay together because it feels good. They stay together because they have a soul/God connection. The “feel good” aspect you speak of seems to be more focused on fast sex or adulterous sex, is that right? I do encourage loving healthy soul connected relationships. Sport-fucking is fine but it doesn’t really lead to what I’m about. Then I’m a woman and men have different wiring. Adultery is just plain spineless and painful but even then there are circumstances that are different for everyone. My bottom line with sex and love, is that most of us need and want it, and we do our best to secure it within the bounds of love and commitment. I think that is a noble goal, gay or straight, Christian or secular.
Regarding true love and “the ways of God.” Are you saying that your relationships with your lesbian lovers were not true sexual / love with another human being? If so I would say that many bi people have described the sexual/love relationships of both sexes to be no different. I’m not sure what you are saying there. It seems that you may be hooked on the sex part not being ok. Is that what was problematic in your gay relationships, the sex?
November 8, 2009 at 10:58 am
Hi Francene–I agree the word “sin” has a lot of baggage. Sometimes its hard having conversations in cyberspace because I don’t really know who I am talking to, what kind of background they have, how they define and understand terms etc.
No, I don’t see gay relationships as all about sex. But romance and sex are what distinguish a relationship from being just friends or being lovers. The reason I brought up the love vs. sex thing is because I have often seen in the gay community a confusion between the two. For example, I often hear that because I am not in a sexual relationship that I am doomed to a lonely, miserable life. But, I think that deep, intimate love can be found apart from marriage or romance in deep committed friendships. In fact, sometimes friendships last longer.
I think it might be helpful to understand more about what Christianity is in order to be able to grasp my thoughts in context. I get the sense we are talking on two very different wave-lengths and you really aren’t understanding what I am saying. And, I don’t really get the sense that you want or care to know what I am saying. You have deemed me and anyone else like me as “brainwashed” and so its hard to have a reasonable conversation when you have already decided in your mind what you think of celibate gay Christians.
November 8, 2009 at 11:40 am
Karen,
I think you will disagree with me on this as I believe you have done in the past — but if you are able to function in a way that is productive and abundant and maintain celibacy – you have the *gift* of celibacy. I know I’ve brought that up before, and you have denied that such an occurence exists — that God gave you that gift.
The problem is with most gay Christians as the post so well points out is that the energy spent in repressing and suppressing their sexuality results in very dysfunctional lives or no lives at all.
It probably has seemed as though I have had many quarrels with you, but bottom line I have had only one: I sense that you believe that *were* a gay Christian really sold out to God, they too would have an epiphany moment on their bathroom floor which you go into detail with on your blog that you had. It basically boils down to either you are somehow more committed to God because you were obedient and surrendured in a different way that you describe and this pivotal point occurred *or* this moment will not happen for everyone via God’s grace and power and to present it such is not only unfair but unjust. (Not to mention unloving.)
IOW I still do not understand why you cannot enjoy and rejoice in your gay celibate life and allow others to have, yes, a different interpretation of Scripture.
You mention asceticism: don’t be so quick to dismiss the personal benefits associated with it; many in history have gleaned different “rewards” from self-denial. I don’t find it a bit strange that a person practicing self denial doesn’t find some way to recircuit the painful feelings of self denial to pride or whatever helps them rearrange things.
November 8, 2009 at 11:53 am
I guess there is something else that I have seen come up that I really don’t understand which you have mentioned to me and now this new poster. You say to Francene that you really don’t get the sense that she wants to know what you are saying or cares to know what you are saying.
Where does this come from — this statement? It sounds very self pitying. You’ve said it to me as well, and I remember the first time you did, I scratched my head, wondering, “How in the world can she know what I am thinking or feeling *and* that this is the Internet with limited access to bodily cues, voice inflections, etc…”
I wasn’t going to bring it up, but in re-reading my post, I saw this in the post to Francene above and have wondered why you say this to people, what motivates you to say it? Even if someone didn’t care what you had to say or what you feel, so what? This is your blog, and you can delete any post that you jolly well please. Which you have done in the past with some of my posts for example.
November 8, 2009 at 12:06 pm
AM–many people end up celibate not because of their choice–for example, even straight folk that cannot find a mate. That is not the gift of celibacy. That is simply a reality one lives with.
I don’t claim to be any more committed to God than anyone else. I am not interested in comparing myself to others or playing judge. I simply share my perspective and the reasons why I have made the decisions I have. Others are free to disagree.
As for me saying I don’t feel someone wants to listen, I can only recall saying that to you and Francene. The majority of people on this blog, including those who disagree with me, I have found to be engaged and open to reasonable conversation. But when someone insists on saying I am brainwashed I do have to question whether they want to hear what I have to say. And if they don’t that is perfectly fine with me. The reason I bring it up is because I don’t want to spend time having meaningless arguments where folk are just talking past each other.
November 8, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Karen,
You misunderstand me: I am not conflating the gift of celibacy with life circumstances. What I am saying, is that for whatever reason a person finds oneself single and celibate — if God requires it per an interpretation of Scripture, God will provide the means to live that way without dysfunction in daily life (ie. suicidal ideations, etc.).
I don’t know why the term is so complex to understand. Gift means gift. Grace is a gift; we understand that, do we not? Paul speaks of the gift of celibacy; why should it not be active today in indivduals’ lives as a necessity for *whatever* reason they are single?
And I think you already know this, but I have never said you are “brainwashed” nor have I made any statement remotely similar to that to warrant a not listening of what you have to say.
November 8, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Hi Karen,
I do not mean to talk past you. Maybe “brainwashing” could be replaced with “indoctrinated”. What I am trying to do is understand your bottom line. What I can glean is that you think gay sex is a sin, is not God’s plan, and that you and God are anti-gay sex. Is that correct?
I do understand you have had experiences and those are yours personally. I think part of my sticking point here is when you put every gay person via (para) “God says this or that to me” in with your celibacy experience, as if all of a sudden gay sex is bad or not God’s best, and must be met with celibacy or str8 marriage for all gays.
In that sense it would seem the kindness and compassion is glazed with negative projection on others. If this is true, I put it into the Arsenic and Old Lace or Prayers for Bobby category, where the best of intentions led straight to hell so to speak.
If you are anti-gay in any respect, I would simply like to know that about you. If you are anti-gay in any way I wonder if you see the damage it can cause others. It just seems no different than the Fred Phelps clan with a lighter shade of gray. Do you see this?
I think you see me as possibly encouraging gay relationships and that they are not God’s way. I do not. I see str8 and gay as God’s or natures way. They have been here way longer than doctrine.
The troubles gays face in love sex relationships are no different than str8 other than the God piece. Who am I to not let people have the relationships they want? You on the other hand seem to be seeking to downgrade gay ones to second class with your take being “the right” way or better way, that’s all. Just trying to get the facts straight.
I think maybe I have held out a candle for you in that you are some kind of better version of the hardcore anti-gay religious person. (I do not separate having sex from sexuality or orientation) Maybe that is my error here. If so please forgive me, my mistake. If this is your path then that is fine. I think the shades of gray with you being gay could have me a bit confused.
This is not really talking past you, but getting to know your core beliefs and their effects on others.
I also wonder if you own the effects of your beliefs if you are anti-gay in any way, on other gay people. I hope this is not too confrontive for you. This is how I get to know people.
November 8, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Hey Karen
I liked what you said about coming out of the closet and stop trying to focus on change. That is really echoing what has been going on for me personally in the past little while. The freedom of giving up, coming out and letting God handle it while knowing all the while that God loves you no matter what is so freeing. I am seriously happier than I have ever been. But that’s kind of off topic.
I think what Achtemeier said is tempting for someone to want to believe. Because it’s the easy way out. Who wouldn’t want to hear that this conflict they’ve been having in themselves is no big deal and that it’s ok to pursue whoever they want in a relationship. What I don’t get is that if someone is honestly seeking God in their lives how do they not know God is convicting them of sin. How is it then that one person will leave the gay life because they were convicted of sin and anouther say that God told them it was ok? Aren’t we all talking to the same God? This is all somewhat basic as far as thoughts go on this issue but meh I don’t know.
November 8, 2009 at 6:01 pm
The world is small. I have actually been going to the Highlands Church. I was not seeking out an affirming church, I promise. In fact I assumed it wouldn’t be when I walked in four Sundays ago. Ironically, I was referred there by a straight friend I made at a quasi ex-gay ministry here in Denver. (Yeah, you read that right).
Highlands Church is one of the few places of worship where I can be open about both my orientation and my convictions regarding sexual ethics. I have talked with the pastor about where I am at and he is supportive of my Side B position -as are many of the other congregants. I get the feeling that conservative churches (especially the ones out here in CO) would prefer I don’t talk about my orientation at all unless I have ‘overcome’ it and have a pretty wife by my side when I tell my testimony. My orientation freaks people out in traditional churches and those places have made me feel consistently uncomfortable.
Also, I would not feel comfortable in a church that is so affirming that it would treat someone with my views as if I still believe that the earth is flat.
So far, I have found Highlands Church to be a place where an in-between guy like myself can be open about who he is and where he is at and feel completely welcome. It’s like I belong there.
I am undecided as to whether I will attend the conference as I’m sure it will all be rehashed versions of stuff I have heard and read before. Also, my Dad will be in town and I’d hate to give him a heart attack.
Hope you are well.
P
November 8, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Hey Doug,
Is that church affirming of Side A? I am looking forward to getting married and it is always good to have options.
Thx
November 8, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Sorry, I meant Hey P! There I go talking to myself again.:)
November 8, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Doug,
It is basically affirming of Side A. I would assume that it would conduct marriages for gay folk, but could be wrong. Quite frankly, they are still processing everything but aim to be heavy on the ‘grace’ perspective. I know they are still fleshing out how to pastorally respond to certain situations like marriage, cohabitation, etc.
November 9, 2009 at 5:29 am
Francene– “indoctrinated” is not any more acceptable than “brainwashed.” It still carries a condescending connotation. It suggests that I am incapable of being thoughtful and reflective in the decisions I have made, etc. If you cannot entertain the possibility that those you disagree with have intelligently and reasonably come to their conclusions, then you will never be open minded to what they have to say. You have already decided they are misguided, deceived and “indoctrinated.”
You are trying to force me into a black or white box. And I do not fit into your black and white categories for how you want to define me. The choices you have presented do not adequately reflect who I am. Probably the best way to get a sense of me is to spend time reading some of my blog. Certainly, reading my story under narratives can give you a sense of where I have come from. And here are some other articles that might give you a flavor of my heart and how I process things:
http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/what-i-learned-from-kim-and-luane/
http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/day-of-silence/
http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/be-merciful-as-your-father-is-merciful/
http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/homosexuality-and-church-polity/
http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/for-the-bible-tells-me-so-a-review/
You are concerned about people being damaged. And I am too. We share that in common. I am glad to see that you too have compassion. I wonder if your concern also extends to celibate gay Christians. This is a population that is often reviled by the larger gay community and yet also viewed with suspicion by the Church. It is a marginalized group of people who have already suffered enough pain and turmoil without having to deal with people who harshly judge them.
Also, I hope that you will become aware of the reality that trying to force someone to accept an affirming viewpoint on homosexuality can actual cause some people to become suicidal. There are those who place their faith as higher than their sexuality. Their faith is the most important thing in their life. And when there is pressure to accept something that causes conflict with their convictions it leads to cognitive dissonance, depression and suicidal ideation. This is a reality that is very difficult for those who a more nominal faith or do not ascribe to religious beliefs to grasp and appreciate.
I also have a question for you. You said something that I have heard others say that has always been confusing to me. You write: “I think part of my sticking point here is when you put every gay person via (para) “God says this or that to me” in with your celibacy experience, as if all of a sudden gay sex is bad or not God’s best”
Do you believe in God? And if so who is this God? The way you describe it here it is as if you equate God with my own thought processes. So that if I simply changed my mind about a subject I could recreate God. To me God is a separate Being and Person from you and me. This God is the Creator of the Universe. Your Creator and mine. This God is real. And how can I tell God how to run things? Do you think God says one thing to one person and a different thing to another? If so, why would God force some gay people to be celibate and others not? How do you discern what God says is right or wrong? On what basis? Or do you pretty much live your life as seems best to you and assume God goes along with it or doesn’t care much either way?
Sarah, you write: “What I don’t get is that if someone is honestly seeking God in their lives how do they not know God is convicting them of sin. How is it then that one person will leave the gay life because they were convicted of sin and anouther say that God told them it was ok? Aren’t we all talking to the same God?”
That is something that puzzles me as well. I really don’t understand it sometimes. Though, when I have evaluated why some people come to the belief they do, I usually see that they are basing their decision making in a different pattern than I do. I touched on that in my post “God Blessed or Not: How Did You Decide?” Thus far, when I have listened to the reason people have decided to be affirming, I have not been persuaded or felt comfortable with how they arrived at that. There are certain criteria that I would need to have met in order to become affirming (and I am certainly always open to hearing more truth), and so far I haven’t encountered anything that would convince me that God says it is okay.
P--its great to hear from you. I have missed having you around. We should try to get together over the holiday if you are around. Thanks for sharing about your experience at Highlands. I am glad to hear that you have found it to be a safe place for you. I can totally understand how it is refreshing to be at a place that is not weird about it or closed off to talking about it. I do wish that they would be open to hearing more perspectives at this conference though. For example, I wish they had invited someone like Ron Belgau to round out the panel. I know they are trying to be compassionate, but what they don’t realize is that they can inadvertently marginalize celibate gay Christians who also really need support.
November 9, 2009 at 6:22 am
Great, great post, Karen.
I think more and more evangelicals will move towards gay-affirming positions.
Forgive me if this causes offence to anyone, but one of the characteristics of evangelical Christianity is that it is a ‘feel-good’ religion. If it doesn’t make you feel good, then it must not be good. The devaluing of celibacy, ease on divorce, etc., comes from this. Traditional teaching on homosexuality and sexuality in general is not ‘feel good’, so I can see how evangelicals can begin to abandon it.
What are the consequences? Again, forgive me if I offend, but I think that the sun will begin to set of evangelical Christianity in the same way as it has on mainline Protestantism.
Not directly because of changing teachings on sexuality. Actually, these changes are a symptom of an overall trend to allowing experience, such as modern science, to outweigh Scripture and Tradition, of not sublimating experience to Scripture and Tradition. Thus you end up with people questioning the Virgin Birth, Christ’s divinity, etc., because at a certain level, these clash with our modern scientific understanding of the world. The questioning of traditional teachings on sexuality is just one part of this.
I’ve always said that I find it difficult and logically inconsistent to disbelieve traditional teachings on sexuality and yet believe in traditional teachings on the Holy Trinity. In order to change beliefs on sexuality, one has to necessarily attribute a high level of _spiritual_, not only scientific, ignorance to the Holy Fathers who gave us Scripture and Tradition. These are the same Fathers who recount for us the incredible, fantastic, and nearly impossible to believe miracle of Christ’s resurrection. How can we today, knowing what we know, believe such a fantastic story?
This is why, I think, we are seeing the decline of the mainline Protestants – because they have questioned and rejected the very basis of their beliefs, and become agnostic. And this is what I think we will begin to see with evangelical Christianity.
November 9, 2009 at 8:13 am
Karen, I echo others in saluting you for this post and your insights. Right on, girl!
AM, you speak of Karen possibly having the “gift of celibacy.” Perhaps it’s more a case of her having been obedient to the Spirit’s convicting her of sin in her former life, as she testifies to. Celibacy, then, would be her Spirit-aided response. Obedience can do that.
November 9, 2009 at 8:19 am
Karen,
I understand that many have their different point of views. If we were all to believe the same thing, then all would be peechie. But we don’t because some things that are touted to be true for all, God or no God, are not true. Fundamentalists believe mankind is only 6K years old, and that scientific carbon dating is wrong. The world was considered flat not too long ago, a position held tightly by the church. So I see the church and religion as flexible if not fallible. In this instance concerning the church and homosexuality, I see the same thing. I am not pro gay or anti gay, I am a realist. Gay and straight are real in this world and both are loving, yet gay seems to be opinionated to death by fear of something being different than the majority. I don’t go for that. I have to be flexible on this issue because there is too much proof, like the Earth is not flat, that gay people are a very important part of the human experience, and are not to be suffocated in any way. It is not a position I need to go to God about, because I was never taught that God condemned homosexuality on any level.
I read your articles you set for me, and I do see you are compassionate for others who suffer through the war that seems so unreasonably fought by right wing fundamentalism being hurtful and filled with duress.
But the one thing I don’t see in your writings, is the realization that you too, see homosexuality as sinful and not God’s plan the same way they do. If this is so then so be it. No problem.
As I said, I thought you were different than those fundies that are hard bound in negative gay rhetoric. What you don’t seem to want to admit, no matter how compassionate you are for the war at hand, is that you believe the same thing, albeit with a loving heart and a desire to educate that being gay is not God’s plan and is a sin, in a loving non confrontational way. You don’t drive that home in your writings, but seem to get emotional when people are hurt by aggressives, which hold true the very things you seem to believe and promote.
You are not gay-affirming. In this I do surmise that you are a compassionate anti-gay gay person with a desire to animate your convictions so others can have some sort of resolve with their homosexuality and can have some sort of better life if they just struggle long enough to attain it through life long abstinence. In this I see that you support that gay sex love relationship marriage family children and the entire gay family model etc are all a sin needing to be dropped for celibacy or str8 marriage via repentance to “God”. Am I correct? Please highlight and copy to your response.
Is it possible that you were personally unsure about your resolve with God and homosexuality, and that God whispered in your ear that it would be best for you, and you alone, to be celibate so as not to be confused by it and lead another way of life?
You don’t want to be put into a black and white box however, it seems that by telling all of humanity that they are sinners if they are gay and in relationship, that the box could not be any more black and white.
I get your compassion and your tears. I feel for you on that. It is very telling that you do have feelings and a heart. However, we have feelings and we have thoughts. I would ask that you as a gay person, answer my questions about your thoughts and the fact I think you are gay yet anti-gay in thinking, and that anti-gay thinking put upon the world is harmful to others. It’s either yes or no, which is pretty black and white I know. All too often it is difficult to pin down some religious people to their bottom line beliefs. It seems that is happening here. Is to resolve this too much to ask?
I do get that some could commit suicide with the confusion around homosexuality and God, and that maybe celibacy is a holding back point for some. In that it may be a great help, but, who else in the world is being hurt en-group, that could also be committing suicide because one confused gay Christian needs to project negative anti gay fundamentalism onto the world in order to feel consoled? Shall we let the one commit suicide, or the many?
I could actually consider being a friend of your blog if this can be resolved. I have great honor for people with clear convictions that are not afraid to put it in bottom line terms. What I don’t have honor for, is wavy gravy shades of gray, mainly because I then do not know who I am talking to.
November 9, 2009 at 8:37 am
Karen:
You really have an amazing gift for blogging. Your writing is thought provoking and so very relevant. Plus, you’re just so nice! Your demeanor goes a long way. I am so impressed in not only your posts but your responses to the many varied comments you receive.
I have a blog of my own that I would love to have you visit at: http://www.thearchitectsgarage.blogspot.com/. I certainly don’t consider myself to have the same skillset as yourself regarding theology, but am enjoying coming out to the world through my own posts.
Thanks again for being such an inspiration. I hope your studies are going well and you’re enjoying your new home. And please continue to blog when you feel the Lord lead.
Rob Turner
November 9, 2009 at 9:10 am
Hi Karen,
I’d love to catch up in person over the holidays. Send me an email and we can set something up.
I, too, am disappointed that the conference will be one-sided. The way the church sees it is that we have all heard the ‘anti-gay’ argument many times already. They wanted to introduce a fresh perspective. Also, it should be said that there were a lot of traditional ex-gay types who wanted to be heard.
This church has a real opportunity to reach out to celibate gay Christians. As far as I know, no one else out here is doing it.
November 9, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Hi Karen,
Thank you for your respectful and provocative blog.
As an active member of Highlands Church I am looking forward to the upcoming symposium. Having grown up in the Evangelical Church all I ever heard on this topic was the traditional view. Highlands Church is not seeking a debate or a confrontation with those who hold the traditional view but simply wanting to provide an opportunity to increase understanding of a different Christ-centered, Bible-believing, evangelical perspective. There will be opportunities for challenges, questions, and, hopefully, continuing discussion.
Here is a quote from a letter written by the Pastor, Mark Tidd: “I would never dream of talking someone out of a single and celibate life if, in fact, they felt called by God to be so. But callings are received from God, not demanded by the church. When someone is called to a single, celibate life, my assumption is that like with every difficult calling, God will supply sufficient grace. But just as all are not called to be pastors, or teachers or prophets etc, I don’t believe that every person born gay is ipso facto, called to be single and celibate. Please understand that our church does not advocate promiscuity among any of its folks, gay or straight. But we believe that since we are all created in the image of God, ordinarily, most people reflect that image by seeking a lifelong partner.”
Highlands Church desires to be a Church without labels where everyone is welcome. It would be great to see you on the 21st. Please come up and introduce yourself to me. I would love to meet you.
Blessings,
Joe
November 9, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Hi Karen, in the small world P mentioned, I am the pastor of Highlands Church in Denver, now in its 9th week. I don’t blog much but have been very grateful for the many perspectives and thoughtful responses expressed here. P is correct in saying with regard to the symposium at our church on Nov. 21 that because most of our intended audience is familiar with the traditional evangelical perspective, we wanted to bring in another evangelical perspective that is far less familiar, especially to the “straight” members of our church. It would be an understatement to say there is so much our church has yet to learn as we navigate a course unfamiliar to us and with very few churches to look to for help.Our new church, like many of those who come, both gay and straight, has stepped into the unfamiliar because the familiar seemed to perpetuate pain, silence, judgment and fear, and perhaps worst of all, the repetition of some unhelpful cliches. “Hate the sin, love the sinner? Anyone? Anyone?) Gal. 5:25 says, “Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit”. We believe there is a movement of the Spirit going on, just as the Spirit moved us away from slavery and the oppression of woman, to name just two. Many of the gay folks who come have cautioned me saying, “We don’t want to get labeled as the ‘gay” church.” Indeed, every week I exhort the congregation, “In imitation of the ridiculous love Almighty God has shown each of us and all of us, let us live and love without labels.” Blessings like rain, Mark
November 9, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Joe nailed it when he said that for every difficult calling, God will provide sufficient grace. That is what I have been trying to say with the “gift of celibacy” given to those who are to remain single. It’s not a lifelong angst and torment filled with suicidal ideations, etc… It’s a gift.
I *think* where so many Christians find themselves (myself included) is that there is not this sufficient grace to take us through a lifetime in a non-dysfunctional fashion. Hiding out from people, afraid to get close to someone, afraid to fall is *not* a lifetime of grace but a lifetime of craziness.
Karen, I am not refuting that your life did not get better after your surrender to celibacy, but for so many of us it did get untolerable — the suppressing and repressing until there was next to nothing left of us. Not all of us are living the good or blessed life because we have been so busy trying to fill in the grace that never came through repression, suppression, isolation. Is that an affront to say that God never provided the grace? It isn’t if it is possible that how the journey we thought would end, didn’t. IOW maybe God *didn’t* want us to be alone and unpartnered. Just a thought.
I am glad to see the pastor and a member speaking up and out. Are they deceived, too?
November 9, 2009 at 2:45 pm
While awaiting additional comments from Karen, may I respond to Pastor Mark? Hi, Pastor. Good of you to stop by.
This statement of yours is certainly a mouthful:
“But just as all are not called to be pastors, or teachers or prophets etc, I don’t believe that every person born gay is ipso facto, called to be single and celibate.”
I guess you meant for us not to react to the ipso facto “born gay” part. That is making a large assumption that has no clear consensus anywhere in the world. If God really does create some of us with the capacity only to be attracted to and seek lifelong intimate relationship with our same sex (which would leave a gaping hole in biblical doctrine), then what you say would certainly make sense. I would presume you will have challenges to that viewpoint within your church, however. I cannot concur with it.
I totally agree we need to stop being nervous about openly examining all sides of homosexuality in our churches. It breaks my heart that the Church has wounded so many. I work with some of those folks week in and week out in my church. I believe most folks have the capacity to lay aside their prejudices and open their minds and hearts on this issue. But as we are making room in our churches for conflicted gay Christians, we will have to likewise make room for those who, even “in imitation of the ridiculous love Almighty God has shown each of us and all of us,” still cannot accept any view of marriage under God’s heaven except that between a man and a woman, reflecting the total image of our Godhead. I hope they will not be shunned in churches like yours or cast as bigots for that.
November 9, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“I stopped because the Spirit convicted me of sin.”
That’s the common factor in all of the ex-post-whatever-gay stories I’ve read. There aren’t many (any?) non-Christian exgay stories. If all the other factors and social pressures are present but the person isn’t a Christian, they don’t sign up for ‘exgay’ or a life of being single.
November 9, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Ooops, I’ve just seen there is another Joe here.
I’m Joe S.
November 9, 2009 at 3:37 pm
A line that stood out to me in “theformers” comments: ” . . . a large assumption that has no clear consensus anywhere in the world.”
I think often what is extremely important in examining the evidence of whether God has created one of his children with a same-sex attraction is the mostly overlooked strength of the witness. God’s words has much to say about the power of testimony and witness. Evidence that even now is submittable in a court of law – a tool that is many thousands of years practiced.
Hundreds of thousands, millions of gay people would testify to the fact that they are wired, created, made, naturally attracted to the same sex. Witness and testimony to the fact that they most definitely did not want or seek same sex attraction in their lives. The question then becomes: “Is this evidence enough to positively conclude whether God actually created us this way?”
I don’t know if I have the answer, but I wanted to point out that there indeed is a consensus in the world about how we have been created and wired. It might not be a consensus which is powerful enough or organized as an entity to persuade those who oppose the possibility that God creates same sex attraction – the same God who creates inter-sexed children – but there indeed is a consensus.
I’m looking forward to the symposium and it is encouraging to me as a gay Christian to know that conversation is taking place.
Bless You All!
November 9, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Wow- a lot has gone on while I was in class.
Pastor Mark, thanks for stopping by. I am honored to hear from you. I can understand and appreciate where you are coming from. Please understand that my intent in posting this article was to examine certain perspectives that influenced some to go from a more conservative position to affirming. My goal was not to create a controversy or debate at Highlands. I am sure your fledgling congregation doesn’t need that.
My concern is that people have only really heard a traditional view that is a more fundamentalist perspective. That is, what has been heard from more religious Right circles. You write: “the familiar seemed to perpetuate pain, silence, judgment and fear, and perhaps worst of all, the repetition of some unhelpful cliches. “Hate the sin, love the sinner?”
I definitely agree we need to move away from that. But, I want to ask churches to consider whether there is more than just this fundamentalist culture of fear and judgment on one hand and on the other hand the affirming view. The option is not either be judgmental or be affirming. There is a third way and that is what I try to do on this blog. Its the third way that your church will miss out on with this symposium. For balance sake, it would be great to have someone who is a celibate gay Christian who is not immersed in the ex-gay movement or religious Right etc. Someone like Ron Belgau who is actually a friend of Justin Lee.
In the quote that Joe included that you made regarding a call to celibacy. I just wanted to clarify that I have not been called to celibacy. This isn’t a vocation. Rather, I don’t have any option. I am celibate only because I do not believe God blesses same-gender relationships and so cannot pursue that. Its a matter of obedience to Christ than a “calling.” I think most celibate gay Christians would say the same. And the distinction is very important to us. We don’t have the “gift of celibacy” and we haven’t been “called to celibacy.” We are simply trying to honor God with what we believe is a matter of sexual ethics.
In any case, my prayers are with you. I know this is a very challenging topic and one that we really need to be honest with and wrestle with. We certainly need God’s Spirit for that. May God bless you and your new church.
PS–as for the comparison of homosexuality with slavery and women, you might find William Webb’s book, “Slaves, Women and Homosexuals” to be an interesting read.
Joe–thanks so much for chiming in as well. I would love to meet you sometime. I actually live in North Carolina, but come to Colorado once or twice a year to visit family. Unfortunately, I won’t be there on the 21st. I wish I could be. I am sure it will be a very interesting symposium. I will be in Colorado in December for the holiday and perhaps if I can work it out I can visit Highlands for a service. It sounds like you are a compassionate group of folk that really want everyone to feel loved and welcome and I appreciate that. And I am glad that P has found a safe place with you there.
P–I will e-mail you about getting together. Also you wrote: “It should be said that there were a lot of traditional ex-gay types who wanted to be heard.” Were there people from outside the church asking to present alongside or ? Who are these folk that you are referring to?
Rob–thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment. I appreciate it. I visited your blog and saw part of your video. I guess I will see you around in cyberspace!
Joe S.–It does seem like most of those who “sign up” to be ex-gay as you put it are Christian. Though, I think that may be a bit of of an illusion. I would imagine that there are many in the Muslim or Jewish tradition or other religious communities that do not pursue same-gender relationships. However, for other folk they are just going to individual counseling or just getting married etc. There is no “ex-gay” culture. So I think there are in fact many non-Christians who choose not to pursue same-gender relationships but are not part of the ex-gay movement–a movement that is distinctly Christian. If you do a search on my blog, there is a book review I did called “Leaving the Life” and its by a lesbian who wrote about non-religious reasons women abandon same-gender relationships. Also, there was a woman who commented on my book review of Janelle Hallman’s book who was Buddhist and wanting to examine changing her sexual orientation.
Brentt–I appreciate your comment. I agree that testimony/witness is an important factor to consider. There are, of course, witnesses on both sides, which complicates the matter. As for being “wired that way”–I think most people who read this blog–either affirming or not would agree that gay people do not choose to be gay. How people become gay is a matter that science still has not resolved. Like the APA, I believes its probably a mixture of nature and nurture. But, for me it doesn’t matter so much what the cause is or if its biological. There are many things that are “wired”–some of them God blessed and some are not. So biology alone does not decide what is ethical.
Francene–I will respond to your response soon.
November 9, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Millions of people have lived in celibacy throughout the ages; but we generally do not connect celibacy will suicidal tendencies. One does not equate to the other. And most everybody faces long-term celibacy at some point in life.
If you do not marry early, you should, by biblical standards, remain celibate until that time. And if you do marry, you may become widowed. I think of the 84-year-old woman, Anna, who prophesied that the baby Jesus was the messiah. She was celibate most of her life, and I somehow do not believe that she was suicidal.
And in general, countless people have suffered much more unbearable pain in this world than those people (gay or straight) who end up committing suicide. But most people are not inclined to kill themselves—rather they fight to survive despite their immense hardships and suffering. Suicide is not necessarily a measure that someone’s pain is more than what other people endure.
Suicide is more of a mechanism “some people” will use for remedying their problems; and people have been known to kill themselves over relatively trivial matters that were, for whatever reason, blown out of proportion in their own minds.
I don’t think that an American gay teen who lives in shame for his or her homosexuality has suffered more than the countless young children who are rejected, abandoned or orphaned at an early age, spend years scavenging for sustenance in the city dump, are severely diseased and maimed with no medical treatment, exploited and subjected to physical and sexual abuse, and endure living in the streets—fending for themselves and possibly carrying the burden of caring for helpless siblings—in extreme climates without any parental help, love and guidance.
Yet the one who will be more prone to suicide will most likely be the gay person, who has enjoyed loving—howbeit imperfect—relationships with family and friends, and all the comforts and luxuries we take for granted every day in America.
Celibacy itself does not cause people to become suicidal nor does it generally lead to severe depression. There are other factors that cause these things. Celibacy is in fact a very natural and healthy state to be in.
So I think that the elevated rate of suicide among homosexual teens speaks to something else altogether, not the prospect of a life of celibacy.
In looking at my own life, I can say that celibacy “itself” has not been the root of the severe difficulties I’ve experienced.
Yes, of course celibacy can be very hard for anyone because we all crave physical and emotional intimacy, as well as the reassurance of having someone who will always be close by when we need them; but it was really “homosexual” celibacy that was extremely problematic and painful.
When I am not struggling with homosexuality, heterosexual celibacy does not affect me in the same way. (And trust me I have come to really adore and appreciate men, so it’s not because I have no interest in them.) So I believe that homosexual celibacy is essentially much harder than heterosexual celibacy.
I agree that people are affected much more deeply when they are treated badly for their struggle with homosexuality, but I have come to learn that there is just something innately unhealthy about the state of homosexuality itself that makes a person more prone to depression and suicide.
Not everyone will agree with me, and that’s OK as far as I am concerned. But I believe that homosexuality makes for a more vulnerable person in general, whether they are in an affirming environment or not. And I think this is testimony to the fact that homosexuality is outside of God’s will.
Gay affirming people are always pulling out the “victimization” card (e.g. bullying, suicide, discrimination, human rights, etc.) to gain leverage for acceptance of homosexuality. And when these terms are used, how can homosexuality be immoral?
It would seem that the “perpetrators” who caused this to be are the only immoral ones.
With that mentality, we start playing the blame game. We are now on a cycle of what is referred to as the drama triangle. (And we all play that game, in our own little ways.)
But issues such as bullying, treatment of human beings, and suicide exist outside the realm of homosexuality. So they should not be used as leverage to influence someone’s decision about moral conduct on an unrelated matter—sexuality. And given the record for healthy celibacy, I do not believe that celibacy should be used in that way either.
I do not like to see anyone suffer for any reason, and yes there are still issues that need to be addressed when it comes to the treatment of homosexuals. But when I see the messages and arguments that are coming from people like Achtemeier, it doesn’t move me.
I don’t flinch a bit because I can see through to what is happening on the spiritual side.
He succumbed to the leveraging of gay philosophy and you can see where it lead him—to compromise the morality he once knew to be true; not based on what he found in God’s Word, but the wisdom of man. And God tells us oft in scripture what he thinks of man’s wisdom!
And after all is said and done, when up against the wisdom of God, man always proves himself to be in error, despite all of his worldly advancements in knowledge.
November 9, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Karen et. al: I do have a Jewish friend who has affiliated with “JONAH” – “Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality” – which has a website at
http://www.jonahweb.org/
Their mission statement reads as follows:
“JONAH is a non-profit international organization dedicated to educating the world-wide Jewish community about the social, cultural and emotional factors which lead to same-sex attractions. JONAH works directly with those struggling with unwanted same-sex sexual attractions (SSA) and with families whose loved ones are involved in homosexuality.
Our Rabbinical sages explain that because mankind has been endowed by our Creator with a free will, everyone has the capacity to change. Furthermore, the Rabbis emphasize that parents, teachers and counselors have a special responsibility to educate, nurture, and provide an opportunity for those struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions to journey out of homosexuality.
Through psychological and spiritual counseling, peer support, and self-empowerment, JONAH seeks to reunify families, to heal the wounds surrounding homosexuality, and to provide hope.”
A recently-published book is promoted ontheir site: “Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change” by Arthur Goldberg.
Jeff
November 9, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Grace–I think you make some great points in regards to celibacy and perspective.
Jeff–yes, there is JONAH. Though, I didn’t mention it since it is very closely affiliated with the ex-gay movement and has the same emphasis on change as Exodus. Is it well accepted by the Jewish community?
Francene–You write a very thoughtful and reasonable comment. Much of what you say makes good sense. I also understand your desire for people to simply say what they think and not be wishy washy. I, too, much prefer that someone be clear and direct. And I think my views are pretty well laid out in many different blog posts. But, the reason why I hesitate to give you a black and white “yes” or “no” answer is because the options you have given me do not fit. The moment I give you a particular answer you are going to put me in a box–and view me within a certain caricature. I don’t believe that we can size someone up that we have never met in one little sound bite. People and issues are much more complex than that. So, I hesitate only because I don’t want to give you an impression of myself that is simply not accurate. I want you to truly know me and understand where I am coming from and I am not sure that you can quite see it even if I were to try to explain it.
You write: “I would ask that you as a gay person, answer my questions about your thoughts and the fact I think you are gay yet anti-gay in thinking, and that anti-gay thinking put upon the world is harmful to others.”
Why would I do something that is harmful? As you said yourself, you see that I have compassion for others. So, why would I try to hurt people? No, I am not anti-gay because in your definition anti-gay means I am hurting others. Rather, I am pro-gay. I too believe that all gay people are just as valuable as straight people. And, as a gay person myself, I have a special regard and care for others who are also gay. I care very deeply for the well-being of all gay people.
The question is not really about homosexuality, it is about how this world operates and who God is. You didn’t really answer my question of whether you believe in God and if so who God is. You did say, “It is not a position I need to go to God about, because I was never taught that God condemned homosexuality on any level.”
I thought that was an interesting answer to my question because you refer to what you have been taught or not taught. I don’t base my understanding of God on what someone else has taught me. I pray to God directly and seek his Spirit’s guidance. And I read Scripture for myself and search and study. The fact that you have not even questioned what you were or were not taught tells me you have not spent much time reflecting on this issue. Everyone naturally thinks their view is the correct one. It takes doing the research of looking at all sides and praying through it to make a truly informed evaluation.
In my view there is a God. And God is all good and all loving. So anything God directs us in is for our well-being. What if, in fact, there is something about same-gender sexual relationships that is not good for a person? Before you dismiss that outright, just contemplate it for a moment. What if that is really true? If it is true, that homosexual activity is harmful to a person, then those who are anti-gay are the ones who don’t care that a gay person is being harmed in this way.
The question really comes down to then is what is well-being? And how do we come to know what is well-being versus what is harm? People engage in self-harming behavior on a regular basis. Why? Because we like to suffer? No, because we are unaware that we are harming ourselves.
You write: “Some things that are touted to be true for all, God or no God, are not true. So I see the church and religion as flexible if not fallible.”
That is a true statement. But, it doesn’t really answer the question of what is true. The church may be fallible, but does that mean we can never know God and what he thinks? Do you believe there is a God? And if so, how do you discern what God thinks?
You write: “Is it possible that you were personally unsure about your resolve with God and homosexuality, and that God whispered in your ear that it would be best for you, and you alone, to be celibate so as not to be confused by it and lead another way of life?”
This makes no sense to me at all. Does this actually make logical sense to you? So God would make me live a single celibate life so that I would not be confused? That really makes no sense to me. I am not confused (though I have been in the past). Nor am I unresolved. Always open to new truth, certainly, but not unresolved. Like I said, I spent 10 years thinking through all this.
The question comes down to, how do you determine what is true? How do you decide what is right or wrong? On what basis? And how do we know what God says? If God is the source of every good and loving thing, then it behooves us to search and seek for his insight so that we can live and promote well-being for everyone.
November 10, 2009 at 6:20 am
Brentt, you said:
Hundreds of thousands, millions of gay people would testify to the fact that they are wired, created, made, naturally attracted to the same sex. Witness and testimony to the fact that they most definitely did not want or seek same sex attraction in their lives. The question then becomes: “Is this evidence enough to positively conclude whether God actually created us this way?”
________
I think Karen gave an excellent response to your question. I can testify to “feeling” hard-wired for same-sex attraction or gender nonconformity from an early age. I cannot explain that from either a scientific or faith perspective. I can accept it as multifaceted, due to nature and nurture, perhaps.
As Karen said, it doesn’t matter to me. I know it was never God’s created intention or will for my life. How? Like Karen, I have sought Him prayerfully and have meditated on the Scriptures for a long time. His Spirit testifies to the truth in me. And that will not be easily understood by those outside the faith.
I tend to forget when I comment here that some folks don’t know/remember who I am, since I registered as a commenter here some time back under the name of my Web outreach/blog. Sorry. I am Debbie Thurman.
So, what you say is a consensus, Brentt, is merely a worldview for some.
November 10, 2009 at 7:50 am
Karen,
In my comment to you I said,
“You are not gay-affirming. In this I do surmise that you are a compassionate anti-gay gay person with a desire to animate your convictions so others can have some sort of resolve with their homosexuality and can have some sort of better life if they just struggle long enough to attain it through life long abstinence. In this I see that you support that gay sex love relationship marriage family children and the entire gay family model etc are all a sin needing to be dropped for celibacy or str8 marriage via repentance to “God.” Am I correct? Please highlight and copy to your response.”
By “anti-gay” I mean anti-gay sex love relationship marriage and gay families. This is the part of “gay” I think you are anti about or disapproving via god etc.
Do not feel restricted to “yes” or “no” with your answer to the above question. You are free to vary as I see you do like words, but a conclusive answer would be preferred.
How do you think gay relationships are any different than straight ones with regard to being harmful and where did you get your information? Any relationship has potential for harm.
November 10, 2009 at 9:12 am
“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,”
1 Peter 3:15
Karen, I love the fact that, given all the difficult debate that occurs on your wonderful blog, you hold true to the above verse and that you encourage others to do so too.
Thanks for the illuminating discussion.
November 10, 2009 at 9:23 am
Francene–I will answer your question when you answer mine. You are skirting around my question regarding God and how we know what is true. It is within that particular discussion that I can best answer your question.
Allan–thanks for the encouragement. I am glad that at least once in awhile I manage to avoid sticking my foot in my mouth.
November 10, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I believe there are levels of intelligence in the invisible world people call God(s). Some people hear them and some people don’t. Jesus is one of these invisible forces, along with many others. To ascertain what or which God is saying something to someone, is entirely subjective to that person, and others may believe it if they so choose, though it could be considered hearsay.
To “know” something from the higher realms if you will, can be different for people who say they can “hear” or get impressions etc, so there is no one cookie cutter “knowing” for everyone if someone else, is “channeling.” All the Biblical guys were obviously “channels.”
In such cases I have to weigh the reality of what was “received,” in this world and see if it holds water and is good for the whole of humanity. Discrimination in any way is not coming from a stable source and is not “good,” for us in my opinion. I think there are countless sources in the invisible world. A purer source, if you will, would not condone or recommend one love relationship to be better or worse than another. One may be more difficult than another, but relationships can all be difficult, such is life.
I believe the ultimate God of God’s if you will, is only of love. This is expressly noted at gay weddings when many are in tears at the love they experience through witnessing two souls joining. This is how I “know” God’s love is through loving each other, not dissecting and separating. This is how I “know” gays and gay relationships are blessed by God is through their God given love they demonstrate, just like straights.
This is in my opinion the ultimate litmus test for “knowing” God’s will of love. I see no second best in relationships gay or straight as the love is experienced the same if they so choose to love their mates as God loves us. In this I believe God’s will has spoken in unmistakable and undeniable favor for gay relationships and the love they demonstrate.
I believe “God’s plan” is only to love as he loves us. As we are His love if we choose to access it. Unlike murders and thieves spoken of in Abraham’s “channelings” of his God of the Bible, which seems to discriminate against an entire plethora of humans; the ultimate God’s love in gay marriage is quite the opposite and cannot be put asunder by any human. God’s “blessing” of gay marriage, is the love itself shared by many. This is how gay marriage is “blessed” by God, in joining with Him in His love. This love is the “truth” and the “knowing” we seek. A joining with our love within, either with God through divine revelation which is not experienced by most, ever, or through loving each other or both, the love is the same. This is how I believe one “knows” what’s “true” and “of” God.
I am interested to hear through some examples, of how you think “harm,” the opposite of God’s love, is involved in such gay relationships of this nature and how you came to believe it.
I am also interested in a comment as to how God’s love through gay marriage/union could be a sin, an offense against God’s love when that love is in full obvious demonstration in a marriage ceremony, all aspects of which you think should be dropped for a life of singleness struggle and sexual suppression.
November 10, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Karen,
Please understand I have no issue with your struggles for you alone, I applaud you for your journey. It’s when you cast or “act out” your struggles research and prayer conversations with “God,” as if everyone else should consider gay relationships a sin harmful or not God’s plan, that the red flags comes up.
November 10, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Oh, what the heck. Let’s have some more red flags. I just can’t, for the life of me, figure out how to address these issues meaningfully outside a spiritual context. So be it.
“A purer source, if you will, would not condone or recommend one love relationship to be better or worse than another.”
Why not, Francene? Why would not a loving God who knows us better than we know ourselves and wants what is best for us not direct us in that way, even if it seems painful at the time?
“And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons: ‘My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you
because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.’ … Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it (Hebrews 12:5, 6, 10, 11).
Sums it up for me.
November 10, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Francene, you are a worthy “sparring” partner.
You write: “It’s when you cast or “act out” your struggles research and prayer conversations with “God,” as if everyone else should consider gay relationships a sin harmful or not God’s plan, that the red flags comes up.”
Francene–I am simply being honest with how I perceive the world. I am not out to get anyone or coerce anyone. This blog is a place for me to express my ideas, thoughts and opinions. We live in a world full of diverse views. It sounds as if you would rather I be silent? What am I supposed to do with the fact that my worldview raises red flags for you? I can’t pretend that I don’t believe the things I do. And I am not holding my views to spite you or someone else. I can’t help it that I see things as I do. I look at the evidence the best as I possibly can, and as much as I may even want things to be different, I am forced to acknowledge what I see.
And I do wish things could be different. I want homosexuality to be blessed by God. Sometimes I really don’t understand why it can’t be. I have had many conversations with God about it and I will continue to have many conversations with God about it. And, I approach the subject with as much humility as I can because I know there is much mystery in the world. So, I seek God’s mercy and grace as I take steps toward him to the best of my knowledge and ability.
I would agree there are different “sources”–both negative and positive sources. And I would agree that the God of gods is one of love (though I don’t believe love itself is God–I am not sure if perhaps you do). Your approach makes sense–you are seeking to see where there is goodness and love. And there in that love we can find what is of God.
The question becomes, what is love? And are we ever confused about what love is? Jesus said there is no greater love than this than to lay down your life for a friend. The love of the Bible does not focus on romance. It focuses on patience, kindness, faithfulness, goodness, justice, and everything that is right in God’s eyes. So to talk about gay (or straight) marriage as love is to talk about romance that may or may not be love because love is not primarily romance or being “in love.”
You write: “Discrimination in any way is not coming from a stable source and is not “good,” for us in my opinion. I think there are countless sources in the invisible world. A purer source, if you will, would not condone or recommend one love relationship to be better or worse than another.”
I am curious if you actually mean this. What about a consensual, committed loving sexual relationship between an adult brother and sister? Or between a father and daughter (as was just prominently in the news recently). They are adults, its consensual. Should we discriminate against consensual incestuous relationships? The arguments that are made for homosexuality–the “love ethic” can be used just as easily for consensual adult incestuous relationships.
As best as I can determine, the reason God puts boundaries on certain sexual relationships, including same-gender ones, is related to community. Sexual relationships are about community. They are never solely or even mostly about the individual–even though in our individualistic American society we think they are. A couple’s sexual relationship affects the whole of the community. Certain boundaries are good for the well-being and functioning of the family unit and community. Incest crosses boundaries where (for most of us) we know those relationships should not be sexualized.
Also, what is marriage? What is that structure? And how does it relate to the larger community? Why does it require both a male and a female to create a child? What is the significance of that that God would require both genders to create a family unit? Certainly people develop alternative families through adoption for example–but this is because something has gone wrong. A child has been abandoned by his parents or has lost his parents in a tragedy. In a same-gender relationship, any children involved are missing one or both parents. This is not to say gay couples cannot be great parents. Of course they can. I am only talking about the bigger operating principle. That operating principle of how family units and communities are naturally created indicates something.
There also seems to be a spiritual misalignment with two men and two women. So in the gay male community there can be greater promiscuity–not because gay men are more promiscuous than straight men, but because men in general are wired to enjoy multiple partners and they are more apt to give each other permission to do so. Whereas women provide a restraint in that regard because they generally do not permit their male partners to have other partners. Similarly, there can be imbalance with two women. I know many lesbian couples who lose themselves in each other emotionally. Does that mean all lesbian relationships are like that, no. But the genders counterbalance each other to prevent excess. And its that excess seen by looking at communities as a whole (and not individual exceptions) that suggest something is amiss. A societal and spiritual imbalance of a yin/yin and yang/yang rather than a yin/yang.
I wrote about this in a post called “Male and Female: Does it Matter”– this goes into more of my thoughts: http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/male-and-female-does-it-matter/
In some sense, what I am saying is that I make certain decisions–even sacrifices you could say– for the greater community that God intends. That is utterly nonsensical in an individualistic society like ours where we have no sense of doing something like that for the sake of community. But, the individual actions of many add up to ultimate negatively affect society as a whole. I touch on this as well in my post on chastity–and why refraining from sex outside of marriage affects the larger community structure in a positive way: http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2007/09/30/the-c-word/
I base my view on what I believe the Spirit is impressing on me. I base it on sacred texts. I base it on what many in human society and the Church have agreed over thousands of years about homosexuality. I base it on what I see of the spiritual imbalance (on a communal level) in two men and two women.
I don’t expect much of this to make sense to you. But, what it comes down to is that love is not primarily about romance. So the fact that two people may be “in love” is not necessarily the ultimate love that God is speaking of which has to do more with self-sacrifice than sex or romance. And it has to do with community and not just the individual. So, just the fact that two people are “in love” does not signal to me that it is love. For example in an adult, consensual incestuous relationship two people can be in love and we can say, what is the big deal? They are not harming anyone else. And yet, from a community perspective there is a problem with how incest ultimately affects family dynamics and social structures. And I would say there is a similar dynamic going on with homosexuality.
But, I also admit there is much I do not know. This is how I have made sense of it thus far. And I am certainly open to new truth and seeking etc. But, I am seeking after what is truly what God desires for humanity because that is love and that is what is beneficial for us.
November 10, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Francene,
I’m also curious as to why gay people should now feel the need to mirror heterosexual marriage. If you know your GLBT history, you’ll know that for most of the post-Stonewall era gay people wanted to be ‘liberated’ from traditional family structures.
The (affirming) gay Christian perspective on monogamy isn’t welcomed in the secular gay community – in fact, it’s often seen as “oppressive”.
November 10, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Hi Karen,
Your blog has provided much food for thought as I check in every month or so. I am openly walking with Jesus, female, straight, married and a well-fed evangelical for 27 years — with plenty of denominational side-helpings as my extended family often gather together to worship at the Mother Church –haha! (Hmmm….maybe I need to get some lunch). Over the years I have rather quietly (except with my husband and children) rejected the fervent buy-in to ex-gay ministries; and have shared non-judging love with a number of churched/unchurched, out/closeted gay friends, neighbors and family members. My husband and I have been invited to and attended a gay person’s memorial, a gay couple’s marriage celebration, and a gay clergy’s ordination. Off topic perhaps, I have also quietly questioned the rightness of gender-submissive/complementarian marriage teachings and congregational stands against inviting a woman into leadership as an elder or vocationally as a teaching pastor. As to your post, I’m actually surprised that evangelical gay-affirming blog declarations/conversations are happening ahead of declarations/conversations about gender-egalitarianism. Then again, look at who most of the bold conversation-makers are: guys. I’m not saying this in bitterness or paranoia — I appreciate these brothers as excellent Bible teachers and incarnational citizens in the world. I have visited some of their churches (ie Vintage Faith – both of my kids are UCSC Slugs). But isn’t it all so interesting? These emergelicals are turning the question from “What would Jesus do?” to “What is Jesus doing that I should get in step with?”. And I am further wonder why we never hear directly from the wives of these guys? It occurs to me that super committed evangelical women might serve you as hermeneutical, existential allies in your quest to promote a pro-gay-celibacy position: straight evangelicals who have been created female (like you, in an unchosen condition), who expect to be loved and cherished inasmuch as Christ loves the church (like you, having a fundamental sense of self-worth), who view their human lust for full inclusion or full decision-making privileges alongside submissional, complementarian Bible passages and discern sinful tendencies that are not God’s Good Plan (like you, convicted morally in their spirit), and who decide to submit themselves to limits in their marriages and in their church opportunities (like you, taking on life-long, obedient submission and sacrifice). Am I stretching things to say I see parallels? Your faith approach rings familiar with the evangelical culture I both love and endure. I do regard your journey as being biblically rigorous, prayerful, authentic, and blessed. I deeply appreciate that God offers a “manifold wisdom” — which is to say God reveals His wisdom in all situations and all situations are personal and unique. Also His wisdom is said to be pure, peaceable…(James 3:17) I trust the wisdom you hold to is along these lines. When I have more time I do have some thoughts/questions about celibacy. Thanks for your blog.
Denise
November 10, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Hi Denise,
Thanks for leaving a comment. You make an interesting point about churches that are starting to be more vocal regarding the gay issue (affirming) but seem less vocal about egalitarianism. These churches would certainly say they are egalitarian too, I am sure. Though in practice its probably hit or miss.
I don’t see the parallel between homosexuality and being a woman (or a woman in leadership) because I don’t hold to the view that same-gender attractions are in the same category as gender and race. Homosexuality is defined by desires and behavior. Whereas skin color is not a feeling. Nor is female anatomy a feeling or behavior. I view homosexuality in the realm of sexual ethics. And while I see same-gender attractions as being persistent for many people, there is a sense in which the essentialist view is a social construct. Interestingly there are those in the gay community itself who do not like the essentialist view, one reason being that–for example if a gay gene were found–it could be altered medically. Rather they would argue not on the basis of essentialism, but on the basis of autonomy and anyone should be free to enjoy whatever responsible relationship they want to.
If you haven’t already, I recommend reading “Slaves, Women and Homosexuals” by Dr. William Webb–it is one of the best apologetics for the egalitarian view of women that I have read, but it also simultaneously points out the significant difference between women and slaves on the one hand and homosexuality on the other. For example, Scripture has positive examples of women leaders and also points toward liberation of slaves. The prophet Huldah had the whole government–king and priests etc coming to her for a word from God. And the Old Testament said it is prohibited to return runaway slaves to their masters. There is a positive trajectory regarding women and slaves in Scripture. But there are no such positive examples whatsoever of homosexuality. So there are some pretty significant differences. The analogy, though often used, really is not the same when it comes to homosexuality and women in leadership.
On another note, I would definitely be interested in your thoughts on celibacy.
PS–Go Slugs!!!
November 11, 2009 at 4:51 am
I, too, appreciate what Denise has shared here. As one who is a namesake of the O.T. prophetess/judge Deborah, I take call’s God on women quite seriously. (I suppose you can take it as coincidental that I also chose to serve as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps for a while. Ooh-rah.)
I periodically like to visit Karen’s blog because she is a smart, articulate woman of God, and I know I will learn something. What can I say? I see grace and wisdom in her beyond her years.
Like her, I view the dilemma of homosexuality or same-sex attraction as more akin to other sexual morality issues and not quite in the realm of female egalitarianism. I do see and appreciate, of course, how such comparisons are made. And I am well aware of the role feminism plays in the lesbian world. I also find myself bemoaning the male tendency to look right past or under-appreciate women, particularly in the church, when there is an incredible pool of giftedness there.
FYI, I blogged about “The Invisible Woman?” a short while ago. If anyone is interested, it’s here, in two parts:
http://theformers.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/the-invisible-woman-part-1
http://theformers.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/the-invisible-woman-part-2
And Karen, thanks for recommending Webb’s book. That’s the second such recommendation I’ve had recently, so I think I need to go get it.
November 11, 2009 at 7:59 am
What I hear you saying Karen, is that gay relationships are weird different odd spiritually misaligned, culturally destructive off balance and that you question what love is, and what marriage represents, and if marriage straight or gay, is more romance than love. All debatable opinions and conjecture mixed with confusion about sex love and marriage. All these things are the underlying reasons for your celibacy? It would seem from your list, that your sexuality is too different and hard for you to handle at this stage of your growth. Please don’t freak out at that statement. I’m just looking at your foundational beliefs here and making possible observations. Remember, I’m not gay. I don’t have any bias about your sexuality and how you got to where you are at. I am just looking at the facts I am hearing. And I am looking at possible harm to others.
Do you know that someone, maybe even in your school, or even a close acquaintance or friend, is contemplating suicide because they have been told these things over and over again their entire lives? If your best friend were about to jump off a 20 story building because of these personal claims you advocate, what would you say to that person if you were their last hope? Would you lay down your “life” of your beliefs to save your best friends life, as the Bible would have you do?
This is where I see your beliefs do harm to others’ with tombstones as the backdrop. Gay Suicide would be a perfect class to be taught at your school. I don’t think you are out to get anybody, consciously. But then a bull in a china shop doesn’t mean to knock over seven foot armoires either. Do note I am outside your group of celibates who all agree with you so I may sound harsh to some degree, but remember, I am fighting for the kid who is contemplating suicide.
Incest produces genetically defective children, so that harms the child family and society. I’m with you on that one, case closed. Consensual adults who are family, that’s open for debate. Thieves murderers adulterers pedophiles and drunkards are also a slam dunk. However, I would surely like to hear where those kinds of harms are also evident in gay relationships. So I ask again. Can you please give rock solid examples of how gay sexual relationships are harmful and tell me who they hurt and how? I have now given you proof of how I think your beliefs hurt others. Can you now back up your claims of how gay relationships harm, with grounded statistical proven facts? Please Karen; give me something that is going to keep that pro-gay-sexual child from jumping off the roof.
November 11, 2009 at 8:09 am
PS You also are a good sparring partner.
November 11, 2009 at 8:54 am
Joe S,
I am not aware of that post Stonewall stance of which you speak so I find it hard to comment. I have found that most gays I know or have observed in the media, like the idea of having the option to marry and be monogamous, whether they obtain those things for themselves personally or not.
I am sure there are those in both the straight and gay world who find monogamy oppressive, but they don’t seem to have popped up in any writings or discussion I have been privy to.
November 11, 2009 at 9:24 am
Francene, you have trivialized my statements and have not seriously engaged with what I have actually presented so I am not sure I have much more to say.
No, I don’t think gay relationships are “weird.” Nor did I say so. Or that there can be no genuine love in gay relationships. Certainly, I cared deeply for the women I was involved with. So, yes there can be love. My point about love is that in our culture we confuse romance with what love actually is–self-sacrifice. Yes, there is self-sacrifice in lesbian/gay relationships. My point is that the argument that people make for homosexuality is more the “in love” argument and that is distinct from the type of love emphasized by Jesus. We can think we are entitled to romance/marriage because that is “love.” When really what we are called to as human beings is a much more profound love–the self-sacrificing kind–in which sex and romance are not necessary to have. The love Jesus promotes does not require marriage. Nor is marriage even the epitome of love. As Jesus, who was unmarried, clearly illustrated with his own life.
And, no my sexuality is not too difficult for me. Again, you are resorting to patronizing and making judgments about me when you don’t even know me. That is one of the reasons I have been hesitant to engage with you and answer your questions more directly. You have put me in your pre-conceived caricature just as I predicted. I have expressed my sexuality just fine in relationships with women. And I really enjoyed those relationships. I have no problems being sexual or acknowledging my sexuality and attractions. Instead of projecting your negative judgments about my decision, it would be helpful to our conversation if you actually try to listen for the reasons I am giving for my decision.
You have not seriously engaged with the question on consensual adult incestuous relationships. Interestingly, your argument regarding children is the same argument conservatives make against homosexuality (the issue of proper procreation).
The arguments I have made I have already stated in regards to social structures and community and the benefits of sexual boundaries–even in the case where two consensual adults (as with incest) can love each other deeply. The way the operating principles of the world work in terms of community as I discussed above are “clues” to what is wise in terms of sexual relationships. You may not agree with that. But, you are going to have to articulate a much more intelligent argument regarding body theology, sexual/gender correspondence and community/social structure etc in order for me to consider whether your view has anything to offer.
As for suicide–I was exposed to all the negative propaganda one can be exposed to growing up in regards to homosexuality and I have not killed myself. Suicide (as someone else already pointed out) has many other complex factors than just whether or not someone is gay. Plus, I don’t believe that one has to share your particular sexual ethics in order to keep youth from killing themselves. I have ministered to gay youth. I was a gay youth myself. And it is perfectly possible to affirm a person’s dignity and that they are loved by God and still hold to particular sexual ethics. In fact, there are many young people with strong faith traditions who would find your position to actually place more hardship and burden on them. I am quite concerned by the negativity you express toward celibate gay Christians and how that negativity–which the larger gay community also expresses–affects gay youth of faith in a way that actually makes them feel less than and ridiculed.
November 11, 2009 at 11:57 am
karen,
The reason gay celibates are judged harshly by some in the gay community is because by calling gay relationships off balance, not God’s way, sinful and “harmful” to society, you get perceived as “eating your own.” Now I’m not asking you to prove God said anything, as that is unprovable and comes from belief. No problem. But you made a statement that gay relationships are harmful, from what I can glean, to society and it’s balance. That is a secular view and should be provable. Can you prove it or not? If so please state your case, if not, then say that also.
As far as incest goes, if two adults of consenting age from the same family lines want to be together, I am not one to judge discriminate or interfere as long as they don’t have children. I would look at it from a scientific approach of observe and learn, not judge and discriminate. For all I know they could be soul mates from a hundred past lives. It may seem weird to me, but I am not them, and would not cast aspersions for that reason. Their reasons are beyond my knowledge and control and from what I can tell, do not harm me or society. The only way that could harm society is if it became outrageously high in numbers causing procreation to come to a standstill, which via statistics, will never happen. In my book, it’s a moot point.
As far as love goes, there are many strands and types of love. There is love of parent to child, God with self, self sacrifice for some desired good, and there is love in sex and love relationships. All of them have their place and they are all different. And all of them have self sacrifice to some degree. But the only one that seems to get axed by you is gay ones because those types do “harm.”
Think of me as a devil’s advocate in this “gay relationships do harm to society” case. You said I was a good sparring partner. I will retract the word “weird.” But for gay societies sake, address this polarity issue of harm, of which we speak, or are you backing out of the debate? It’s been days now and you are still dancing around the question. How or what I think about you is of little consequence in a debate. It’s really about making your case stick, no matter what others might think. Now can you make it stick with solid factual data that gay relationships do harm in any way, i.e. like murderers thieves and pedophiles as the Bible partially says, or can’t you?
November 11, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Karen
I probably made a mistake by participating again in your blog because I just don’t understand what you hope to achieve with it. I’ve been around enough that I know that there are commenters who take a 180 degree different position than you do, and they are responded to in a very welcoming fashion. There are others like Francene who seem to be welcomed and then, “BAM!” they are seen as insensitive, troublemakers, whatever. Curiously, it seems to be men who fit into the first category and women for the second.
Are you trying to say that truly sold out Christians — obedient, surrendered — will have the same experience you have had of contented celibacy without slips and falls? Because try as I might, I cannot see what other message you are overridingly trying to communicate.
You are quite intellectually astute, and I still say with your capacity to arguge, debate — whatever you want to call it — you would make a top notch lawyer. But when someone does not have your rhetorical skills, it is kind of difficult to state a case.
But that goes back to my original question which seems to pivot around your life experience. I surrendered to God, too. My daily struggle worsened to the point of becoming isolationist and dysfunctional. Anyone who has been celibate for 20 years should have some acknowledgment made in their direction that they were serious with God.
November 11, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Francine,
As for your question about how homosexuality may be hurting anyone, I realize you will probably disagree on some points, but I have a few cents, as usual [eye roll]
, to throw into the pot.
You are aware that from the beginning of Genesis scripture teaches us that there is a spiritual war being waged.
And the first thing God tells us about his most valued creation is that they were created in His image (I believe this is referring to a spiritual, life-giving, connection to God), and that they were created male and female.
When you think about it, everybody knows that people are either male or female. So it begs the question: Why does God bother to state or emphasis the obvious?
God is telling us that mankind’s sexuality—as He designed it to be—is of the utmost importance to Him, and how closely tied it is, spiritually, to the well being of humanity.
Naturally, Satan, if he exists, would set out to destroy that very thing God cherished most—the crowning of His creation. So how was the serpent to accomplish this?
He knew full well that to get them spiritually he needed to attack them sexually—somehow breaking their exclusive union as man and woman. Causing them to eat of the fruit that God forbade. Many people might disagree with me, but I have no doubt in my mind that their fall was due to sexual disobedience.
Once their eyes were opened to this act, they were suddenly ashamed of their nakedness and there was no turning back. (And I personally believe that this is why homosexuality—once your eyes are really opened to it—is most difficult to turn away from.)
Satan understands that if he can cause people to sin sexually, he can continue to wreak havoc on them because we cannot walk with “full” spiritual power while walking in sin. (A house divided cannot stand.)
And with every little inch that we stray away from God’s design for mankind, we go further downhill morally.
We can clearly see the patterns in our society. We first accepted divorce and remarriage, then fornication, pornography, promiscuity, bisexuality and homosexuality—and now pedophilia and bestiality are on the verge of gaining the same acceptance. As a side note, I have never been divorced nor am I into fornication, but I believe there is some leeway that can be applied in cases of remarriage and fornication that can never be applied to homosexuality or bestiality…and that is getting off topic.
But this is where we are heading. Do some research if you think I’m exaggerating, and then you tell me where we will be in 50 years. As a result, we have ultimately developed unstable family units; crime rates, violence, drug and alcohol abuse increase, and it goes on and on. I think the proof is in the pudding.
I am not suggesting that sexual sin is the only thing that brings these things on. Deviation from God’s Word comes in many forms, and even aside from walking in sin we remain under heavy spiritual attack. But sexual sin is essentially idolatry, and no doubt that opens doors to all kinds of spiritual attacks.
For every good thing that God established, Satan has a well-devised counterfeit. And homosexuality is just that—a counterfeit.
This is a spiritual issue, it is part of the ongoing warfare against God’s creation, and Satan is not going to reveal to anybody what his objectives are or how he operates. Only God will do that.
How can anyone explain—if you cannot already see it in God’s Word or have opened your eyes wide enough to see it in your own life and the lives of those around you—that our adversary comes as an angel of light; and that the characteristics of sin are that its results are usually subtle (at first), remain disguised—mostly hidden from us, or do not manifest immediately?
Can we in our short years be wise enough through our own minds to outwit a timeless adversary, or to define and really understand the power and deception of sin?
And when we talk about the definition of love, do we even know what the word means as God sees it? From a scriptural standpoint, homosexuality is merely phileo and eros.
November 11, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Wow. This seems to be beat-up-Karen day. I don’t see how she is deserving of this acrimony, although I know she is quite capable of defending her beliefs herself.
Chin up, Karen. Why there is a need among gays and the gay-affirming to put those who espouse celibacy or choose to be obedient to the God we love through the wringer is beyond me. Rather sadistic, isn’t it?
Francene, why is the onus of “proof” that gay relationships “do harm” (in your words) on Karen? Why not step up yourself and “prove” they are equal to heterosexual unions from a positive sociological standpoint? It must be a snap for you, right? You are sold-out, I gather.
Karen’s views are well within the mainstream while yours are not. Therefore, I believe the burden of “proof” is on you. Here’s a hint. This reasoning won’t get you very far here: “For all I know they could be soul mates from a hundred past lives.”
Here’s another thought about suicide, since you wanted to talk so much about it: I am here today, alive by the grace of God and the intercessory prayers of others since sheer will alone was not enough to keep me from wanting to die some 20 years ago. Had a gay or gay-affirming person appeared to me then and told me I’d be fine if I just accepted my same-sex feelings as normal — or even a gift from God — it would have been of no help whatsoever to me. I knew in my heart of hearts that I could never be happy or whole living that lie.
I’m 55, married now for 28 years and a mother of two. Been around the mill pond. Not sure what your background is. But I do know a thing or three about marriage.
What we have here is a failure to communicate, based on two opposing worldviews. It is not anyone’s duty on this blog — least of all Karen’s — to satisfy your lust for vilification. Let it go.
Debbie
November 11, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Oh, and this, by the way, is not proof. This is your arcane belief, Francene:
“This is in my opinion the ultimate litmus test for ‘knowing’ God’s will of love. I see no second best in relationships gay or straight as the love is experienced the same if they so choose to love their mates as God loves us. In this I believe God’s will has spoken in unmistakable and undeniable favor for gay relationships and the love they demonstrate.”
November 11, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Hey there! Howdi. Well I am of a mind to know how gay relationships harm humanity. Because if they do we honestly need to know. Just my personal thought.
November 11, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Francene, I appreciate your engagement here and it has been a good conversation. I feel at this point it wouldn’t be productive to continue simply because I don’t think anything that I say will be satisfactory to you. We will just have to agree to disagree.
You still have not seriously engaged with the arguments I have already presented, so it doesn’t seem fruitful to put even more arguments out there when the ones I have already presented have not been adequately engaged.
Also, you write: “As far as incest goes, if two adults of consenting age from the same family lines want to be together, I am not one to judge discriminate or interfere as long as they don’t have children.”
If you are not able to see that incest is problematic, then I certainly will not be able to convince you that homosexuality is of concern.
Okay, folks, let’s all take a deep breath.
I love this blog when we can all engage respectfully. That is why I also think it is wise to have a time out once in awhile to step back. Its a challenging topic for both sides to engage in–lots of emotions involved.
I am not ending the conversation, but I do think I personally, will bow out for now. I am pretty overwhelmed with schoolwork so I can’t keep up the pace that I have. And I don’t think I have anything more significant to add at the moment.
I do ask that if those of you who are engaging continue to do so, please give yourself time to chill if you need to. Remember that there is no point in just talking past each other or venting frustrations or making arguments just to try to prove you are right. Anything we share (from either side) should come out of our desire to “reason together.” There is much mystery in the world. Things are more complex than we would like to imagine.
We all have good reasons for believing what we do. And though, for example, Francene and I have different views, I can also appreciate that her views are driven from genuine compassion for others. Its important that we always see the humanity in others. The good intentions, even as we may strongly disagree.
I really am not interested in hosting conversations here where people do not have any real genuine interest to understand (even as they disagree) where the other party is coming from. So, if you find yourself getting angry and frustrated and have lost your interest in truly understanding the other party, it might be best to take a break.
PS–just by way of reminder of the rules for posting: Are your words respectful? Gentle? Honoring? And courteous toward the other person?
November 11, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Karen,
I am pretty calm and really don’t feel upset or anything. But I am worried that you may know something that we don’t about this harm thing, and that you could help humanity, us here etc if you shared. I just like education. Thx very much
November 11, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Doug–sarcasm would be a good example of how not to have a productive conversation ; )
There is plenty to read on my blog on this subject if you truly want to know more of what I think, including what I have already written in this thread.
November 11, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Karen,
I might be persuaded that you and some of the others are truly content and not having continual slips and falls (if some are), *if* there was not such a defensive tone on the parts of those in that category. IOW if this was such a wonderful, better life, I would expect more love on the part of those who are ex-gay celibate and content. Instead I see people who have as much anger as those who are questioning. You’re on the correct side, right? I’m really not seeing this better life. It seems that there is defensiveness on both sides.
And for the final time: Intersexed people do exist. They are medically documented. Could we at least please get that fact right? Or are we going to deny it as the Church denied so many scientific realities? IOW the Adam and Eve story is not 100 percent accurate for all humans living today — all are not male *or* female. Most are, but not all.
Karen, if you are gay (which you say you are, and I have no reason to disbelieve you) and celibate, why does the gay issue matter? I mean, really? You are living the life you believe God requires or expects. Everyone has temptations in different areas. If you never marry, you can always say that your career was your focus. IOW who in the world would know you were gay to begin with unless you say it? But more importantly, I don’t see how it matters. Everyone struggles….
So I guess I have come full circle in the necessity of this discussion. And it seems to keep going round and round in circles with nearly everyone involved who participates here.
November 11, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Hi Grace,
I like your take but I don’t speak Christian quite as well as you, though I do get what you are saying. Regarding spiritual warfare, I have the talent of “sight”, clairvoyance if you will. I don’t call it a “gift” because I think anyone can develop it. But it has made me very sensitive to what you are talking about. I can see if anyone is being attacked by invisible negative forces, entities etc, and to tell you the truth, it’s not as predominant as some might think. At least not in the way you are casing sexuality. I can feel attack and see it in people if they have been damaged or are in any way being altered. It is extremely evident in bars where people drink or do drugs. There are a lot of “ghosts” if you will, that will literally go sit inside someone to feel the high. Then go home with them to feel maybe sex etc. That sort of thing is pretty prevalent. People who are sensitive can actually feel things like haziness, blurred vision, tired, not thinking their own thoughts etc. It is a mild form of possession.
Now from the gay person’s standpoint. For a force to make someone permanently gay, would mean that an entity, or devil as you might say, would need to be on their backs all the time to make it stick. So from your analogy, all gay people that are born gay would have a constant attack keeping them in some sort of focus not of their true nature. That I have never seen happen. I have done many “depossessions” and I watch very carefully to “see” what happens.
I “see” the spiritual warfare you are talking about, and from what I have seen, it’s not as “Hollywood” as you might expect. Gay people are no more or less “possessed” if you will than straights. So in that, I think you may be giving too much credence to “the devil” making people gay or sexually out of balance. Not that it can’t happen in spurts, but for a life time is not realistic, unless the person is possessed from birth, which is possible but very rare. If you were correct in your analogy that gay is from the devil, it would mean that Karen would be possessed by the “devil” right now along with everyone else in her position. And she’s not. She’s as clear as a bell and is quite precious in her demeanor. She is too clear to be possessed and she would know it if she was. Most are pretty clear from that situation.
I think it is important to take responsibility for our own selves thoughts and actions. And that can be very hard to do when we may be constantly frightened of the unknown or invisible “forces.” The Devil doing this and that all the time, is a fact, but it is a bit different than you might think. I know that this world is touched by evil, but in a way that does not particularly deal with sexuality.
The depths of the evil that you may be referring to is more monetary than anything else. And war. But money mainly because ups and down with the money market is world encompassing, and can bring fear faster than just about anything, causing all sorts of erratic negative behavior in people due to their survival being at stake, including divorce and fornication. But the effects from monetary manipulation is more human in nature, not affected by a devil with a check-board going around making sure everyone is fornicating or getting divorced. There are much bigger ways to bring a world down. Money and war are the headliners. How that is achieved by “the devil” (and he’s perfect at it) is a whole other conversation. But in response to your comment, these things of which you speak, divorce sexual orientation fornication etc, are from what I have seen, mere sidelines of just being human, without outer devilish interference.
The thing people don’t want to realize is that we have the devil and god in each one of us, we are both. So to say it’s all an outside source is only partially true. I might toss a negative comment at you and say the devil made me do it. Well guess again. It was me, the good and the bad vying for center stage.
Anyway, I did want to answer you as you seem to have thought this out quite well in your mind.
November 11, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Karen,
I guess I am a “big picture” thinker and when I see this endless string of comments between gay affirming and non-gay affirming folks I scratch my head and wonder why it even occurs. I am a gay Christian man with a life long same-sex partner who agrees with very little with what you say.
I mean whats the point of all this dialogue? We are obviously never going to agree–it seems to me that it just makes people walk away angry and frustrated because they cannot understand why the other person believes what they do.
I think we need to call it a day, and respect each other’s opinions and move on with life.
November 11, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Francene,
First I want to clarify that I never stated or implied that homosexuals were possessed by demons. You read something into my comments that simply was not there.
I do believe, however, that we all have powerful spiritual influences affecting our lives all the time, gay and straight alike. To truly understand God, is to know that He has an archenemy out to corrupt and destroy all that He holds dear.
In Ephesians, Paul elaborates on Christian conduct and then explains to us straightly that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but that our struggle runs much deeper—into the spiritual realm.
And we are instructed by him to take on the full armor of God—to include the shield of faith so that we can stand against the fiery darts (meaning those day-to-day attacks) of the wicked one.
Strategic plans do not win battles without effective tactics. So spiritual attack is something that happens to us on the smaller scale all the time, it is not reserved for big global movements such as the economy and war, although for sure those are major offenses.
I also never implied that spiritual warfare happens only or even primarily in the sexual arena. My reference to Genesis was to shed light on how closely tied sexuality is to our spirituality, and ultimately, our well being.
From the account of Genesis there was simply no other way that Satan could have attacked Adam and Eve at that time, but to cause them to do the one thing that they were commanded not to do.
And as stated in my previous comment, I believe that the fall of man was the direct result of sexual disobedience.
Since the fall, however, there are many ways that Satan attacks people spiritually. But he certainly has not stopped using such an effective weapon as sexual disobedience to spiritually disarm mankind.
I also never stated that I believe people are born gay. If so, what you said would make sense in such a case: that a spiritual entity would have to be “on their backs” from the time they were born to make that stick, which is highly unlikely.
I’m glad you brought that up, though, because it speaks to the fact that you cannot “exorcise” homosexuality out of a person.
I know Karen does not want us to go off on a conversation about the cause of homosexuality. But the point of my comment was to address your request for proof that homosexuality is harmful.
I ask again (rhetorically): Can we in our short years be wise enough through our own minds to outwit a timeless adversary, or to define and understand the power and deception of sin?
November 12, 2009 at 1:22 am
Hello,
There are alot of words up there…too many to read all the comments, but I can’t figure out what the discussion is about.
Are we arguing? Do people really think that in the course of a discussion they will change someones belief system?
How is all of this still an issue? I guess as a relatively new Christian, I find it all confusing. Everyone going back and forth on this and that, debating minutia, trying to gain status or attention?
Can some one point me towards more truth and less talking?
Thanks.
November 12, 2009 at 2:46 am
Karen,
I just wanted to say that I love how well you articulate your position on all of the issues brought up in this blog. It’s certainly been enlightening to read through the 60+ comments as well. I actually feel like I have a very similar stance on these issues so it’s encouraging to hear someone else voicing them. It let’s me know I’m not alone. So keep up the good fight, run the race to win the prize!
November 12, 2009 at 4:41 am
I continue to follow this conversation with interest. Where positions and beliefs are thought out rationally and discussed civilly, I think we have much to gain by learning why one thinks and believes as they do. My views have evolved over time by learning to listen and process rather than just digging my feet into the ground.
I do have a question and some comments to toss out to Francene related to the sexual ethics discussion. You posed this question to Karen:
“Do you know that someone, maybe even in your school, or even a close acquaintance or friend, is contemplating suicide because they have been told these things over and over again their entire lives? If your best friend were about to jump off a 20-story building because of these personal claims you advocate, what would you say to that person if you were their last hope? Would you lay down your “life” of your beliefs to save your best friends life, as the Bible would have you do?”
While this is a hypothetical situation, we do know there are very real situations of suicide where a person has felt rejection or depression based on how they have been treated by others. But the question here is whether one should give up their personal beliefs if it would make a difference in that person’s decision to take their own life. Personally I might tell the individual that my beliefs are just one person’s beliefs and that they need to decide for themselves. Anyone is more than able to ignore what I believe, as you are able to ignore what Karen believes and move on. Hypothetically a person contemplating suicide could be struggling with any issue related to the concept of God and sin and challenging their friend to drop their whole belief in God to keep them from jumping off the bridge so they wouldn’t feel guilt in any way. But that would just be one’s person distorted attempt to force another what to believe.
Sexual ethics is something I challenge anyone to think through, gay or straight. What sexual ethics does that teen follow even if he decides to come out as gay? Stay celibate until he marries some day, or engage sexually with one or more boyfriends over the years? If he is a Christian, does he look to the Bible for guidance on sexual ethics. Or if a heterosexual teenager is the one contemplating suicide because he wants to have sex with his girlfriend and he’s been advised to wait until marriage, would you also challenge Karen to give up that belief to bring the teenager down off the bridge, to say that it’s okay to have teenage sex regardless of what the Bible says? Do sexual ethics based on biblical belief have any place in counseling anyone? The idea of advocating celibacy to homosexual people is seen by you as damaging, but would you also see advocating waiting for sex until marriage as damaging to heterosexual teens or young adults? That is a position advocated even by some non-Christians. Would you expect a person to drop that belief because it may be “damaging” to some teenager who is agonizing over wanting to have sex with his girlfriend or feeling guilty that he did?
I am presently in conversation with a gay Christian teenager who is considering entering a sexual relationship with a friend. I’ve told him that I would counsel a heterosexual teen the same way, to not become involved sexually at his age. He can ignore my advice if he wants, but I won’t take responsibility for “damaging” him by advising him to wait. Even if one believes in same-sex marriage, which I support from a civil rights perspective but not within the church, what place do sexual ethics have in same-sex relationships and on what are they based if not the Bible? I base my own sexual ethics in relation to heterosexual relationships on the Bible, which would include remaining celibate (chaste) until marriage. If I did believe homosexual relationships to be acceptable for Christians, I would hold the same position and counsel others accordingly.
Anyone can claim that one’s beliefs are damaging to others. In this case, it seems to really come down to what place the Bible and belief in Christ have in one’s life and in one’s sexual ethics. Either it is true and it matters, or it is not true and it doesn’t matter. But each person ultimately needs to make their own decision and live with it and not place the blame on others.
November 12, 2009 at 4:55 am
“Can some one point me towards more truth and less talking? ”
Thanks, Damon … and Jack. We all needed to hear those exhortations. Reminds me of the famous line from “Macbeth”: “It is a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.” That is what these discussions can indeed become after a while, despite our good, original intentions.
I can point us all to only one source of truth — God, through His Word, revealed to us in the Scriptures. As a new Christian, I implore you not to allow human folly to inform your faith or you view of Christendom. Those who do that tend to fall away, and who can blame them? Always keep going back to the Source.
November 12, 2009 at 5:05 am
Just a quick comment (because yes I am going to go work on my homework!).
Jack and Damon–I think you both bring up a legitimate question. What exactly are we doing here and is it meaningful? Whether or not its meaningful is subjective, and I cannot speak for others, but I will share why I value conversations like this:
1. I think its very important to engage in conversation with those we strongly disagree with because it helps us to stay engaged with people that we might otherwise objectify. In other words, if we stop talking to those we disagree with, they can become less human to us. That is where stereotypes begin to grow because we no longer have contact with “the other side.” We only see them as a faceless group in which to project all our misconceptions. But, if we are in conversation, it gives us a chance to hear the emotions and thoughts of those who think differently and hearing those emotions and thoughts can help challenge our misconceptions about the other as well as remind us of their humanity.
2. What helps me in my own thinking the best is to hear from those who have very different opinions. If I only talk to those who think exactly as I do, then I never learn anything new. Those who disagree with me help me to see my blind spots, as well as help me to see where I have taken certain beliefs for granted rather than thinking them through fully. It doesn’t mean that I will necessarily come to agree with the other person, but it forces me to really think through and evaluate why I believe what I do. And that is a very valuable exercise. It helps to keep me from being trite or glossing over hard questions. It keeps me accountable.
3. What we are passionate about is important. As I have said before we all have good reasons (generally) for believing what we do, and these usually relate to deeply held values around compassion and social justice, our desire to make a difference in the world, etc. And, I believe that its important for people to be able to express what they are passionate about and to have an opportunity for their voice to be heard, including and perhaps especially by those who disagree.
Of course, none of these things happen when the conversation resorts to caustic venting and name-calling which is why I enforce boundaries on this blog. And for the most part, I think I have been successful in creating a place on the web for people on both sides to talk about a very difficult and controversial topic.
My blog is only one among millions of others. So certainly, no one is obligated to spend time here. There are plenty of other places to hang out if it doesn’t fit one’s interest.
Damon–you said you wanted less talking and more truth. I would be very interested to hear what you see is truth.
Clay–thanks for posting a comment and for the vote of confidence.
Jeff S.–Great thoughts and questions.
November 12, 2009 at 8:29 am
Karen,
I would like to point out some things you say that seem contradictory to a portion of the message you are attempting to put forth in this post.
You refer to the template of the ex-gay movement: If you are gay it must be rooted in dysfunction.
Then you go on to say that you did not “leave” homosexuality because of dysfunction and that you were never promiscuous, used drugs, or was sexually abused.
First, I find it interesting that you believe homosexual behavior is sin, yet you do not consider it to be dysfunctional.
Secondly, on one hand you seem to be claiming that there was no dysfunction in your life, aside from the condemnation you felt about your homosexual feelings; yet in many of your posts you have described experiencing a very dysfunctional upbringing.
November 12, 2009 at 10:49 am
“I guess as a relatively new Christian, I find it all confusing. Everyone going back and forth on this and that, debating minutia, trying to gain status or attention?”
Oh, Damon, my friend! If you’re new to Christianity, I hate to be the one to inform you – but this is what Christians do! It’s at the heart of most Christians’ faith. Today, we’re arguing about homosexuality. We could just as easily be arguing about abortion. Yesterday it was about a woman’s place in the home and the Church. The day before that, it was about how to best love those heretics (the heretics being Protestants if you were Catholic, or vice versa) – should they be tolerated, stoned, burned? And the day before that, it was whether or not you should be sprinkled in baptism, immersed, or poured. That one pretty much goes back to the 1st Century Church, and there are still goofs who argue about it today.
So, you should probably get used to it if you’re going to be a Christian. It’s not that Christians are any different than the rest of humanity (i.e., it’s HUMAN to argue over disagreements), it’s just that being a Christians means that you argue by proving that God is more on your side than the other guy’s, and that means you win.
Sad, but true of most in the Church (though admittedly not all – it’s just that I’ve yet to meet any of those for whom it’s not true).
November 12, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Woa Grace
That was a little harsh of you.
November 12, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Karen,
Sorry so long to respond. I’d contribute more to the discussion at hand, but don’t have the time
But to answer your question, a friend of mine who goes to a more conservative church in town told me that a friend of his wanted to speak at this symposium. I’m not sure if he is an ex-gay himself, but I am quite sure that is the perspective he’d share. Quite frankly, I am glad the church isn’t having it. After all, you know I that I’m no fan of the Exodus/Focus on the Family perspective.
The way I see it, the body needs some gay-friendly churches. So many gay people I know are terrified by the church yet long to belong to a body of believers who will accept them where they are at. Highlands Church teaches the Gospel and allows room for people to grow in the specific area of sexuality as God leads them.
Another things about Highlands that I find interesting – I have never before looked forward to going to church like I do here every Sunday. There is an incredible energy there that I can’t quite put a finger on. The (mostly straight) congregation is very friendly and welcoming. Last week, a girl I know asked me if she could fix me up with one of her girlfriends and it was great to answer that question with total honesty as opposed to the coy answer I’d have to give at most Evangelical churches.
Maybe you can come check it out when you are in town. It would make for a fascinating blog post.
November 12, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Grace and Darren I deleted your last comments. That is not the kind of dialogue I am interested in hosting here.
November 12, 2009 at 3:56 pm
P–thanks for the update. And, yeah that would be fun to visit the church when I am out there. And, I see what you mean about how refreshing it is to just be able to be honest like that. Not have to live in two worlds.
Grace–You have made two assumptions about me that are not accurate:
You write: “First, I find it interesting that you believe homosexual behavior is sin, yet you do not consider it to be dysfunctional.”
I never made any statement about that either way. What I said was that there were certain stereotypes being fostered by clumping all gay people into the same template and caricature. Some gay people are dysfunctional and some are not. As for sin–I don’t think it always manifests in stereotypical dysfunctional ways.
You also write: “Secondly, on one hand you seem to be claiming that there was no dysfunction in your life, aside from the condemnation you felt about your homosexual feelings; yet in many of your posts you have described experiencing a very dysfunctional upbringing.”
What dysfunctional upbringing are you referring to? Are you talking about my descriptions of growing up in a Christian fundamentalist culture? That is a little different than family dysfunction. I am not sure I would refer to it as dysfunction as much as a certain culture that I reacted very strongly to, particularly as it relates to women.
I am not saying that there cannot be environmental factors for SSA. I do think there can be. What I object to is putting everyone in a template box as if they are the same.
Darren–your view of Christianity is rather overly simplistic. Christians do not argue any more than Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Atheists. Plus, I don’t think we need to fear wrestling with hard issues and hashing them out. There are a lot of difficult and important questions that humanity needs to wrestle with and that is not always easy or comfortable. But its often necessary.
Christianity has done wonderful things, not just individually but socially. Most hospitals were started initially by Christians, as were institutions of higher education. Christians tend to give huge amounts of money to charity and volunteer huge amounts of time in community service. They have been instrumental in prison reform, the abolition of slavery, eliminating child prostitution, etc etc. The whole Christian bashing can get a little old. I encourage people to do more than a superficial reading of Church history and discover some of the dynamic individuals and movements that have resulted from Christianity.
November 12, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Karen,
Your condescension is noted, but unappreciated. I AM a Christian, and was born and raised in a Christian home. I am the son of a preacha’ man, in fact. I am MORE than aware of the wonderful things that Christian individuals, denominations, and movements have accomplished.
I AM not “Christian-bashing” for the sake of bashing. I am simply noting a fact about the state of the Church. As much good that you can find the church has done, I can show you some evil. Part of that is that we can not seem to move beyond this incessant need to be RIGHT, thus our constant bickering. Arguments have been had in the Church from the start (thus Paul’s pleas to live in peace without discord). His words seem to have fallen on deaf ears from start until the present.
You need only look at Pew Forum and Barna Group research to discover that we are more known for the many ways in which we agree with one another and everyone else, rather than what we SHOULD be known for (love).
And if you had read my statement carefully, you would have seen that I do NOT charge that Christians argue more than anyone else (thus my phrase”it’s HUMAN to argue over disagreements”). My point is that when religious folks argue, they do so by trying to prove that they own God more, and thus they win.
So you see, I’m not simply bashing Christians. I’m just calling us all out (myself included) on the petty bickering that Damon brings up. I don’t want him to have any false hopes that this isn’t integrated deeply into the Christian faith. History and this very thread of comments shows that it is. The Bride is not spotless just yet . . . and given the course of things, I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
November 12, 2009 at 5:06 pm
The above should have read “we are more known for the ways in which we *disagree* with one another . . . “
November 12, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Karen,
I realize you did not directly state that either way, my apologies for making an assumption you did not intend. You did however state that you did not leave homosexuality because of dysfunction.
And perhaps we both have differing views about what dysfunction means. As I see it, to live what is considered to be a sinful lifestyle is a form of dysfunction.
I still have many areas of my life in which I consider myself to be dysfunctional, so I’m really not trying to be judgmental of anyone’s life. (I don’t quite have it together yet myself.)
I agree that sin does not always manifest itself in stereotypical ways and I understand the point of what you are attempting to say about homosexual relationships not matching up with conservative stereotypes.
No doubt, a homosexual relationship can “mimic” healthy heterosexual relationships; but I’m not so sure that means they actually are healthy, even though people come across as well adjusted—as I do (sort of), sometimes, believe it or not.
So you tend to throw me when you come across that way, because I get mixed messages.
And to be honest, as you describe things, there seems to have been no dysfunction in your homosexual relationships. You make them, for the most part, sound perfect. And I question that.
As for your upbringing, you have come across (to me at least) in your writings that it went beyond plain ole’ fundamentalist values, to the point of being dysfunctional. It seems you probably had very healthy relationships with the women in your family—although you never elaborated on that—but that the men did a lot of damage to the women emotionally.
That was my take on things based on what I read, and I personally consider it to have been a form of dysfunction. I sense that it resulted in your being very defensive toward men, internally, and even deeply afraid of them on a certain level.
My apologies if I read more into it than was there, or if I touched on anything too personal.
On the subject of family… I’ve noticed that you haven’t tackled the topic much on this blog. It would be very interesting to hear how people have processed homosexuality with their families, and visa versa.
Just some food for thought there, should you ever find yourself at a loss for material.
November 12, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Grace,
Your theories are not stacking up. You say that Adam and Eve did something sexually wrong and that got them thrown out of the Garden. Can you elaborate on your findings? They were the only ones there, who would they have had sex with outside themselves?
You also say that homosexuality is “Satan’s counterfeit”. In my mind homosexuality includes sexual expression, in the mind and/or with another person. So in essence you are saying that homosexuals are Satan’s minions, so to speak. I take that to mean you think Satan is tampering with people to turn them homosexual. How do you think Satan gets people to become homosexual?
Jeff S
You said,
“Hypothetically a person contemplating suicide could be struggling with any issue related to the concept of God and sin and challenging their friend to drop their whole belief in God to keep them from jumping off the bridge so they wouldn’t feel guilt in any way. But that would just be one’s person distorted attempt to force another what to believe.”
I don’t think asking someone to drop their whole belief in God so another wouldn’t feel guilty and recede from jumping off a roof, is not what I meant. That would most likely received as an overkill.
But rescinding discriminatory allegations so the person does not jump off the roof, and talking with them instead of at them with negative rhetoric, could be very helpful and prevent them from jumping. To assert judgmental homosexual banter at a person about to jump off a roof for those reasons, is not in my mind, probably not going to stop the death.
However, If I were to say, “I may completely wrong about my beliefs and could you please come down so we can talk about how you have been hurt by what I think, so you can stay on earth and have a great life,” now that holds wisdom and caring. And in that the perpetrator uses wisdom to not only save a life, but to actively question how their beliefs may have been instrumental in the poor guy attempting suicide. In that someones negative beliefs might die so that another can live.
It bodes the question; should someone drop their judgmental beliefs about homosexuality that another might live?
As far as sexual ethics go and who should do what at what age and whether they should be married if they are gay and on and on, I really can’t comment on that as I have not thought it through.
What do you think gays should do sexually if they choose not to go the celibate route?
November 12, 2009 at 10:14 pm
PS Grace, you framed your comment to me around how you (your eye rolling few cents as you
think homosexuality and loving gay committed relationships do “harm” or are “hurtful” to others. That is the question I am curious about, from anyone’s court for that matter.
put it
Could you please elaborate specifically how loving committed gay partners harms society and the balance of humanity in factually based terms, and how gay lovers differ from from straight lovers possibly doing harm?
November 12, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Wow I feel as if there must be a dead horse out there somewhere and it’s got our names on it!?! LOL!!! (Thought I would try to interject a little bit of humor into this very serious converstation!)
I did look up the meaning of ‘beating a dead horse’ and this is what I found; ‘If someone is trying to convince people to do or feel something without any hope of succeeding, they’re flogging a dead horse. This is used when someone is trying to raise interest in an issue that no-one supports anymore; beating a dead horse will not make it do any more work.’
I’m not implying that our topic is such that no one supports it any longer. Or that one person in particular is rallying and the others aren’t buying into it anymore. Rather it’s fairly obvious where most of us land on this issue based upon the comments we have left, not only for this post, but for other posts on Karen’s blog. And just this evening, after reading all the comments back and forth…. it dawned on me that we may have very well ‘butchered this horse already’.
It reminded me of the time when I had reached an impasse with a family member in regards to our religious differences. To say we were worlds apart in what we believed would be an understatement. Each trying to convince the other of our rightness and their wrongness. Let’s just say it got ugly! (doesn’t help when both of you are German & Irish……can you say, ‘incredibly stubborn and quick tempered!’) It finally reached a point of no return and things were said that could have easily ended our relationship. Thankfully we both recognized that whatever we disagreed about was certainly not worth losing our relationship over. That was years ago. From that point on, despite all the reading and education I had acquired about this family member’s religion, not to mention the countless arguments I tried to use, we both in the end simply agreed to disagree.
I’m not saying that there is not a time and a place for a lively discussion of differing opinions or beliefs but rather there sometimes comes a time when the discussion has simply run it’s course- just as it had with my family member. To continue the discussion, I believe, would’ve evenutally caused irreparable harm to our relationship. I learned alot from that experience and to this day, although I do not agree with this family member’s religion, if any other family members makes fun of her religion or says anything derogatory about it, I will kindly ask them to refrain from talking disrepectfully about their religion in my presence.
I have been learning alot about myself as a result of this post. I have always known that I can get pretty passionate about something I feel is really important- and this topic is one of those in my life. I have had to admit to myself that I have had a difficult time reading posts from commentors such as Francene, Darren, Jack, and AM because I do not agree with where they are coming from. It has been real tempting to write them off and think they don’t know what they are talking about. But I can appreciate what Karen has had to say about how we can actually learn something new if we take the time to listen and really hear what the other person is saying. And to realize that there are legitmate reasons why we believe what we believe. Not to mention it forces us to really wade through what we truly believe about an issue and therefore hopefully we can either come out stronger in the end about those beliefs or we may end up having a change of mind and heart. I am also learning to ’soften’ my approach because I have a tendency to be pretty blunt if I feel strongly about something. Just this week I had the chance to ‘try out’ this new approach. Instead of responding as I normally would have, that is, to write them off by either not responding or responding but being extremely blunt and severing any hopes of having further dialogue, I responded in kindness and with an open mind. As a result I will soon have a face to face meeting with this person and I have even offered to listen further as to where they are coming from instead of blasting them with both barrels as I have a tendency to do when I don’t agree with someone.
So I guess my hope is that even though we all seem to be very passionate about where we stand on this issue, I pray we can continue our dialogue with love and respect at the forefront and to always keep in mind that there is a living breathing human being on the other end of those typed words- who is very loved and cherished by God and we are commanded, as christians, to show that same love and cherish to them as well.
Much love in Him to all of you this evening!!!!!
November 12, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Francene,
You don’t need me to answer that question for you. You already know.
November 12, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Hi Karen,
Webb’s book does sound like it would provide some valuable support for my gender-egalitarian views. Thanks for the suggestion.
I see your point that homosexuality falls under a different category than gender or race and that it carries a burden of ethics and moral behavioral choices, much as heterosexuality does.
I would never deny you or anyone a practice of chaste singleness as coming from a place of ethical conviction. If I understand you, your celibacy is a sin-convicted response to past non-chasteness, in conjunction with a biblical sexual ethic. To use a familiar Christian term, you are “repentant” about your homosexual relationships and reflecting that in singleness and chastity. Again, that is your own pursuit of God (and so a very apt name for your blog); and no one should interfere. (I’m going to have to study up on ‘body theology’ and perhaps discuss more with you.)
Our common understanding of celibacy deems the practice authentic or spiritually valuable to the extent that it proceeds from a very profound ethic rather than just a practical wisdom. The distinction we make between the terms “abstinence” and “celibacy” bears this out. Abstinence is a choice to be circumscribed about a matter; that is, setting a temporary limit toward a goal — to which, once achieved, abstinence is lifted. Celibacy is a choice to be very intentional about a matter; that is, setting a permanent limit — without concern for seeing any practical end justifying the means.
As an analogy, if someone loses their job they may set for themselves spending limits, or “abstain” from certain expenditures, until their financial situation improves. And while this might not be an considered an ethical matter, we would agree that, for the one abstaining, God’s will is personally discerned. In contrast, an intentional vow of poverty, or “celibacy in materialism”, would not be done for simple practical reasons. The vow would be a reflection of the deepest Christian understanding of ethics surrounding wealth and material things, as Christ taught, “You must sell all your possessions and give your money to the poor”. This practice would also come from a place of discernment or conviction; though not be viewed as a stepping stone to financial security but instead a way of fuller obedience to and dependence upon God. Perhaps my analogy rings true with you in the context of sexuality?
Your wish in this post to have the pro-gay-celibacy voice invited into church dialogs about homosexuality is being met with considerable resistance. Maybe my analogy will provide a better understanding of you and your view — I think we all deserve to be understood as well as possible.
But I have to ask, contemplating the analogy one more time: Do you see any problem with someone who has made a vow of poverty publicly suggesting that biblical money ethics require all Christians to do the same? You don’t need me to tell you that some gay Christians will never adopt your deep sense of biblical sexual ethics and approach; and maybe that’s ok.
Thanks for your blog.
Denise
November 13, 2009 at 12:17 am
Karen,
I’ll be checking in from time to time.
No need to reply quickly (or at all) comment quickly — know you’ve studies and hopefully some fun to handle. And what little I know of ‘body theology’ I believe it would be wise to get your rest, fluids and good nutrition. Yeh, that’s the mom in me coming out
Denise
November 13, 2009 at 12:30 am
Karen, it’s Mark the pastor of Highlands Church. As P says, I hope you can join us sometime when you are in town. When you say you’ve got to get back to class, I hope you’re studying something like pottery or making shadow puppets because I can hardly imagine having any intellectual stamina left after all you have to process in this blog. You’re a champ.
I wanted to put something out there for others to consider that is not insignificant in how I came to change my views. TheFormers said at one point, “I can point us all to only one source of truth — God, through His Word, revealed to us in the Scriptures.” While I heartily agree with the first part, that all truth has its source in God, I would not limit the way God reveals his truth to the Word or Scriptures alone. My ordination is in the Christian Reformed Church, though Highlands is non-denominational. The Belgic Confession is one of confessions of faith most Reformed churches subscribe to. Article II talks about “By what means God is made know unto us” and it articulates that we know God by two means. He has revealed himself through his creation “which is before our eyes as a most elegant book” and secondly, “He makes Himself more clearly and full known to us by His holy and divine Word.” In other words, God is revealing us his truth through both his world and his Word. There have been numerous junctures where the scientists and the theologians were at odds because each was only studying one part of God’s revelation. We only need to think of devout Galileo and Copernicus, considered heretics by the church because they denounced a geocentric universe and pretty much proved that this thang ain’t a pancake, it’s a ball.
We haven’t had to cut out scriptures that talk as if the earth is flat, though that would have been most people’s perspective, for instance when Job 38:13 talks about taking the earth by the edges and shaking it. All the word studies and exegeting in the world will not turn up that somehow, in the original Hebrew, shaking the earth by its edges really means rattling a sphere. It was by studying God’s revelation in his world that people revisited their understanding of his word. (I beg your readers, please don’t start a tit for tat points of dissimilarity between the issues. I won’t take the bait:) I am simply trying to posit that it is relevant that God reveals himself in more ways than exclusively the Scripture.)
I can personalize that and say that the thing that got me reconsidering my more conservative position which I held to and preached for years, was the observation over a long period of time of God’s creation of people, specifically gay folk. I didn’t change my views by re-reading Romans 1 for the millionth time.
Karen, one of the things that comes through so clear in your writing is how personal this is to you, and you are a hearty soul to put yourself and your views out there like you do. It’s not exactly sparring about different views of eschatology! It is personal for me too, but not for any obvious reason: I’m not gay, none of my 5 kids are gay, no immediate family members that I’m aware of etc. I just felt convicted that we, as a part of the church in general, were pretty easily dismissing this incredible struggle our gay brothers and sisters were facing by marginalizing them and telling them to be single and celibate, which would make everything a lot easier for the straight majority. My guess is that most straight people who find it easy to tell gay people to be single and celibate have not taken the time of day to think about what they are really asking. The words of Jesus in Luke 11:46 come to mind when he said, “Woe to you teachers of the Law who bind on the backs of men burdens you are not willing to bear yourself.”
Our church was originally started 10 months ago as a church plant of another evangelical church in town. This summer, under less than ideal circumstances, my “left of center” views were “outed”. I had not kept them a secret but neither had I taught or lead openly toward them because I wanted to prepare a thoughtful way for the congregation to consider it over time. But it turned into a witch hunt and I knew I needed to be forthright and clear where I was headed, even though there is so much unknown territory ahead. I had to withdraw our church from the “mother” church and said that we would go forward as a church living without labels. During the summer months, that decision caused half of our folks to leave and with them 2/3 of our income.
And I wouldn’t change a thing. Like P said, there is a wonderful, engaging spirit present, even though we have single, celibate gays and straights, gay and straight couples, some who would not describe themselves as “affirming” but have not found that deters them from loving the company of those who are. And guess what? Now that we are 10 weeks into it, the Lord is bringing lots of new people and the stories of redemption have been beautiful. And the people who believe in what we are doing have started living and giving generously despite the big losses over the summer. I am sure there is so much of what is involved with this whole thing that I have not dialed in on, but despite what those who said I was leading the church astray, I don’t know what other spirit but the Spirit of Jesus is shaping this into the church I’ve wanted to be part of my whole life. Blessings.
November 13, 2009 at 2:50 am
Mark,
Thanks for your gracious kind and spirit filled thoughts. I actually feel less alone in the world after reading your comment. I feel more connected and Ok here now. God blesses you with new and exiting spirit(s) because you bless everyone. I send you and your church blessings.
Doug
November 13, 2009 at 4:33 am
Francene, thanks for responding to my question and comments. I think we would both agree that anyone threatening to jump off a bridge requires special skills in talking them down. We will have to agree to disagree that just holding the belief that homosexual relationships are wrong could make one person responsible for another individual’s desperation. But I think that we can also agree that how one handles the subject (or any subject) is key to building a relationship when there is disagreement. I have a number of gay friends and acquaintances who know my beliefs, but would say that how I handle those beliefs in relation to them makes all the difference in us continuing to be good and supportive friends.
You state: “to actively question how their beliefs may have been instrumental in the poor guy attempting suicide.” If that were the case, we might have to take similar positions on the incest example that was being discussed, or perhaps a married guy committing adultery who is standing on that bridge. My beliefs, whether or not they are grounded rationally in scripture, should not be blamed as cause for someone else’s desperate act. That indeed sounds like a description of a “thought crime”, and I haven’t taken to using that phrase in discussion of the hate crimes bill that was just passed and which I support. Just like I believe homosexual relationships are wrong for a Christian, I also believe adultery and premarital sex is wrong, but I should not have to change my belief or feel guilty because someone else disagrees with it and blames my belief for their own desperation. Yes, I need to feel compassion for that individual and not hit them over the head with scripture or judgment, but it is possible to state one’s beliefs when called upon without condemning.
As for your question about what I would expect a gay person to do sexually if they choose not to go the celibate route, my response would be no different than for a heterosexual person who chooses to be celibate.
I appreciate the ongoing discussion by you and everyone else as we explore the various facets of this complex issue. Like Karen has said, it is always good to challenge our thinking and our beliefs. I could state numerous cases where my beliefs and opinions have been impacted by dialoguing with others with whom I initailly disagree, and similarly where my beliefs and opinions have impacted others. So there is purpose in “arguing” if it is done civilly and respectfully and with the desire to understand issues better from all perspectives.
Jeff
November 13, 2009 at 5:49 am
Amazing G–I appreciate your comments. Thanks!
Denise–good to hear from you again. I see what you are saying. Certainly if I saw my situation as a vow of celibacy, that is a different situation. It would be more in line with something like a priest taking a vow of celibacy, but not demanding it of everyone.
However, I have not taken a vow of celibacy. Perhaps I shouldn’t use that term because it is prone to being misunderstood, and use “chastity” instead. Though “celibacy” these days can refer to those who just aren’t having sex at the moment as well as those who have taken vows.
It is commonly misunderstood that gay Christians who are abstaining from sex are taking a “vow of celibacy” or have the “gift of celibacy.” And that is not accurate. Rather, we are in the same situation as any straight single person in the sense that we are not in a marriage, where sex is designed to take place. And thus cannot engage in that behavior. Certainly, it makes it much more likely than a straight person that that abstaining will be permanent if sexual orientation change does not occur. But that is quite different than taking a deliberate vow of celibacy in which one intends and desires to live celibate.
When someone says to the effect, “Why can’t it just be true for you and not for someone else”–I find that puzzling because it is like saying, “Just because you have decided not to steal from other people, why would you put that restriction on someone else?” In my view sexual behavior involves universal morality. And its universal morality that I didn’t conjure up. If it was my own peculiar idea then I would readily change it because I don’t like the fact that I have to abstain. Left to my own devices I would just go ahead and be in relationship with a woman, since that is what I would prefer.
Mark–thank you for your thoughtful response. I heartily agree with you that God reveals himself in different ways beyond Scripture. And I have utilized extra-biblical witnesses in my own process. Though, I look for harmony among several different witnesses. If something contradicts Scripture that certainly gives me pause.
If you have a chance, I would be interested in hearing what you said about what we see outside of Scripture. It sounds like you are saying that because of what science suggests, homosexuality should be approved.
My first question is, what do you believe that science tells us about homosexuality? Here is a statement from the American Psychological Association in regards to where scientists currently stand on the issue:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” See: http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses
Also, if homosexuality were strictly biological (which hasn’t been proven), why would we consider it God-blessed because it is biological? I can think of any number of conditions that people are born with–various disabilities for example–that are not representative of how the body is meant to operate. Sexual desire is physiologically and psychologically driven. A change in hormonal levels, etc can change one’s libido, for example. There was even a case of a gay man who had a stroke who complained that he no longer had same-sex attraction after having the stroke: http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/09/23/altered-sexual-orientation-following-dominant-hemisphere-stroke/
All kinds of curious things can happen in our bodies and minds. How do we discern when something biological is simply a disability or the result of a “fallen world” and whether it is meant to be embraced? I would be interested in your thoughts on that.
November 13, 2009 at 5:54 am
Francene, since you’ve asked anyone to step up and speak to the ways we may believe “loving gay committed relationships do ‘harm’ or are ‘hurtful’ to others,” I (Debbie) will volunteer.
Personally, I am not harmed or hurt by anyone’s committed relationship, gay or straight. That’s the more-or-less axiomatic view most gays want us to consider. Fine. No problem so far. That’s as far as it ever goes for those without an overarching faith worldview. But for a Christian, it ought to go farther than that.
A great many people in the world profess to being believers, and most institutions are informed by a godly ethos, or the largely Judeo-Christian ethic. So there is, then, the fact that enshrining something far outside of the normative worldview — though all people are still free to choose what they believe and to live in accordance with their beliefs within legal and commonsense parameters — will be confusing and eventually lead to standards that will remove God from the center of things, thereby eroding civilization’s underpinnings. This is the fear that many people have in their guts, though few are able to articulate this gut instinct well. I labor at it, myself. But I do know the God in whom I believe.
And then there is the case of concern over the potential harm that may come to the gay individual who is given free rein to turn what so many in the world deeply believe is God’s created intention on its head. But let’s start with what we all have in common — the need for affirming love and relationship.
I think we can agree that all human relationships carry with them an inherent element of risk. Still, we wax romantic and tell ourselves “it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.” Again, an axiomatic truth for most healthy people. Love is an awesome, terrible, good-hurt kind of thing. We were made for relationship. “It is not good for man to be alone,” declared our Creator.
That said, let’s focus on the hierarchy of those relationships. I believe God intended for us to, first and foremost, be in relationship with Him. In the creation story (view it literally or allegorically), Adam knows only God for a while. But God knows Adam’s human needs, so he gives him a partner, a completer. Happens to be a woman for reasons that are God’s. Anatomically speaking, it’s no great mystery. Now they have a relationship with each other, but also with God, the Father and first love. I don’t believe God meant for them to stop focusing on Him because they had each other.
Extrapolating this relationship hierarchy to today, we have the same God sitting at the top of all things, loving us despite our human frailties or even outright rejection of Him. That’s a love no human can replicate. We can barely even comprehend it. And we sometimes don’t realize how desperately we need it. Jesus Christ is the model for the sublime love we are meant to have toward each other, first and foremost. In other words, we are to care for each other as He cares for us, to the best of our human ability with His superhuman help.
God also allows for a unique love between two individuals who comprise a family, or a microcosm of the whole of humanity. He means for these marriages to be “cords of three strands,” with Him at the center as the strongest. He doesn’t just throw us out in the world on our own. He reveals Himself and His intentions to us through his recorded Word (Scripture), and in many other ways, as Pastor Mark pointed out (Yes, pastor, I do know God speaks to us through more than Scripture, and I ought to have said that. Love reformed theology, too).
When a segment of society, out of well-intentioned though short-sighted human limitation, begins to believe it can unravel long-held foundational precepts (there’s an inherent danger in too much navel-gazing rather than God-gazing), we are in for a bumpy ride. It leads to setting up idols in place of God, and that can never work. When Grace referred to homosexuality as a counterfeit from Satan, this is what she was getting at. The Enemy, a fallen angel, comes to us disguised as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14) to deceive and distort God’s truth. All the way back in the Genesis garden-narrative, when the serpent originally deceived Adam and Eve, his line was, “Indeed, has God said …?” (Gen. 3:1).
So, while we do it imperfectly and sometimes out of self-righteous motives, Christians who maintain that homosexuality is sin and thereby self-destructive at the soul level because it enthrones self over God, are really speaking to a foundational truth — a law — that was set up for our protection.
We cannot save ourselves. We need a savior who knows and loves us more than we can comprehend. We cannot understand why this fruit we so desire and which tastes so good when we bite into it is actually a slow poison that cuts us off from our Creator. He asks us to trust Him, but we don’t. We so often trust ourselves instead. And as C.S. Lewis said (in “Mere Christianity”), “you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source.” He also said, “When you are arguing against Him, you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.” Those are just two illustrations, but you get the point.
To those whose faith is not fully formed, any attempt to dethrone God and replace His truth with subtle half-truths can and does do harm. And there are severe admonitions in Scripture for those who would cause other believers or seekers to stumble (Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2). In fact, do a search in the Bible on the word “stumble.” Lots of references.
Those gays who are also Christians simply believe they can insert C in the equation where God has placed B and all will be well. I don’t think so.
I realize this may be food for serious thought to those who are open to it, and foolishness to those who aren’t. But the apostle Paul also knew that, as he pointed out in 1 Cor. 1:18. So be it. At any rate, it is my answer. I felt Francene and anyone else reading was owed the courtesy of one.
November 13, 2009 at 5:55 am
PS: Mark, you write: “My guess is that most straight people who find it easy to tell gay people to be single and celibate have not taken the time of day to think about what they are really asking. The words of Jesus in Luke 11:46 come to mind when he said, “Woe to you teachers of the Law who bind on the backs of men burdens you are not willing to bear yourself.”
I agree that too many straight people don’t realize what they are asking. They should be much more sensitive. Though the fact that the Christian walk can be very difficult does not mean we should abandon it.
Also, I wouldn’t doubt that God is using you and your church. God works through fallible human beings–which we all are. Thank goodness for that. I appreciate the grace offered at Highlands. Though as I have said before, I don’t think the options are between condemnation or affirming. We can offer much grace and kindness to people even as we uphold certain boundaries regarding sex.
November 13, 2009 at 7:58 am
Debbie,
Thank you for explaining that! You are the first person I’ve read who has given a remotely reasonable answer to that question.
And really, I agree with you 100%! Your premises are true. If God has admonished same-sex behavior, there must be some reason. And to go against that word, would be to “dethrone” him, as you say.
I do think, however, that Francene’s question was really about consequences though – literal, damaging consequences. In other words, what is the “fruit” which bears record to the fact that God said gay relationships are sinful?
Take lying for instance. I can tell you the harm it causes, not just in theoretical, spiritual terms (i.e., it is a way of not trusting our Creator and his precepts), but the natural harm it causes in the world. People are hurt and wounded – physicially and emotionally – when lies are told. Now, we could talk about the exceptions to the rule (so-called “white lies”, or perhaps lying for some greater good like saving a life), but what is undisputed is that the grand majority of lies are harmful. Do you think the same could be said of homosexuality? Is it inherently harmful? Are there NATURAL consequences?
I think you can probably see the need to get at an answer to that question. Because where you and gay Christians (like myself) have our disagreement is in whether or not GOD actually proscribes homosexuality, or whether or not cultures do. If heterosexuality is in fact God’s ONLY design for blessed sexual union, then there would likely be some natural consequences to choosing an alternative, as we see when all other moral laws are compromised.
I do want to reiterate my thanks for a thoughtful, respectful attempt at answering Francene’s question.
November 13, 2009 at 9:15 am
Darren,
You have the good sense to recognize the truth in what Debbie is saying, but isn’t this essentially what Karen and many of us have been saying all along?
How many different ways can we attempt to approach this topic and people just won’t get it?
It’s really a matter of whether someone really want to humbly accept the truth that God so plainly lays out in His word, or do they just want to dance and skirt around it.
You are receiving what Debbie put forth so articulately, but countless others will read it and never grasp it. One could explain this from every angle until the cows come home and they will say, “I still don’t see the harm in a ‘loving’ relationship between two consenting adults.”
Where is the harmful fruit of bestiality? Disease maybe, if the animal is not kept clean. But what if you love the animal and keep it clean?
We kill them for food, use them for clothing and byproducts, put yokes on their necks dooming them to a life of hard labor, and hang their heads on our walls as trophies. Why not sex? Where is the harmful fruit?
Jesus tells us in Matthew 16:4 that, “A wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign, but none will be given except the sign of Jonah.”
November 13, 2009 at 10:05 am
Hey, Darren. I appreciate your thoughts. Yes, I expect Francene probably did also want a concrete response in terms of “fruit.” Good point.
Boy, that one’s actually tougher for me because one part of my answer will almost certainly elicit a knee-jerk, angry response from some folks. So, I hope you will patiently forbear it, and allow me to get to it. Here comes another “booklet.”
Some folks want to see me or those who may be like me as the exception to what they believe is the rule (or ought to be), i.e., God allows for and desires our happiness, and He has created us with a broad range of gifts, tastes and temperaments. He wants to bless us. That may look different for me in some ways than it does for you. OK, I can go there.
Now, I think we can agree He also creates us with certain human needs, but with an overarching need to find our ultimate worth in Him. He gave us the gift of sex for our enjoyment, as well as for procreation. I think we’re still on the same page so far, right?
Now comes the point of divergence. And it gets all jumbled in the hang-up so many of us have over the Old Covenant/New Covenant thing. God’s love for His creation and His children pervades the Bible, all the way through. The Trinity — Father, Son and Holy Spirit — were there before the beginning and will remain for all of eternity.
The God of the Old Testament may have appeared so harsh as to dole out His love with a fickle partiality as He handed down cruel laws that were impossible to keep (ya think?), but He is “the same yesterday, today and tomorrow,” so His love has to go unquestioned. Still, some want to view Him through the Old Covenant lens, while others only can handle the New Covenant one. Jesus said he came to “fulfill” the law, however.
While God’s holiness was continually held up to Israel, whom He sealed through the Abrahamic covenant, and He exacted harsh punishment for disobedience, He also acted with great compassion over and over, forgiving His wayward people. So we can accept the proscription of homosexual behavior in both the Old and New Testaments as consistent with a both a loving and a holy (and jealous) God. He has His reasons. And I do believe they are spiritual above all, but this sin also has some consequences in the physical realm.
God revealed Himself and spoke to man in various ways in the O.T. His Spirit was present in the world and acted differently in O.T. history than He did after Christ’s death and resurrection sealed the New Covenant. The Spirit was originally said “to be with” or “to rest on” those of God’s choosing, but it could later be withdrawn (which is why David wrote in the Psalms, “Take not you Spirit from me”). God’s Spirit could and did even then penetrate man’s heart as a divine instructor (see the latter part of Psalm 139), but there was more to come still.
After Jesus’ death and resurrection and Pentecost, both Son and Spirit re-entered the world in a wholly new way to indwell all believers who accepted Jesus Christ, the Son, as “the way, the truth and the life.” God would not remove His Spirit from us at that point, only we could “quench” it through disobedience. So having God’s law “written in our hearts” was a foundational thing that took on a deeper meaning with the N.T. gift of the Holy Spirit as our “helper” — counselor, comforter, rebuker, etc. — who searches the hearts of believers, convicting us of sin, but also intercedes for us, along with the risen Christ, our advocate before the very throne of God. A comforting and powerful thought!
So, I believe that all of Scripture bears witness to God’s consistency, and that includes His proscription of many things meant to be ultimately harmful or life-taking to us, including homosexuality. Sometimes, the fruit is quite obvious and sometimes it is not. It can take the form of both spiritual death and literal death. Now, here is where you must resist the urge to stone me! All sexual sin has very real consequences: dysfunctional relationships, depression (borne out in current scientific studies today) and certain physical diseases or STDs being the most obvious. It is also a fact well-established by the CDC through many studies that men having sex with men (MSM) are the highest at-risk population by far for HIV/AIDS because anal intercourse is a perfect environment to incubate HIV infections (due to sensitive tissue breakdown), and men tend to be more promiscuous by nature than women. Women, inexplicably, have a certain natural defense to HIV, but they are increasingly at risk as the virus continues to mutate and grow more insidious.
Now, what God was speaking of through Paul in the New Testament when the words, “men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” (Rom. 1:27) were written, we cannot be certain of. But it was/is not a pretty picture, to be sure. Could it be a picture of HIV/AIDS today? Perhaps. God knows.
Note how many times the phrase “God gave them over” is used in that section of verses. That sounds like a pretty harsh consequence to me, meant to be a warning, I think, to us all in contemplating any kind of sexual sin, which is all sexual activity outside of one-man-one-woman marriage.
And I will end with the same sigh of relief that Paul does when he writes of our dual-nature struggle in Romans 7: “Who will set me free from the body of this death? … Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Rom. 7:24-25).
November 13, 2009 at 10:43 am
Debbie,
Thanks again for a reasoned response. I’m sure there will be some angry responders out there. I’m not one of them.
It sounds to me like we actually have many points of agreement more or less (we could probably get nit-picky about a few things, but for the most part we agree).
The one thing we agree on fully is this: IF homosexual sex is a sin (I say it isn’t, you say it is), then it is one in which the consequences are primarily spiritual in nature, and not natural.
In fact, I would go further (and I’m not sure you would go here with me): IF homosexuality is a sin, it’s not just “primarily” a spiritual one – but fully.
I have yet to see a natural consequence to being gay. I’m sure you’ve heard the rhetoric before, so I’ll be brief. The natural consequences you bring up above are not signs of GAY sex being immoral. At best, they are signs that ANAL sex is immoral – which means the consequence is there whether gay or straight. Thus, we would then have to conclude that anal sex is simply off limits to anyone.
But even IF we assumed this CDC data was good evidence for the natural consequences of being a gay man, we’d then have a VERY difficult time finding any proscription of lesbianism (since lesbian sex is BY FAR the safest sex there is!)
Now, I do fully recognize your view is probably more nuanced than just the evidence you’ve presented above. I’m not attempting to minimize your view. As you say, it’s worth some thought if you’re not in the habit of dismissing people out of hand. Do you perhaps have some examples of other natural consequences that we could see in being gay?
If so, please share them. If not, follow me here on my previous point. Let’s say that the sin of homosexuality is EXCLUSIVELY a spiritual one. Does this stand as the solitary sin in the Bible whose consequence is only spiritual?
If you simply cannot get behind the “exclusively spiritual” aspect, then feel free to discuss other sins whose consequences are PRIMARILY spiritual. Can you think of others?
Finally, your remark on Romans and “God giving them over” . . . what do you make of gay Christians who find that their relationships with God have actually been deepened by being in same-sex, monogamous, committed relationships? What do you make of those whose lives show greater fruits of the spirit?
Looking forward to more of these very rare “calmly reasoned” responses about homo-ness
DJ
November 13, 2009 at 10:51 am
Jeff S,
Thanks for your take on things also. I do think there are many views on sexuality that are important to the mix. Yours and mine are but some of the many.
Debbie,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful response. I certainly see your points about confusing the world with a minority glorification of something that has been considered taboo for thousands of years. It did give me pause. My basic take however, is that something as odd and far from the majority as homosexuality, has just been too much for the macho hetero “lets-go-fuck-a-chick-tonight!” chest-beating baby-making model of sexuality to handle. And in that I do see how straight guys world wide would have major confusion to resolve. Most women can’t stand that model to begin with so I give a heave-ho to gays that give straight men pause on sexuality at all.
Now don’t take this wrong, but I think the typical male of this category could use a good ass hammering by a guy just to get him to shut up and start thinking there are other ways to think about sexuality than “wham bam thank you mam”, like actual foreplay and after-holding for instance. In this sense it could make a guy more loving towards a woman, getting his out of balance aggressive sexual side reversed for a minute to feel the receptive side of the coin. *side note to God* (Dear God (prayer hands together, eyes closed) I know I’m going to get a lot of flack on this, but please love me through it. (getting up off knees shaking head) )
Darren is right in his comment about grounded fact based data regarding “harm” to society and it’s balance being the focus. Now Aids, if it were being transmitted by homosexuals to straight people only and gays did not get sick but were just carriers because they had sex together, that would fit the model I am talking about. But Aids is not a gay disease, it affects everyone and was not born out of someone being gay.
Lying stealing and cheating are the three basic templates for the 10 commandments, and they cause radical obvious harm to humans and have their punishments. These are the types of “data” I would be interested in hearing regarding gay loving relationships.
Regarding Adam and Eve, I think The Fall came from believing more in the mind rather than the God/soul connection in general. Sex only being part of the minds function to stand on it’s own as an ego based singular “God” cutting the spiritual connection for the physical mind connection. I think we are all majorly cut off from God, maybe except for 000.1%, and that is why we fight. We are out of sync with love as a general rule. Just my take but I have had moments in my life, and I mean like a few minutes total, of knowing and being one with God in the eternal expanse, where I felt as though I was all things as a piece of the fabric but knowing all the fabric. It was the most amazing experience of my life hands down. I was just sitting under a tree on a sunny afternoon not even trying to “know God better.” BUT, I think I do know what God is now, and that is truly a feat to have happen in just the twinkling of an eye so to speak. I’ve tried to recoup that experience without result. So back to stasis quo.
We are really shit canned here, and the best we can do is love each other, and that doesn’t even get what I experienced because love is emotional and what I experienced had no emotion but was only bathed in perfect still-pond peace. And actually I have felt that with certain friends and loves, but not like the all-that-is piece, that was the separating point between human relationships and what I deemed knowing God. It was the little me fully aware of the big picture for a moment. And now, in my mind, (and not the Mind of the great expanse) love is our only “hope” while we are here.
Karen,
I know that maybe my framing of my chatting with you has been difficult. I have looked at that and have made adjustments. I am in no way wanting you to “satisfy” me or my “need to be right” side. I really am into more fact than winning. With our chat however, I am finding myself having compassion for the Christian gay guy who may commit suicide if in fact, he has to drop faith based belief in sexuality and start believing otherwise. It’s easy for me to say “get over it” but there are things in my life where I try to tell myself that, but to actually change can be monumental. If you think I was talking past or not “getting” you, that is probably where it was coming from. So I have placed myself in his position and see your point. And it is well taken. I think you can count on a more compatible conversation style between us from this point on. If you have anything to add to Debbie’s comment, I would surely appreciate it. And I would hate losing a good sparring partner.
Mark,
Wow I am really impressed with your church, it’s outreach and it’s basic foundational pinnings, called acceptance. One of the things I have the hardest time with in biblical terms, is the line(s) “incestuous thieves murderers drunkards homosexuals the greedy, fornicators” etc all being cut off from God. I have to sit back like taking a test that says, “which word does not belong in this sentence” and smilingly remove homosexuals. Now homosexual pedophiles, not an issue, but loving gay people?
So since this still begets great argument, I applaud you and your stance, as I hear you saying (para), “if affirming homosexual love/sex relationships is so bad, lets now take the opposite approach and let it play out supportively, as the rejective way is harming people at obvious levels and is heretofore deemed inappropriate. If it’s truly the abomination some think it is, the chips will fall where they may.” That’s my take but if it’s correct, good going. I’m there at your church stat. My take is the sky will still be in place 500 years from now. Who knows, maybe there will be less war if there is less sexual struggle and more sexual acceptance in the world.
November 13, 2009 at 11:00 am
karen,
I also include Christian gay girl in my suicide subject.
November 13, 2009 at 11:01 am
Francene!
You’re amazing experience you’ve spoken of above reminds me of a TED talk by Jill Bolte Taylor! It’s an amazing talk, and I think your experience is like hers (though yours was probably not caused by an ischemic attack!)
What I find fascinating about it is that it seems our brains have been hard-wired with a sense of the extraordinary, and oneness with the universe – some might even call this the organic basis of spirituality. Check it out!
http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
November 13, 2009 at 11:39 am
Wow folks, maybe we didn’t actually kill the horse after all!!! (if you didn’t read my last entry this comment makes no sense).
And Debbie, way to go girl in responding with so much detail and graciousness! Darren and Denise are posting some great questions as well. This has been such a fasinating dicussion and I really appreciate the gentleness and respect that is being shown versus where it was going earlier. I will plan to pull up a chair and munch on my popcorn as the great discussion continues………..
November 13, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Darren!!!
Were you trying to get me to cry? It worked! That video clip in my opinion, is one of the most powerful all-that-is expressions of what I was talking about and experienced, on Earth. It is going on my computer desk top for the rest of my life.
Thank you thank you thank you!!!
November 13, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I thought you’d like that, Francene
I totally cried when I first saw it! I watch it every so often to remind me to “step to the right of my left hemisphere.” Very, very moving and beautiful.
November 13, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Hi, folks. I’m open to continuing the discussion — I see more questions are being raised — but I can’t do it until tomorrow. Until then … keep talking.
November 13, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Interesting video. It actually reminded me very much of the experiences I had on mescaline and LSD. The brain is certainly an incredible thing.
———————————————–
I think we’re missing the point if we attempt to separate the spiritual from the physical; in the sense that spiritual things impact physical things, and visa versa.
That would be akin to trying to separate the soul from the body (mind from matter, if you will). And in this lifetime, it cannot happen. There is too much overlapping of elements that make up the whole of anything. (Which also happens to be the reason I believe there is no such thing as 100% heterosexuality or homosexuality.)
So I don’t believe you can really separate the fruit of sin to be just a spiritual fruit apart from the physical manifestation, as one commenter suggested.
Spiritual stuff has a direct impact on the physical. But due to the “nature” of the spiritual realm it can be almost impossible for us to connect the dots, in relation to sin, within the confines of our minds—unless we are very spiritually attuned and knowledgeable; according to scripture, that is, not worldly spirituality.
I have witnessed spiritual phenomenon (no I wasn’t using drugs), so I do believe spiritual forces exist and not solely because of what I have read in scripture or seen on TV and in movies.
In relation to mankind, what takes place spiritually is invisible to us, but it occurs for no other reason than to impact us both in the physical realm during this lifetime, as well as our quality of life in the resurrection.
Logically, if we really do have a “spiritual adversary” he is doing whatever he can to ensure that we DO NOT understand the direct relation that the spiritual has on the physical, at least in terms of sin.
And I will go as far as saying this: I personally believe that the more negative an impact something potentially has on the well being of mankind, the more better Satan will attempt to hide and disguise its fruit. In other words, very often, the more we can’t see it—the more it’s there.
Of course Satan is doing his very best to hide the fruits of sin. And no wonder people are asking!
And God can be just as discrete. In many ways, he quietly hides from us and leaves it to us to seek Him out. He is not shoving His fruits down our throats; and much of the time we do not even recognize His operations and are completely oblivious to His power also.
As I stated before, we simply cannot outwit a timeless adversary. To achieve his objectives, Satan causes countless people who live in sin to appear to prosper in every way. And that is exactly what is happening with homosexuality in our times. How else could we be deceived?
God tells us that the wages of sin are death. But the adversary is a crackerjack at concealing this. He lies, assuring us the wages of sin are love, intimacy, pleasure, prosperity, peace, etc. And, of course, we buy right into it—like sheep to the slaughter.
Just recently, a news headline announced that AIDS is now the leading cause of death among women worldwide. How has this happened? It snuck up on us while we were being seduced, lulled into a hypnotic state by the media, influenced and enticed by peers, and driven to desperation because of our broken interactions with others.
Aside from something like AIDS—in which we can easily recognize the fruits of sin—spiritual influence operates in ways we cannot pinpoint. And the adversary is looking for every open door and window to climb into.
If someone flicks a switch it may turn on the lights at the very far end of a space, in the hallway, up on the loft, in another room, or in the driveway. And we are usually clueless as to the route the electrical current has actually traveled or where it originated. This is what happens in the spiritual realm.
Sin in one area of our lives can affect us in seemingly completely unrelated areas. And there may be a delayed reaction, or the impact may not be visibly manifested on us, but rather on someone else.
That is not to say that everything negative that happens in our lives is the result of sin we have committed or the sin of those around us. We are vulnerable to the adversary whether we sin or not. I will say, however, that everything negative is the result of “someone’s” sin, as we trace the fallen state of mankind back to Adam and Eve.
Sin has fruit, whether we see it or not. And remember, our minds and perceptions are soooo limited. If we can’t see or feel something, that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
I have no reason whatsoever, to try and make a point about the fruits of sin just for the sake of trying to make a point. What’s to prove?
I have NOTHING whatsoever to gain, personally, by telling anybody that homosexuality is sin or that it bears negative fruit. To know my personality is to know it is not my style to take up issue. I’m extremely easy going and love collaboration, not friction.
But this is even beyond something I have merely assimilated from scripture based on my interpretation. I have experienced it in my life over and over and have seen it in the lives of others. I’ve seen the fruit of sin come back to bite people, as well as myself, decades later.
Although I do make it a point of not elaborating about the details of my experiences due to the personal aspects of these things and for the sake of spiritual discretion—which I believe in strongly for reasons I won’t explain here.
When it comes to sin I do not like to take chances. And I guess that’s everybody’s choice to make.
God has given me much grace, but I have also LEARNED lessons and there is too much at stake. I have clearly seen the fruits of sin, including homosexuality. The wisdom of God brings success and that’s the only way to fly as far as I’m concerned.
I’m going to try really hard not to comment on this post any further, because I have lots of things to do and I’m probably not making much sense at this point (I’m all blogged out now), but on a final note I say:
I believe that many of the people who visit blogs such as this—pushing the issue to its limits and questioning every angle—already know in their hearts that homosexuality is not God’s best for them; and that on some level of their minds they are comforted by seeking confirmation of this.
To those individuals, God bless…and I hope that your right hemisphere catches up to your left hemisphere…or whatever…someday soon!!
November 13, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Grace,
At the very least I can say that this was a better attempt at living up to your name than the last post you made. I’m glad you deleted it and rethought your approach. Unfortunately, for those of us who receive the emails, we already saw the 2nd litany of unkindness you’ve spewed in so many days. But effort counts for something, I suppose . . .
November 13, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Darren,
I’m not familiar with these “emails” you are referring to. And to my knowledge, I have not “deleted” anything. As for my name, it was a gift, I actually did not select it.
I don’t know what to tell you if you are offended at the things I say, or believe that they are unkind. That is certainly up to you to decide for yourself.
Are you yourself always gracious? It certainly did not come across that way in the words you posted above about Christians.
I have a grown son, perhaps about your age, and there may have been many times he thought I was being unkind also and didn’t want to know the things I had to say. But I value him more than anybody on earth.
And for sure he looks back now wishing he had listened to me much more closely in the past, when the truth was harder to accept.
Jesus was crucified because people were offended by the things he said, John the Baptist beheaded, and the disciples imprisoned and stoned.
Certainly, even God has been hard on us in his Word and cuts us to the heart for our own benefit in the end.
It is your choice to be offended, or to take the message I am telling you to a deeper level.
November 13, 2009 at 11:02 pm
I’ve read every comment…it’s taken me a while.
What I found most interesting was Saul’s idea about the state and the direction of the evangelical church movement. I’m pretty sure I agree with that observation as far as the American Evangelical Church. The rest of the world is a different story.
November 14, 2009 at 6:34 am
Grace,
Please forgive me if I got this wrong. Perhaps there’s another person who posts here under the name “Grace”. But are you not the person who sarcastically accused me of throwing my personal drama out for all to see (a comment that Karen herself had to delete because it was so rude, and Sarah commented was very harsh)? Were you not also the person who wrote:
“Darren,
You have the good sense to recognize the truth in what Debbie is saying, but isn’t this essentially what Karen and many of us have been saying all along?
How many different ways can we attempt to approach this topic and people just won’t get it?
It’s really a matter of whether someone really want to humbly accept the truth that God so plainly lays out in His word, or do they just want to dance and skirt around it. “?
Am I speaking of a different person here? If I am, then forgive me. These words are directed to another phantom “Grace”. But if that was all you, then you’ve been absolutely dismissive and rude to me from the start. You don’t know me, and know nothing about me, yet you feel it’s OK to speak to me in the way that you do.
THAT is not graceful. Of course I could forgive you of that, but you can’t even admit when you’re acting in a way that lacks grace and respect.
It’s not about saying something that I don’t want to hear. There’s absolutely nothing you could possibly say to me that hasn’t been crooned by fundamentalists for years. I’ve heard it all, and it’s frankly ceased to be “offensive”, because I grew up believing that stuff. I spent my life living it out. You couldn’t offend me by telling me YOUR OPINION of Biblical interpretation one bit. Don’t impress yourself. You’re not that influential.
What offends me is the WAY in which you speak to me. It’s the way in which you’ve taken things personally (and in a manner not intended to be taken), and then decided to get revenge by speaking to me disrespectfully. And if you don’t take my word for that, take the advice of those who had to delete your comments, and those who’ve stated you’ve been harsh.
You don’t like “friction”? Puh-lease. You’ve caused nothing but with me the moment you began throwing comments my way. You’re NOT being graceful, you’re not being loving, and you’re not being kind. Period.
Now, if you have ought with something I’ve said (I’m speaking about my words regarding Christians), then be BIBLICAL. Come to me directly, and tell me so. We could then work out our differences, because I assure you you’re projecting onto me, and haven’t heard my words in the way in which they were intended. If you can’t be Biblical yourself in the way that you love and respect people, and in the way in which you approach conflict with brothers in Christ (or even with your “enemies”, if that’s the way you see me), then you haven’t any right to preach to me about the way in which *I* should live *MY* life.
Work on that plank in your eye first, “Grace”.
November 14, 2009 at 9:24 am
Hi Darren,
I clicked onto your Xanga blogspot and can I say absolutely love your newest addition, Lacey!!! Hey and I sent you an email thru Xanga but I’m not sure how often you check it so wanted to give you aheads up about it. No worries, it is a nice email in case you were wondering what I might have to say!
November 14, 2009 at 9:56 am
Amazing Grace,
What a sweetie! Thank you so much for that very nice letter. I see you’re as loquacious as I am! It was indeed wise of you to give me a heads up, b/c I never check my Xanga page anymore! Do you think you could head back over there and give me your email address, or use the email address listed on my Xanga page so that we can continue the dialogue? Thanks!
DJ
November 14, 2009 at 10:23 am
Hi Darren,
Absolutely, I will do that right now!
November 14, 2009 at 11:23 am
Thanks, AG! I got it and responded
November 14, 2009 at 11:29 am
To Grace,
In reading the posts above, I see that you never did delete your message. When it was emailed to me, and I went searching for it, it wasn’t on the blog, so I assumed you had deleted it. Sorry for missing it.
My overriding point still stands though: the tone used was rude and personal, when I’ve done nothing at all to provoke you. So I’m at a loss for all the derision you’ve directed at me.
November 14, 2009 at 12:09 pm
PS Darren,
I had only made one comment directed to you.
What you refer to as “all the derision” directed at you was not…my comments were a response to the collective theme of the many comments being made by yourself and others. It was not directed “at” you personally.
November 14, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Francene, I wanted to take a look at your comment here: “Lying stealing and cheating are the three basic templates for the 10 commandments, and they cause radical obvious harm to humans and have their punishments. These are the types of ‘data’ I would be interested in hearing regarding gay loving relationships.”
Focusing in on the stealing principle for a moment, would you agree that we could place idolatry, which is actually proscribed in both the first and second commandments, there: “You shall have no other gods before me” and “You shall not make for yourself an idol (graven image) …”?
Here is an interesting interpretation of the concept of idolatry: “Idolatry is the universal human tendency to value something or someone in a way that hinders the love and trust we owe to God. It is an act of theft from God whereby we use some part of creation in a way that steals from honor due to God.” I don’t know who to credit that to, by the way.
It is also interesting to note the parallels between the Exodus account of the Ten Commandments and what Paul wrote in Romans 1 about “ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” leading to idol worship in place of the “incorruptible God,” which in turn caused God to give them over “in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.” He extrapolates that out to homosexual acts, as well, beginning that narrative with, “For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie.” So, I guess we bring lying into the picture, too. And if we are stealing from and lying to God, then we are, of course, cheating Him out of what is rightfully His.
I’m just saying. … It’s hard to ignore.
What specific kinds of harm come from idolatry, no matter the form it takes? Again, obviously, grave spiritual consequences are there. The physical ones will vary from case to case, perhaps. But I think it’s time for us to now ask ourselves, which consequences are we really to be more concerned with? The physical will not outlast the spiritual. We are but dust and here in bodily form for only a short while. What is at our core is who we are. The fruit can look pretty good on the outside but be rotting on the inside. And it will most assuredly die.
Many people out in the world today are liars, thieves and swindlers, but they do not appear to suffer in the physical realm. Some do, of course. We can imagine that they may be unhappy because they have placed themselves on a throne that is meant for God. They continue to look for the “things” that will bring them happiness, only to realize at the end of their lives that it is a pointless pursuit. If we interviewed them, how many would swear they were happy?
This does not equate one-for-one with the quest for happiness that we seek in all human relationships. Marriage is a sacred thing, too, even though we can also place it above God as an idol. Those Christians who are gay and in committed relationships and who keep God at the center of their lives — if they tell us this is true, we have to take it at face value — believe with all their hearts they are no different from other Christians. I know some who are still too caught up in the gay culture of idolatry (this is my view) to make me feel comfortable with their faithfulness to God. Others I am sure have their priorities more in order. Only they know whether or not they have true peace or joy. I can’t judge that.
I hope this makes sense.
November 14, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Francene–thanks for what you said. I appreciate it. I hope to respond more later, but right now I am up to my ears in projects.
Darren, AM and Grace–I understand it is difficult to have conversations on this subject when there is disagreement. I would encourage you all to respond to an offense with kindness. As Jesus said we should imitate the father who was “kind to evil and ungrateful men.” Its easy to get riled up and return tit for tat. But there is not purpose in that. Any further comments of this nature going back and forth about who is more rude than whom, I will simply delete since that distracts from the more important conversation here. Thanks!
PS–AM I deleted your comment as it included an unnecessary jab toward Grace.
November 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Karen, you’re right. It certainly isn’t my desire to detract from more important conversations. Anyone who has a problem with me is more than welcome to take it up with me personally (my own blog is available by link to my name).
Grace,
I accept your apology . . .
Thanks.
November 14, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Thanks Darren!
November 15, 2009 at 10:04 am
Debbie,
6 year old. It would seem the new A Christmas Carol movie is on the table for a matinee today.
Interesting take. There are many overlays in those three aspects.
I too am finding weekend projects over-riding computer time, coupled with a visiting highly interactive (and playfully demanding
However, I look forward to responding to your very interesting comment as soon as possible.
Karen,
Thanks for the sound-bite, chat with you soon.
November 15, 2009 at 5:54 pm
“It would seem the new A Christmas Carol movie is on the table for a matinee today.”
Saw it Friday, Francene. Enjoyed it, but I think there are a few moments that would be pretty scary for a six-year-old. Sticks pretty close to the Dickens story. Enjoy it (or hope you already did).
November 15, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Karen,
Thanks for explaining the meaning/application of the word “celibacy” for your life. In discussions of sexuality I think we need to be quite careful to apply terms as they are most commonly understood. But of course that’s easy for me, a straight person to say. It occurs to me that the gay community generally suffers from being denied either a secular or Christian recognized vocabulary which contains what we might call the gay experience or sensibility. As you and I try to speak across the bridge of our different sexual orientation the meaning of the word ‘celibacy’ construes a distinctive heterosexual spiritual practice for me. But for you as a lesbian, the term construes another meaning. Wouldn’t it be interesting if dictionaries evolved to include homosexual-centric word meanings!
I’ve thought about your argument that the homosexual relationship is, like stealing, categorically and universally immoral. I wasn’t sure this analogy “worked” if you were suggesting that, like stealing, all homosexual relationships will subject a victim to mistreatment/harm.
After reading more comments, it seems theformers has also picked up on this concept — in terms of homosexual relationships as “stealing” devotion away from God (along the lines of idolatry). I’m thinking about this and may have some comments later.
Denise
November 16, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Hi Debbie and all,
In love relationships I find there are some very important ones that when out of balance, cause mental emotional “suffering” spoken of by gay celibates. They are; 1. Self 2. God 3. Family members 4. Friends 5. Sex/love relationships.
If there is a suffering issue, most likely it falls into one of these five categories. If one of the categories is even minutely out of balance, it can be difficult mentally/emotionally i.e. a mild disagreement with a friend. Even then, we are in full control of our emotions and beliefs at all times, and in that, suffering is always a choice.
In the case of religious gay celibates (not bi), I see two areas that are radically affected; self and sex/love relationships. In their case, the sex/love relationships category is deleted from the five completely. They also try to extricate a part of their internal biology by categorizing gay sexuality immoral and/or harmful. In this the self category is also affected. That is two out of five categories in severe depletion, hence suffering is the natural reaction. The biology and the need to engage on different levels in different relationships is chemical, and trumps belief regardless of it’s origin.
This scenario causes seeking in other areas for completion, God, friends family etc, hence getting closer to one or more of them would be a natural movement or, one isolates and feels lonely, which is more than not, the case. The self and the love/sex relationships go unresolved, out of balance and they cannot be fulfilled by any of the other categories because all of the five categories are different striations of love and remain mutually exclusive and are very different normal human experiences. In this case of a gay celibate adults biological nature, maybe half of one’s experience, is cut off.
Ghandi still had a love relationship partner though he became celibate. I believe in his wisdom, he did it for other reasons than the gay celibate does, as he was not demonizing part of himself. His “self” and his love/sex relationship categories stayed lovingly intact, completing himself. I think with him, his celibacy was probably more of a well thought out adventure rather than a curse of suffering pulling him into pits of despair, though he did have his tribulations. As an adventure, I could go for that. But as a curse, I don’t think that would provide me with the best basis for upliftment, as that belief would always haunt me as to whether it was true or not.
In your comment you did give some leeway for gay couples in love however, it seems the idolatry piece is aimed at gays more than straights. My take is idolatry can be as destructive as lying cheating or stealing and can exist with anyone, or not. Are you saying gay relationships are different than straights in this case of idolatry? And if so, does that make a good case for a gay person to delete approximately half of their biological experience, for life? If the party was a sex addict as in Alan Chamber’s or Randy Thomas’s case, then that would seem very plausible, but only until they come back into balance. They were heavy into idolatry. But they are not everyone. Would not it make more sense to deal with the idolatry, rather than throw out half of a person’s bio experience? A sexually addicted straight person would not do that, why should a gay person?
Also if you could boil down how gay relationships harm humanity and it’s balance without bringing “god” or the Bible into the picture, that would be refreshing and along with your other insights, quite useful.
Good comment btw, I enjoyed reading your perspective.
PS I was more jumpy than our 6 year old at the movie. She loved it.
November 17, 2009 at 6:06 am
Happy to respond to Francene’s questions and comments. She makes some valid and insightful points.
First, let me remind folks that today has been set aside as a worldwide day of prayer for Uganda, specifically for all those who stand in opposition to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, to seek divine wisdom and intervention. Many voices have joined with concern over the adverse impact such a bill, if passed, would have on Uganda’s gays, on the work of the Church and on outreach and care to those dealing with AIDS there. Thanks. See Karen’s October 20 post for more information.
Francene, I agree we certainly need to do our best to keep those relationship areas you mention in balance, insofar as it is up to us. Even when we are rejected or harmed by another, it remains our choice as to how we will respond, as you say. We can volunteer for more pain or refuse to allow someone or something to take up residence in our psyche without “paying rent.” We will never be able to eliminate all such elements from our lives. Forgiveness — even when unmerited (indeed, is it ever?) — is often the key to much healing for folks. Of course, we who are Christians are to realize that Christ loved us, forgave us and redeemed us when we deserved damnation. So he is the model we are to follow in this regard.
Probably the most difficult concept to grasp in the Christian vernacular is that of subjugating self to Christ. We have been fed so much self-esteem psychology or even “theology” in recent years that we can lose the real truth in the white noise. In theory, we may get that it is better to keep the Godhead on the throne rather than succumb to temptation to place ourselves there. We want to maintain our perspective and not be selfish. But in practice, we still falter because we are so darn human, and our selfish sin nature fights against our spiritual self (again, I cite Romans 7). “I am entitled to this,” we secretly tell ourselves. “It’s not fair.” “If God loves me, won’t He understand?” Duh. He made us. Of course He understands us. But until we come to the point of really realizing that our freedom in and through Christ far outstrips our freedom in the flesh, we will continue to bang our heads against that wall and trade true joy — which may or may not encompass the sexual sphere — for temporary pleasure or only the level of happiness that we are limited to imagining in our humanness. And we all are given the free will to make those choices.
I can honestly say that I have had many opportunities to test that in my life, on various levels. It’s not mere theory. It really works. I also will reiterate here, in case some have forgotten, that my struggle was not one of being exclusively attracted to other women. I always knew the other side of my sexuality, as well. I know this continuum of sexuality is a mystery that we may never unravel. It’s that way for other things, too. I am well aware that some will say, “It’s easy for you to speak of a spiritual joy that supersedes physical pleasures because you never had to deal with celibacy.” True. That’s why other voices on the issue are necessary.
Is celibacy in such cases a “curse”? I can imagine it must feel that way. On the other hand, are we to view the thing that leads a struggler to celibacy — the same-sex attraction itself — as representing the curse? It is quite interesting to go back and read Genesis 3 and remember how God did, indeed, curse humanity after the fall. One part of that was the conflict that men and women have yet today in relationship. In the grand scheme of things, we are still under that curse. Before the foundation of time (and the curse), God made a way out for us, through Jesus Christ. But in this world, he still promises we will have difficulty (John 16:33).
And yes, as you point out, Francene, idolatry certainly does apply equally across the board, both to straight and gay folks.
As to your question, once again, of “how gay relationships harm humanity and its balance without bringing “god” or the Bible into the picture,” I honestly don’t think I am the person to address that. I just cannot conceive of a time or place where God can be set aside. He is in and through all, before the foundation of the world until its end, for all eternity. I did give my best attempt to look at the sociological ramifications. Maybe someone else out there has something else to add.
Debbie
November 17, 2009 at 7:09 am
Debbie,
First of all, I must admit that I’m confused. Your tone here has been so gentle and loving, it makes me wonder if you’re the same woman I’ve haggled with on Andy’s website in times past! LOL.
Kidding. For what it’s worth, I really, truly appreciate your perspective, and your honesty. There’s something in your tone that communicates “I don’t know it all, but I have my beliefs and opinions”, and that has made this conversation much more enjoyable for me. It’s allowed me to “put down my arms”, so to speak. So thanks for that.
Francene,
While I really appreciate your perspective about celibacy and balance, it sounds as if you are perhaps universalizing it too much.
For my part, I agree with you – and feeling that lack of balance is what made celibacy (and the lifelong prospect of it) rather unbearable for me, and sent me spiraling into depression. I am what my good friend likes to a call a “pair bonder”, who simply thrives on close, intimate, soulful companionship.
But, is that to say that there aren’t people out there who aren’t adversely affected in the self and sex/love categories you mention? As an example, from what little I know of Karen, I don’t know that she “suffers” so much because of her decision to be celibate. At least not the same way and to the same extent that I would if I were in her situation.
Also, as Karen has brought up before, how would you suggest someone handle it if – in being in a gay relationship – they felt their God relationship suffered? How would you suggest that gay people with a more conservative view of same sex love find that right balance you speak of?
Darren
November 17, 2009 at 8:45 am
“First of all, I must admit that I’m confused. Your tone here has been so gentle and loving, it makes me wonder if you’re the same woman I’ve haggled with on Andy’s website in times past! LOL.”
Ha. Well, Darren, all I can say is God is not finished with me yet by a long shot. I am “his workmanship,” which means I am still under construction — or at least needing some repair now and then.
I really appreciate these opportunities (here and at other blogs, etc.) to engage in these discussions. This is how we “learn to live and love,” as Andrew is fond of saying. Don’t think I haven’t gotten into plenty of hot water (even recently) by having my words and attitudes examined under God’s microscope. He has a real sense of humor sometimes in how He does that, especially in terms of the people He uses.
I have no choice but to remain humble. We can’t wipe our past words or deeds off the map. Were it not for a loving, forgiving God, we’d still be in a mess. I hope people will be able to look at my life and see a progression toward something more closely resembling Christ when it’s all done for me. I know He loves me, even though His head must be lopsided by now from all the times I’ve caused Him to slap himself.
November 17, 2009 at 8:52 am
Debbie and Darren,
I call us Gods in Progress. As Jesus said about raising the dead and healing the sick, “these things you shall do and more.”
I want to respond to you guys but I am formulating my request for divine intervention with the Uganda issue, and prayer is on the rise.
It might be interesting though, if you and/or someone might ask God in prayer today, why He made gay people, and why they can’t have loving sexual relationships with each other since that is all they are attracted to sexually in the sexual arena?
November 17, 2009 at 9:16 am
Francene said: I call us Gods in Progress. As Jesus said about raising the dead and healing the sick, “these things you shall do and more.”
Yes, that he did say that, although I don’t think I’d go so far as to characterize us as “gods.” Certainly, given full authority by God to act with the power of His Spirit as we go out in the world, meeting needs along the way, and pointing hearts toward Him.
Your prayers for Uganda will join with many today. Thanks. The questions we all may have for God about the whys and wherefores of homosexuality are met, I’m sure, with compassion from Him. Where we cannot trace His hand, may we always trust His heart (Spurgeon).
November 18, 2009 at 9:20 am
Francene–you asked about the question of harm. I have touched on that above when I discussed in a more general sense sexual boundaries as it relates to community, the yin/yang of male and female, the body etc.
But to be more specific, I don’t think we can always see harm, and I think what constitutes harm is subjective in some ways. For example, when I was studying psychology in college I read professional articles in scholarly journals supporting sex between adults and children because in their estimation they could not find harm. Of course, I would greatly challenge their understanding. But, in their view they felt sexual exploration by children with adults could be healthy and beneficial. I find that deeply disturbing. Even if a child does not protest or necessarily show permanent psychological scars in certain individual cases, I do not think sexual activity between adults and children is a good thing. I think it is harmful, and yet there are others who will argue that it is not.
Our conscience can become confused and desensitized. In the first century pederasty was often accepted. We can look back on that and say it was exploitative. But they didn’t see it that way at the time (there were some who did, but others who did not). So the fact that someone, in the moment, cannot see what the harm is, does not mean that there isn’t harm happening. We always think that we are right in the moment. And most of us do not deliberately engage in what we perceive to be harmful behavior.
Scripture says that what is harmful can seem very good to us, an “angel of light.” It has the appearance of what is good. So how do you know that you believe something is light only because it appears so very close to what is light? It is meant to trick us. Lies are very, very close to the truth, which is precisely why we fall for them. They look and appear like what is good. Also Scripture, particularly in Eccelsiastes talks about how good things happen to those who do harm and bad things happen to those who do good. So if we are looking for “results” to indicate whether something is harmful, I don’t think the results are always 100% reliable. Many times they can be, but not always. The fact is that many people who do harmful things seem to prosper and all goes well with them and their lives. One can, for example, be a very functional alcoholic and it would not appear they are harming anyone, and yet I think there are deeper things going on there, more subtle.
There is the question of harm, but there is also the question of what is rightly ordered. To use an odd example, I could technically never “eat” food again and just have a tube give me nutrients. This is not harmful per se (some people rely on this to live), but its not rightly ordered.
In this vein, I would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the body and what the body tells us. In America I feel that we have gagged the body. We eat before we even allow ourselves to feel hunger pains, we medicate every possible discomfort. We barely feel our bodies. We have silenced them. Yet our bodies are part of our Selves and they speak to us. So, what does our body tell us about sex? Why do I have ovaries and a uterus? What does that tell me about sexual correspondence–that is, what is rightly ordered. Not that I will necessarily have sex or have children, but my body is telling me something.
We too easily dismiss our bodies and their voices. Do you just ignore sexual correspondence between men and women? And if so, how do you justify ignoring what the body is speaking?
PS–I thought it was interesting that in your five categories, you only put “love” with sex. I think that is the fundamental problem with our understanding of “love”, we seem to think it is primarily associated with sex. I would have put the categories like this: 1. Self/love, God/love, Family members/love, Friends/love, Sex/love
Denise–just to clarify, my point was not to necessarily compare homosexuality to stealing. My point was to demonstrate how relativism does not make sense to me. That I believe sexual ethics are universal as opposed to “Its okay for you, but not okay for me” kind of thing.
Debbie and Francene–you guys have been talking about celibacy and whether it is a curse. Actually, the Bible says that celibacy is anything but a curse. In fact, it is the destiny of every human being. You could say that celibacy is actually more natural than sex. Jesus said that in heaven there will be no marriage–we will be like the angels. The perfect Utopian world that we are awaiting at the end of the age is not going to be caught up in all this sex drama. Sex, is not solely about procreation, but that is a major aspect of it in this temporal earthly life. We will not be reproducing in heaven and not marrying. So, those who live celibate are living lives closer to what we will all be living eventually. And I believe this points to the reality that sex doesn’t come close to the ultimate form of love. As Jesus, who was celibate, demonstrates. Orgasm is wonderful and is a great means of intimacy (when used as such–it can also be anything but intimacy). But in the end orgasm is not love itself. And is not even the highest form of love.
November 18, 2009 at 11:07 am
Debbie and Darren,
I want to respond to you guys but with Karen’s new comment, I want to take some time and respond all at once.
November 19, 2009 at 1:15 am
Karen,
You bring up much to comment on. I think in the world in which we live, we do have to honor that it is a duality, a collection of opposites, and therefore we are going to see the extremes on a spectrum. Men and women, night and day, north and south pole opposing electrical charge, and more than anything, we have two brains, right and left, that act in totally different ways, one experiential and the other analytical/categorizing. So our nature is to live in opposites. Homosexual and heterosexual fall into that category, so i honor that natural result of living in a sexually dualistic world. Should we call night bad and day good because one has light and the other doesn’t? Should we call men bad because they are less emotional, and women good because they are more emotional? In the same vein, should we call gay bad, and straight good just because they are opposite? I think not, as it is a natural extent of this worlds projections.
There will always be things we don’t approve of, however, if we take all the judgement away, we are living the experience of opposites as an observed reality, instead of one judged as good or bad. It is when we judge ourselves and others that we then become extremists. Extremism always holds positives and negatives because those opposing forces are in conflict with each other. Take homosexuality; some do not judge it at all and they move along in life without that being an issue. They do not set up opposing realities about it in their minds. Others judge it and take steps to reduce a the natural opposite of heterosexuality as bad, probably because it is such a minority. In that, they get into conflict with the goods and bads about it. For instance, your body biology is gay, yet your mind has chosen to call it immoral or bad. That sets up extremism in that your body talks to you about what it naturally wants, a positive, then the mind tells it no, it’s bad, a negative, hence the battle of right and wrong, good and evil, and the “struggle” ensues within. Then one can take it to the ultimate extreme and deny the body’s natural desires by cutting it off sexually through celibacy. The fight becomes so intense, struggle and pain are the menu for as long as there is a good and bad dynamic set up. It can never be resolved by calling either side good or bad. It will just keep on going for as long as a person allows it, until one decides it is no longer an issue.
As far as unseen harm about homosexuality, it has been here long enough to establish data about it’s reality in the human race. Any unseen harm would have been detected by now, yet there has been none statistically shown. Similar with homosexuality in the animal kingdom, there is no harm found there either. With respect to your analogy of celibacy being the norm in heaven that may be so, but as explorers as souls, we didn’t come here to establish heaven on earth, as that is impossible in a dualistic world. Heaven is without opposites, it is oneness. Here we are dualistic with dualistic minds. They therefore represent two different realities, UNLESS, you regard this world and all you do as experience only, without categorizing it as good or bad. Hence “be in this world but not of this world” takes full effect. But even Jesus didn’t do that. He got angry. He wasn’t walking on water 24/7. But he does know our home, heaven, does not contain opposites we experience here, and that was I believe his message was, to think in love i.e. don’t think like a human, be the God self you are and act more in oneness, without judgement. I think if someone wants to experience a non dualistic reality with no sex/bodies/emotion but only pure Godliness, one will have to exit this world and go home. But many did not come here to experience “home,” we came here for many reasons, one of which was to experience a dual reality and to experience the body, emotion, love in human form etc. So we do the best we can without harming anyone. And if we do, laws are there to protect us, as with pederasty etc. I don’t know if inter-family incestuous marriage is legal or not, but I would suspect it is illegal.
My take for someone who is gay and has extreme views about it, would be to suggest they not look at homosexuality as good or bad, but a natural extent of a dualistic reality we have chosen to come here and experience. Once one realizes that the mind is set up in dual fashion, one can start gaining more control over ones life instead of being at effect of their judgments ABOUT life when the mind gets scared and falls out of “oneness” or out of love with itself. Fear produces extremes, not love. So with respect to a gay celibacy situation, I would say look at the judgments about homosexuality, and the opposites causing battle in ones mind, as homosexuality is not the issue, it’s ones judgements and beliefs about homosexuality that is “the issue,” setting up inner opposing attack forces. From what I have observed about gay celibates, they all have a battle between their biology (what their body talk is telling them) and their negative beliefs they have chosen to exert ABOUT their biology. Some are negative religious beliefs and some are just being different beliefs, but they both contain fear. It sets up sexual opposites, a never ending war within and can be a very painful lose/lose proposition. You seem ok with it, and hence you represent the opposite of those who are not ok with it. But I would ask you if you still struggle with your homosexuality and your negative beliefs about it. Can you comment on your current state of celibacy and whether you still have difficulties?
As far as what the body tells us, whether you have a uterus or not, does not have much to do if one is gay. It’s more of the opposites natural here. It’s a state that can seem confusing, but there is good reason for it. Look at it this way. What if this planet were really hell, and the only way out was to not judge anything at all, to show only love, and to experience opposites only as experience. That would be the way I see God looks at things, with no judgement. It doesn’t mean going celibate to get closer to what heaven is, it’s about not judging sex, so you can hit center point of oneness about everything, then bingo, this world becomes a bore. Next experience please. We always talk about focusing on Christ, well Christ is love, so there is the answer to opposites. When we fight about our opposing views, we always come back to center hopefully in a few minutes, or back to love if you will. I think the focus should be to collapse the opposite views that entrap us in fearful angry arguments, so we can be in love more than not.
I don’t want to step on any religious toes here, but I do have to express that I think the men who wrote scripture about homosexuality had a death wish for homosexuals, and using the God club did extreme harm for our race as humans. It has set up a battle against our natural world of opposites, but then, that is what some of us came here to experience. So I try not to judge but at the same time, harm is coming down in spades about it, so it is hard to look the other way i.e. Uganda. I somehow don’t think telling the Uganda government that gays should not be put to death, but are to all be celibate is the answer, as the basis for that is still bathed in judgment and opposing forces between biology and belief, that cannot reconcile. Nonetheless, to take away the death sentence is major, and I hope we had some effect with our prayers.
Darren, I hope this answers your questions and Debbie, thanks for taking a shot at the “harm” subject. I respect your views and hope we can all continue to share with grace. Any comments about my point of view would be interesting to hear.
November 19, 2009 at 5:40 am
Hi Francene,
Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts on this. I have more to comment on, but just a quick question first for clarification.
You write: “For instance, your body biology is gay, yet your mind has chosen to call it immoral or bad. That sets up extremism in that your body talks to you about what it naturally wants, a positive, then the mind tells it no, it’s bad, a negative, hence the battle of right and wrong, good and evil, and the “struggle” ensues within. Then one can take it to the ultimate extreme and deny the body’s natural desires by cutting it off…”
What about the adult male whose “body biology” tells them they are only sexually attracted to six-year old girls? Should they stop fighting and embrace their desires?
PS–Also, to clarify, I make a distinction between the physical structure of a person–”body” (arms, legs, uterus, etc) and the neuroplasticity of the brain which is subject to all sorts of various impulses and attractions.
In any case, to make your argument about “body” in regards to gay you have to prove homosexuality is biological. And the verdict from the scientific community is still out on that (not that I would be surprised if it is for some people–but I see that as distinct from physical structure anyway).
November 19, 2009 at 6:42 am
I read your latest comment with a good deal of interest, Francene. To me, it is a reflection of the existentialist view of life. I admit way back in my college years as I was exposed to this stuff, it bounced back and forth in my head, pulling me this way and that. But I eventually got it straightened out and better understood my faith underpinnings.
I want to highlight a few of your statements, if I may:
“For instance, your body biology is gay, yet your mind has chosen to call it immoral or bad.”
Or, the mind is well aware that it is not deterministic of good and bad. Is it not the mind that is intricately involved in reading what one may perceive as a mere biological urge?
“That sets up extremism in that your body talks to you about what it naturally wants, a positive, then the mind tells it no, it’s bad, a negative, hence the battle of right and wrong, good and evil, and the ’struggle’ ensues within.”
There is a struggle, all right. There needs to be. As products of a fallen world, we have all manner of “natural” desires that a holy God tells us we are to subject to His will for us. For me and many others, homosexual desires do not pass muster before God as something we are meant to embrace.
“It will just keep on going for as long as a person allows it, until one decides it is no longer an issue.”
Ah yes, one is always free to decide. But that does not mean the decision, again, will be the right one or in accordance with godly mandates. Is this not the same way one learns to subject the body and mind, both of which are involved in addiction, in the earlier stages of learning to smoke or drink excessively — or accepting any other addictive behavior? I think there has been too much oversimplification in applying this same analogy to homosexuality. Gays recoil at the mere thought that they are seen as behaving addictively. Are they?
“As far as unseen harm about homosexuality, it has been here long enough to establish data about it’s reality in the human race. Any unseen harm would have been detected by now, yet there has been none statistically shown.”
How can we say this with certainty about something, the chief “harms” of which, are not necessarily in the observable world? Again, this is an existential attempt at bringing meaning to something that is best understood in the spiritual realm.
“But many did not come here to experience ‘home,’ we came here for many reasons, one of which was to experience a dual reality and to experience the body, emotion, love in human form etc.”
There is a key fallacy in this statement, and that is that we do not “come here” by choice. It is God who brings us into the world. You make yet another statement below this one that implies we come (are born) by some choice of our own. The fallacy negates any point you were trying to make there.
“That would be the way I see God looks at things, with no judgement.”
Again, it is always our choice as to how we view things. But we cannot “think” God into any existence other than that He has always had. We are the created, and the Creator is far above our comprehension. A holy God, of necessity, must judge.
November 19, 2009 at 7:13 am
Francene,
Thanks for that view. If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that someone who has an a conservative theological perspective on homosexuality should – in effect – rid themselves of (what you would call) a good/bad dichotomy of mind and body? That is, you would suggest that they learn to not see their body’s urge for same-sex attraction as bad?
If that is what you’re saying, I would love to hear your thoughts on the issues brought up by Francene and Karen (e.g., pedophilia and addictions).
Karen,
Could you expound further on what you mean when you say that you think the brain is distinct from physical structure? Isn’t the brain a physical structure itself? And isn’t it the very structure that controls the rest of your physical structure?
November 19, 2009 at 7:56 am
“I would love to hear your thoughts on the issues brought up by Francene and Karen (e.g., pedophilia and addictions).”
I think you mean “Debbie and …” but that’s OK.
November 19, 2009 at 8:20 am
Haha. Yes, that’s what I meant. Too many names, not enough faces here!
November 19, 2009 at 8:21 am
Karen,
Your comparison of pedophilia and incest to homosexuality represents one classification that causes statistically factually based irreparable harm in most cases, and is punishable by law, (i.e. the destroyed life of the victim of pedophilia, and the birth of a deformed child through incest etc.) and one that doesn’t. Homosexuality throughout nature, does not exist in this irreparable harm category, as there is no statistical factual data that it causes harm. If we can’t agree that this is correct via legal data, then I find it difficult to answer other questions posed by all three of you. Can we all agree (meta) that the sun is actually yellow in this case, so as to proceed?
November 19, 2009 at 8:40 am
Well, actually, the sun’s color really depends upon who’s looking at it. For instance . . .
Just kidding
Francene, I hope you don’t think my questions are disagreeable for the sake of disagreeing. In fact, I probably agree more with you on the bottom line than I do with either Debbie or Karen (I’m a happily partnered, gay guy after all
).
At the same time, I see Karen’s point. I don’t think that she’s necessarily comparing homosexuality and pedophilia. I think that what she’s saying is that using the reasons you’ve stated above regarding the internalized battle between mind/body duality, one could justify both homosexuality and pedophilia.
Her disagreement then is not about what makes pedophilia and homosexuality different, but rather, what makes ONE justifiable (based upon your mind/body duality theory) and one unjustifiable? My guess would be that you see one as harmful, and the other as not being harmful.
So, given the above, what would you say to a man whose body is telling him to be with a 6 year old girl, and whose mind is telling him that pedophilia is really bad. I would imagine that Karen’s inquiry is directed there – not as a means of simply opposing you, but to understand what we should do when we DO have a disconnect b/w mind and body that most of us would agree is an appropriate disconnect to have.
November 19, 2009 at 9:20 am
Thank you Darren–that is exactly what I am asking.
November 19, 2009 at 10:49 am
Darren,
I don’t think you are trying to disagree, you are just trying to be funny. Kidding!
I think for sake of rational conversation, and the fact we hit the “gay causes harm” subject for quite a while without establishing harm, that it is important to take that info and use it for a basis of discussion. I don’t really care to be righteously right, that is just boring drama, but I do care about fact vs fiction. I find it unproductive trying to have rational conversation without establishing a rational basis.
I don’t think Karen is trying to oppose me, but I do think she is clumping homosexuality with incest and pedophilia as immoral. Is this right Karen?
From my perspective, if harm can be justified, I also find it immoral. So I would find a man having sex with a 6 year old immoral. However, that does not compare to homosexuality, as harm has not been proven, in the entire history of mankind. I therefore cannot find homosexuality as immoral as there is no basis in fact.
So in the case of getting out of the good/bad arena in the existential sense; we all have our limits on what justifies good or bad, because we are never going to just look at life without opposites. Good and bad is a perfect example.
Now someone who does not aspire to good and evil, may see this world and all it’s meanderings about whose right and whose wrong, as insane. This is the stance A Course In Miracles takes. For them, it’s all just experience, pedophilia, incest, homosexuality etc. A playground of demonstration of all facets of physical expression, not ascribing to any sort of judgment about anything.
I do not fall into that category. I do have limits on what I call good and bad/moral and immoral. But if homosexuality cannot be proven harmful, then it falls to the neutral category in my thinking, and therefore cannot be considered immoral.
Karen,
I do not really see the body and mind as separate. The body sends data to the mind through the mind’s senses, but it’s the mind that filters the data through it’s belief system, then reacts and rules the body action.
Debbie,
Regarding my statement where I said there is no unseen harm proven over time in homosexual relationships or homosexuality (para), you said,
“How can we say this with certainty about something, the chief “harms” of which, are not necessarily in the observable world? Again, this is an existential attempt at bringing meaning to something that is best understood in the spiritual realm.”
My deduction is not based on existentialism, it is based on statistical fact.
There is no solid understanding from the “spiritual realm” other than it’s bad beans, and therefore cannot be “best understood in the spiritual realm.”
Understanding is not brought about through opinions, it is brought about through education, and the Bible does not educate with any back story as to why homosexuality is bad or harmful. Therefore because of homosexuality’s innate primary existence in this world, I have to move in and make sense out of it.
I think the Bible makes good sense most of the time with regard to what’s right and wrong, harmful or un, however, in this case of homosexuality, good sense is not heretofore applicable, nor offered in Biblical terms. For me, that brings the mens “sayings” who were the scriptural writers, in as suspect, to be grilled to the max.
For me to understand something, it needs to make sense, or I become an irrational human fighting fact with fiction. I can do the fight and can have fun doing it, but to really establish a reality on which to base decisions for my love life, I have to have more than opinions, as they fall into the category of hearsay. Facts do not fall into hearsay, and factual data when confusion is afoot, is what I have to have for my mind to have a basic reality within which to flourish and be happy.
The “spiritual realm” does not provide rational thought for many on this subject, and that is why many gay people blow it off and never give it a second thought as it makes no sense. It’s also why it is up for discussion and at some point, some resolution.
If we can’t take real time proven data in on this harm subject, we could just be spinning cobwebs here.
November 19, 2009 at 11:08 am
Karen,
I missed one of your questions about proving homosexuality is biological. I use that term loosely and “chemical” my be more appropriate. A gay person’s chemistry dictates their orientation, in that, gay people react chemically to the same sex. This is proven through arousal. How that arousal takes place and why, is up for grabs. But I cannot detach the overwhelming evidence of such, for opinion that it is an immoral state of being. The chemistry of gays is proof enough for me.
My take is that even if there is a homosexual gene discovered one day, that religions will call it the work of the devil, so where does fact stop and fiction/opinion take over and visa versa? I find this to be the real question one has to grapple with if one is confused about their sexuality. And I find suffering to be a good indicator when something is amiss and should be researched more so as to relieve the pain.
November 19, 2009 at 11:20 am
Francene,
I think you’ve rightly summed up the matter. At the end of the day, what we all seem to see differently is the “nature” of the spiritual realm.
In your view (as in mine), there is no physical harm associated with homosexuality. There are no natural “consequences” to being gay or in a gay relationship. Thus, you have no basis for the immorality of homosexuality. It doesn’t appear that Debbie nor Karen disagrees with this particular point (i.e., neither of them has bolstered any strong opinions about the natural harm inherent to homosexuality).
I think this is probably the limit to any further progression in the conversation though, b/c where the disagreement lies is in all of our spiritual constructs. Both Debbie and Karen hold to a traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of “the world unseen” (as do I). Your own view seems somewhat different. Not necessarily dismissive of Judeo-Christian understandings of the spiritual world, but rather expanding upon them.
So, I doubt you’ll ever quite agree with them when they see the spiritual harm of doing something that they take literally in the Bible (i.e., God has stamped a big “NO” on gay relationships). So long as the Constructor of their spiritual realm has definitively laid out his plan for human sexuality (according to their reading of whatever texts and whatever life experiences they have), ANY violation will be seen as defiance of the Constructor, and will thus inhibit relational intimacy with that Constructor.
And here marks where I depart from agreement with them. I do not read the sacred text (Bible) nor my life experiences as positive proof that God proscribes homosexuality. In fact, not only have I found that being with my partner does not place my sexuality as idol before God, but I’ve found that faithfully entering into the relationship that he’s blessed has enhanced my intimacy with the Almighty.
This of course will seem paradoxical, nonsensical, or – at the very least – mysterious to Debbie and Karen. It does not align with their understanding of the Creator of the physical world and the unseen spiritual world. Likewise, my understanding of and relationship with the Creator makes it difficult for me to understand the “be celibate or hope to one day be hetero enough to marry” pronouncement that they espouse. And perhaps you haven’t a clue why any of us is so limited to the traditional Judeo-Christian construct of the universe. It is what it is.
I think we can do better than “agree to disagree” at this juncture though. I think we can all assent to the real truth here: NONE of us is fully able to know and comprehend the great mysteries of the universe. And maybe we can all keep our eyes, ears, minds, and hearts open to receive from each other, and the God of all.
November 19, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“But I cannot detach the overwhelming evidence of such, for opinion that it is an immoral state of being. The chemistry of gays is proof enough for me.”
I get what you are saying here, Francene. But wouldn’t that give impetus to other similar arguments that may ask us to accept that all is OK if “my chemistry made me do it”? A can of worms we don’t want to open, maybe? I dunno. I’m just saying . …
And Darren, I think you are right in getting us to wind this down by agreeing that God, after all is said and done, is the final arbiter. Yes, some things are mysteries we are just not meant to understand in this life. I cannot demean what you say you have arrived at via your relationship with your partner. You are, after all, God’s.
November 19, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Debbie,
This is a very good point . . .
“I get what you are saying here, Francene. But wouldn’t that give impetus to other similar arguments that may ask us to accept that all is OK if “my chemistry made me do it”? A can of worms we don’t want to open, maybe? I dunno. I’m just saying .…”
What sorts of things might you put in the category of being “OK, if my chemistry made me do it”? and “a can of worms” it may open?
Darren,
Thanks for your comment. It’s always good to know we can agree on some things. ; ) We truly are clueless about so many things.
November 19, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“What sorts of things might you put in the category of being “OK, if my chemistry made me do it”? and “a can of worms” it may open?”
Well, just drawing from my own life experience, I could easily have permanently acquiesced to depression as a life condition over which I had no control. Plenty do that, you know. Now, that’s not to say that it’s not indeed chemical for some. But I had one psychiatrist diagnose me as bipolar (he was wrong) and the doc who treated me effectively with a couple antidepressants, one at a time, over the course of five years, made sure I knew if I stopped taking the medication, I had a 50-50 chance of relapsing as I’d had MANY major depressive episodes previously.
For years, it had felt like something I could never change or control. But the medication, as I see it, jump-started my own ability to cope and look beneath the surface at what I could, indeed, change. And I sincerely sought God’s help. So, I came off the meds in 1993, and to this day, have not an inkling of another depressive episode. And I looked back to that journey when I later faced my other “demons.” It gave me much hope.
My depression did give me “permission” at my lowest points to be a very selfish and whiny individual.
November 19, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Debbie,
I think a state of depression is surely a sign of overwhelm on many levels that can alter body chemistry. I am glad you found the right doctor to help you get strong enough to look at the incidents in your life that caused the depression.
I guess from what you are saying, you could have not sought treatment and allowed your feelings to take you away into further abyss, which you decided not to do. Are you saying the natural attraction of gay people is similar, in that that state of sexual awareness could pull them down deeper into a state of severe distraught, i.e. depression? And therefore the ssa needs to be addressed as an illness to be cured?
I’m trying to draw a line between the dots here . . . please help me out.
November 19, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Francene,
I didn’t feel you really answered my question which Darren summarized well with: “Her disagreement then is not about what makes pedophilia and homosexuality different, but rather, what makes ONE justifiable (based upon your mind/body duality theory) and one unjustifiable?”
You go on to mention harm, but that is a separate argument. You were making an argument based on body. The harm argument is a different argument. So, is your argument based on body (if so how do you prohibit pedophilia?). Or, are you switching to a no harm argument. I just want to see consistency. If you are going to use the biology argument, then you have to follow it through to its logical conclusion.
Also, in regards to harm–I have mentioned a few things already and each time they are completely ignored. I don’t have time to write a major paper here with all the stats, but I will just summarize what I see as possible clues that something is amiss with homosexuality.
1. The imbalance in the yin/yang of male and female manifests in a higher rate of promiscuity among men (without the restraining balance of female–because women don’t allow their partners to have other partners; men are more open to it). And higher rates of emotional enmeshment among women. Do all gay relationships have this? No, but looking at the community as a whole, there seems to be higher rates. This would be evidence of how the spiritual imbalance of putting yin/yin and yang/yang together can have negative side effects.
2. Loving gay relationships are inappropriate for the same reason that loving incestuous relationships are inappropriate. They negatively affect the larger community by crossing sexual boundaries. Sexual boundaries are important for healthy community. We ought not to have sexual relations with whomever we want simply because its consensual and loving.
3. Marriage is primarily a means of creating a new family unit. Not that everyone has children, but more often than not, that is what occurs–the creation of a new family. Same-gender families result in a missing parent–either the mother or the father. Developmentally, a lack of a mother or father can have a negative impact. Gay couples can be great parents, but the fact that it naturally means an important person is missing from the equation is a clue that this is not how things were created to operate. Why does it take a male and a female to have a child? And what does that tell us about rightly ordered sexual relationships? Now gay couples have children through in-vitro etc. And the child is left not knowing who one of his/her parents is. And as many adopted children will say–not knowing where they come from can be psychologically difficult even when raised in a loving adopted home from infancy.
4. Homosexuality is the ultimate form of rejection of the opposite sex. This too is problematic for gender harmony in the universe. I think of the movie “Milk” and how I don’t think I have seen a movie with so much exclusive testosterone. Certainly many gay people have friends of the opposite sex, but overall, there is definitely more of a segregation that occurs than in the hetero world. Lesbians for the most part prefer being with women, for example. And can live entirely in a female world. I think there is something unhealthy about being so segregated from the opposite gender.
5. Our body structure (e.g. uterus, ovaries, etc) say something. Gives us a clue about sexual correspondence. Its problematic to simply dismiss that. The brain is an aspect of body but its flexible and changes and has various impulses. Whereas, for example, the uterus is static.
On another note, the post I put up: Leaving the Life demonstrates why some women leave lesbianism (for example some of them also noticed the extreme segregation from the opposite sex, etc as well as feel suffocated in emotionally dependent relationships. These were not women who believed homosexuality was morally wrong:
http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/leaving-the-life/
Again, I am looking at overall trends. So, please do not respond with, “Well my friend Bob has a pretty happy, healthy, monogamous relationship” etc. Of course there are gay relationships that are healthy and stable. I am making my arguments based on the community as a whole as opposed to individual cases. Big picture clues, etc.
And again, I don’t have time to go into all the statistical issues. Perhaps another time. I think that is all I will contribute to this discussion. As I think its starting to get redundant.
November 19, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“Are you saying the natural attraction of gay people is similar, in that that state of sexual awareness could pull them down deeper into a state of severe distraught, i.e. depression? And therefore the ssa needs to be addressed as an illness to be cured?”
No, I’m not. I am answering your ruminating question about how the “chemical defense” might not be a good thing in certain cases.
November 19, 2009 at 9:19 pm
I just read this blog and have to step in . . .
Gee Karen . . .
with those views, why don’t we just cut off all gay people at their wastes and put them in wheel chairs? Better yet, why not just shoot ‘em? Uganda style. They’re dead anyway, so why not get it over with?
In your world gays have no sex life, no love life, no family, are hated because they somehow damage humanity by hanging out in particular groups, their yin and yang is out of balance and they shouldn’t have children. I mean. Really. Karen. Since they are basically dead anyway, lets just bag’em up and be done with it. Who needs these foolish gay people who don’t know God like you do or live their lives the way they want with free will. That is so anti christian. I just can’t stand it anymore. Can you?
Also, while you are nose-in-air snubbing everyone as you walk out of the chat without addressing Francene’s question about how you are currently handling your celibacy, which I’m sure is deplorably depressing, don’t let the door hit you in the ass.
Debbie,
I don’t see a gay “chemical defense,” I see a gay chemical constant you nor Karen have even lifted the lid on accepting about yourselves. Your comment on “ruminating” was rude condescending and very unnecessary.
Francene,
Well str8 girl. Now you know why gay Christians commit suicide. Foolish religious poppy-cock.
I do have to correct you on one major point. You said that gay christian celibates are known for “eating their own”. I would change that to “devouring their own.”
These people are very mangled sexually, and you would do a lot more good by writing a book as you are an excellent writer with valid grounded points.
Cheers kids. As they say, it’s all good!
November 20, 2009 at 2:43 am
Chelsea, by inserting yourself into this conversation late as some kind of foil, you have missed the daily give and take we’ve had here. Sorry, but we could consider that to be more of a “rude and condescending” drive-by on your part than any latter comment made here by those actually having the conversation.
I think by now Francene knows there was no rude intention behind my comment. It had to be short because of time constraints.
I’m sure Karen and all would welcome you into this discussion, but I don’t think we’re going to be inclined to rehash stuff for your benefit. Sorry.
It matters little whether or not there was/is some chemically based element to my or Karen’s or anyone’s SSA, past or present. Let’s just use the old chicken-egg approach. The best brain studies can do is detect structural anomalies. They can’t determine the source. So even if we do have biochemically induced impulses in gayness at some point, which came first? Emotions do act on brain chemistry as well as vice versa. We’re back at square one, and we won’t really get off it except by choosing one or the other theory.
November 20, 2009 at 5:00 am
Chelsea, I welcome you to comment here on this blog, but please read the rules for commenting under “About” as well as take the time to really become familiar with the site. Your tone is very caustic. I welcome your disagreement, but conversation here needs to occur with a tone of respect toward those with whom you might disagree. If your comments continue to be abrasive, I will delete them.
Also, if you are interested in hearing more about my story and where I am at, I encourage you to click on “Narratives” and read my story as well as listen to the audio–that will give you a better sense of where I am at with celibacy, etc. I also wrote about it under the post “Yarhouse and Jones Ex-Gay Study” and in my post on “The ‘C’ Word.”
November 20, 2009 at 8:18 am
Whoa. Chelsea. Seriously, I understand why you’d be passionate about this stuff. Believe me, I am too! REALLY passionate! I understand too that lives are at stake – not just “quality of life” (though that’s HUGE) – but literal lives. I hear your concern, and I can see why you’d feel the need to emotionally release after reading all of this. But honestly, that kind of talk is simply not helpful. Please, please choose your words more carefully. I would encourage you to add your voice to the conversation, but recognize we’re all trying very hard to do so with utmost respect for each other. I think you have misunderstood some of what these folks are saying. Not a big problem; it’s easy to do with an online medium. But I think both Francene and I are trying to deeply understand where people like Karen and Debbie are coming from, but that can’t happen if we’re going to be hostile towards their views. I’m not sure that’s warranted at this juncture. Even if you disagree, perhaps there’s a better way to relay that besides frustration and sarcasm. It doesn’t translate well methinks.
Karen,
I actually missed your harm arguments before. Not sure how. I think they are pretty well thought out – but they all seem to be theoretical harms, without much evidence for actual harm. That of course does not mean I’m discounting them. I think they should give us serious pause, if they are indeed true. I’d like to talk about them one by one:
1. Yin/yang theory: I must admit that I do see this trend in hypersexual male only relationships, and enmeshed female only relationships. My question, however, would be . . . do these not occur so often in the gay community b/c gay relationships are still in their “adolescence” so to speak? Would we expect these relationships to get healthier once society has stopped denigrating these relationships, and those in them could have the community support to fix these very issues? I mean, what would we notice about heterosexual relationships if they were culturally unacceptable? Wouldn’t we see lots of non-committed, open relationships among them, and enmeshed ones as well? I’m not sure we can accurately call this harm at the present without gay relationships having community support (after all, it is the community that helps people put broken messes back together; the community helps point out to couples that they seem too far off balance on the intimacy/autonomy scale).
2. I agree COMPLETELY that sexual boundaries are good for society. What I don’t agree with is this notion that the same-sex boundary is somehow equivalent to the incest boundary. I think that’s getting into murky territory. Incest produces documented, evidential harm. Monogamous gay relationships do not. It’s not as if opening the sexual boundaries to same sex couples somehow means anyone thinks there should not be ANY sexual boundaries. We have to handle each case as necessary. For instance, did it harm the community for incestuous relationships in the early days? I mean, if we take the Bible account literally regarding the first man and woman, then the only way we could have populated the earth was for Adam and Eve’s kids to have had sex with each other. Granted, that was a different community, in a different time. The point here seems to be that what sexual boundaries are or are not appropriate seems to change from community to community, and time to time. This is supported Biblically (not only in the necessity for brother-sister relationships, but for multi-wife relationships as well.) Our whole aim here is to show that extending the boundary to same sex couples DOES cause harm. Just saying that it extends the boundaries does not prove harm. In short, your argument here is tantamount to question begging.
3. I can’t agree that marriage’s primary function is to create families. If it were true, we would have to say that there’s something “unnatural” and inherently harmful in a woman marrying after the age of 40 or so, or of elderly people marrying, or of infertile people marrying. Granted, I recognize your argument is more nuanced than the typical “gays shouldn’t marry b/c they can’t create kids”. You’re also pointing out the inherent “harm” in not having a male or female figure in the home. However, there have been no studies to date that actually show harm to children of gay parents. At most, you could say that it’s quite unfortunate that a child might not have an opposite sex figure in the home. But, the solution would be the same as it is for single parents: make sure the child has an opposite sex figure as a mentor. However, I can’t even see how it’s unfortunate, considering that I feel same sex couples can still provide for kids in the way that opposite sex couples do. At this point, I see your argument really being about gender roles, and the importance of the child having significant interaction with those opposite-pole roles. In this way, I don’t see any kids I adopt missing out on much. As an example, we tend to think of women as being the “nurturers” of children, and men being the disciplinarians. Well, I just happen to be more nurturing than most men are (perhaps those studies are true: the brains of some gay men are more like women’s brains on average). Also, if we’re going to be REALLY utilitarian about this, wouldn’t you say it causes LESS harm to the community for a child to be raised in a loving, same-sex home than to be wards of the state for all of their adolescent life? Grown foster and orphanage children, after all, are notoriously big backers of gay adoptions for this very reason. Finally, we see this played out in other mammalian species. There is quite a bit of evolutionary thought right now that homosexuality (which has been documented in several hundred species to date) is beneficial for this very reason: not having kids of your own makes homo members of the species available to take care of abandoned young, or abandoned families. It’s been documented recently in penguins: a female lost her husband, and another female (that was never known to have any interaction with the males) essentially bonded to her, and they acted exactly like a male/female family – complete w/ cutesy penguin intimacy (e.g., nuzzling).
4. COMPLETELY disagree with this one. First of all, if gay relationships are a rejection of the opposite sex, isn’t celibacy just as rejecting? Also (and perhaps this is just my experience), but I go to a very hetero-dominant church. The few gay couples that are there are all very well connected in the community. The lesbians hang out with guys as much as anyone else. My partner and I certainly have our fair share of male and female friends. I don’t know. Perhaps you’re basing this argument on stereotypes – and if the stereotype is actually true, then I agree with you: it’s unhealthy not to have relationships with all sexes (or all races or socioeconomic backgrounds for that matter). But I haven’t seen this lived out. Maybe it goes back to my earlier point about community support? Because our community doesn’t FORCE gay couples into segregated gay sub-communities, we are free to grow and share in healthier relationships with all people? Just a thought . . .
5. This one is interesting, and I can’t say that I’ve ever thought about it before (at least not in the particular form your argument takes – it seems to be a twist on the “design argument”). Could you talk more about it? I’m not sure why you think that the brain is not static, but other organs are. From my understanding of biology, that’s simply not true. Kidney’s become damaged and change their function significantly by various impulses and chemicals. The liver can regenerate itself. It seems to me that all organs can be modified both chemically and physically. But I’m not sure I’m following what you’re saying here 100%. Would love to hear you expound on this one a bit more.
So those are just my thoughts. Again, I feel like most of what you’ve said is quite rational and certainly worth consideration. But none of it is actually proven HARM – it’s theoretical at best. And those aspects that are theoretical, the jury is still out. There doesn’t seem to be any hard data to disprove those theories – but the soft data thus far would suggest leaning away from strong belief in such theories.
November 20, 2009 at 10:11 am
Darren said: “Granted, I recognize your argument is more nuanced than the typical “gays shouldn’t marry b/c they can’t create kids”. You’re also pointing out the inherent “harm” in not having a male or female figure in the home. However, there have been no studies to date that actually show harm to children of gay parents. At most, you could say that it’s quite unfortunate that a child might not have an opposite sex figure in the home.”
Just want to point out that there are some interesting studies out there, but they are too few and too new to be all that conclusive yet. I think we need to realize that generally accepted mainstream thought is it is hard not to see something out of kilter in homes — by design and not of necessity — where both male and female parenting role models are not present. It does force the obvious question of how adjusted to appropriate gender roles — assuming we still believe there ought to be some — children could be in two-mom or two-dad families. I am not a fan of gender deconstructionism, but I don’t like rigid stereotypes, either. Still, the sexes are vastly different and playing with “Mother Nature” too much can’t be a good thing, as I see it. So I guess we’re back onto a possible harm trail again.
Is there an end in sight here?
I think not.
November 20, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Heehee. Perhaps there’s no end at all!
What exactly do these studies you speak of show, Debbie? That there are some overall deficits when kids are raised by same-sex parents? In what ways, exactly?
I think my point primarily in regards to this issue is that even IF we posit that having a mommy AND a daddy is ideal, it’s very different to say that the non-ideal is necessarily “harmful.” I’m interested in knowing in what ways in particular there are deficits in same-sex homes. If you’re given a specific set of circumstances, you have to work with what you’ve got. It’s not like I could simply CHOOSE to be the ideal. I’m gay. I can’t be straight. Sure, I could marry a woman for the sake of raising a kid in an “ideal” home, but would it really be ideal? I’d have no strong attachment to my wife. So, given that I’m gay, and can’t be what you would consider “ideal” no matter what I do, is there some specific harm to raising a child in a non-ideal environment? Is it more harm than leaving the kid to the state? (And I don’t say that as a challenge. I imagine there might be some deficits in various areas. I just don’t know what they are definitively. I haven’t read any particular studies that show what they potentially are – but I haven’t done a huge amount of reading in this area, so I’m not strongly camped on this opinion. But my intuition also says that gay adoptions are still less harmful to the community than letting them have no parents at all.)
November 20, 2009 at 2:18 pm
“I think my point primarily in regards to this issue is that even IF we posit that having a mommy AND a daddy is ideal, it’s very different to say that the non-ideal is necessarily ‘harmful.’”
Point taken. I’m sure we could bat that one around a bit. I’m on the run. Catch you all ASAP. A great weekend to everyone.
November 21, 2009 at 7:07 am
To continue in the vein Darren asked us to …
Glenn Stanton and Bill Maier, authors of “Marriage on Trial” wrote about the ways in which the cultural perceptions of homosexuality have changed over time. Originally, they maintain, we viewed it as sodomy, an act. From there, sociologists in the 19th Century told us homosexuality was a condition. In more recent years, we have come to acknowledge there is a gay community and an ideology, with the term gay meaning an identity. I’m not saying their book is “gospel,” but this part kinda makes sense.
If we choose to look at homosexuality as an intrinsic part of one’s nature, our views on gay rights and even marriage will fall in line with that view. Of course, we have a basic disagreement here on the extent to which homosexuality is changeable or not. Race and ethnicity are ironclad, from birth. Sexual identity or orientation? We’ve got many testimonies of those who say the leopard has changed its spots — and no way to really prove or disprove that.
Darren says he can’t change. He accepts that. He doesn’t want to change, of course. And even I can’t put myself and my story squarely up against his, as I was never exclusively gay-oriented. I think we have come to accept that there is a spectrum of gayness. I’m sure plenty of gay-only oriented folks will argue that those on the gayest end of that spectrum deserve to be seen differently from those farther along it, like I was. I’ll not argue with that. But, I still believe we have some heavy issues to analyze before we take that a step farther and declare that those folks ought to be given carte balance authority to marry and rear children on the same level as mom-dad families. I am most uncomfortable throwing out our Judeo-Christian restraints on marriage. I just can’t see how in doing such a thing we will not bring some judgment from God down on our heads. And, as I pointed out quite a few comments back up this thread, much of the world holds this view. Now, I know that sounds archaic to the progressives out there. Well, I guess it will just have to.
I make a distinction between the compassion that we ought to be having toward our gay brothers and sisters as individuals and the ease with which some want us to uproot and replace traditional social mores. I believe God has held civilization together (indeed, Scripture speaks to Jesus Christ being at the center of all creation and through him, all things “hold together” – Colossians 1:17).
It all comes back round to idolatry for me when we talk of messing with the godly order of things. It is only through eliminating or choosing to ignore divine order that we come up with various sociological arguments in favor of gay marriage, I think. This is about the best I can do in stating the position of the Church (as Christ meant it to be) on the matter. We can still agree to disagree here, but this is where many folks stand on the issue, again, without always being able to articulate it civilly, I’m sorry to say.
I could cite some studies, but I think it would be pretty much a waste of time as I don’t
think arguing for or against them can prove anything. They are, after all, man-created things.
November 21, 2009 at 8:30 am
Yeah, Debbie. I really do understand your view. Heck, I was raised with it, and I lived it out most of my life
I would like to say that I haven’t just tossed aside Judeo-Christian marriage ethics “easily”. I know you haven’t charged me with that personally, Debbie, nor have you charged anyone else with it. I just want to underscore that I don’t think many Christians at all have easily tossed aside traditional views of marriage.
However, I do think it’s worth pointing out there is no single metanarrative about Judeo-Christian restraints on marriage. After all, the “institution” of “marriage” is itself man-made. God ordained oneness between Adam and Eve. Man made that an “institution”. Additionally – as I’ve stated before – that institution has changed significantly over the Judeo-Chrstian heritage: from marrying siblings to marrying many wives to having only one wife or just plain being a eunuch. And let’s face it, most of the marriages we see portrayed in the Bible are pretty screwed up!
That’s not to say that we should just throw caution to the wind, and do whatever we want. I’m not arguing that at all. It’s just that I think that Christians today have this idealized view about what marriage ought and ought not be, and they base that on the Bible – when the Bible doesn’t seem to be very clear or consistent about what it ought and ought not be. I dunno. Just the way I see it. I’m sure you guys would disagree.
So, trying to understand and develop a sexual and marriage ethic is in no way easy if you’re serious about it. And most Christians are. By the same token, it wasn’t easy for me to toss 2,000 years of Church history (and pretty clear Biblical teachings) regarding the role of women in the Church. I did so with fear and trembling, and lots of prayer and pleading for God’s mercy. Today, I no longer think that women need head coverings (something that Paul actually defends by a strong Genesis “design argument” about how women and men ought to be), I now think it’s OK for women to speak while in church, and even to do so in front of men while teaching! Similarly, I now find myself having an affirmative view of monogamous same-sex relationships. A view, by the way, that seems to be far more conservative than some gay people (even gay Christians!) are comfortable with, b/c I still hold a high view of pre-marital sexual relations.
By the by, Debbie, if it wouldn’t be too much trouble, and if I promise not to argue any info you share, could you please at least summarize the major point(s) of the studies you have in mind? I’m honestly only aware of the studies that show a positive spin on gay adoptions and such, so I’d be interested in expanding my knowledge base. I don’t even necessarily want a specific study, but just the major gist (I can look up the studies myself once I have some basic info). I’d appreciate it. *Scout’s honor* not interested in a debate on the studies. It would be fruitless. You and I clearly will have a different approach to those studies (you’d “buy” the conclusion, and I’m sure I’d find the flaws in the study to deny the conclusion). So we can jump to the chase and cut out that part. I just want some info
DJ
November 21, 2009 at 10:03 am
Karen,
I surely didn’t intend that you feel ignored and I would like to respond to your comment to me, however, are you still with us in conversation, or have you indeed left this chat?
Chelsea,
You seem like a real hard hitter. Though you do have interesting points, the emotional tone may be a bit intense, but then I’ve been there myself at times. Thanks for the compliment on the writing and it’s content.
Debbie and Darren,
I’d like to jump in but would like to hear from Karen first so as to address you all, if in fact she is still with us.
November 21, 2009 at 10:38 am
Darren, bear with me. When I get some time, I will give you a list of some studies. I won’t necessarily “buy” all the conclusions of even those that might appear to align with my worldview, though.
I’ve just one response here to something you said, in regards to the Pauline church teachings, head coverings for women, etc. I just want to caution against forgetting to consider a biblical text in its context, i.e., part of which is the audience it was written for. This is called by biblical scholars Duvall and Hays (both from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, by the way), “grasping the text in their town.” It is only after we have crossed the bridge leading to our time (our “town”) that we can infer theological principles, in that vein. The “river” we are to cross is made up of cultural, language, time, situation and covenant considerations.
The book J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays put together on the the subject is called “Grasping God’s Word,” for those interested. I know folks can and will disagree on theological teaching, but I mention that so you will know something about what informs my views.
November 21, 2009 at 11:43 am
Francene, look forward to hearing your comments! I think Karen’s still active in conversation, but she’s a busy lady! Lots of projects!
Debbie,
Thanks! I’ll be patient
And your disclaimer is noted. Sorry for my generality . . . I don’t want to insinuate that you’re an ignoramus that buys anything that supports your view hook, line, and sinker.
As for context, I’m sure you’re well aware that I’m a big fan of that! I guess what I have a problem with is people who are more than willing to do all sorts of academic, scholarly, esoteric acrobats to make one set of Scriptures contextual (when it suits their sensibilities), but completely uncomfortable doing it for another set when the particular subject happens to make them feel icky.
I don’t charge you or Karen with that really. I don’t know you well enough to do so. From what little I do know of you, I would imagine that you have indeed looked at contextual matters regarding homosexuality and don’t see much support for accepting it monogamous relationships as a blessed state. It’s just that I happen to have looked at the contextual evidence and recognize the need to reject head coverings, female silence in church, AND homosexuality. Am I right in assuming you’d accept the first 2 but not that latter?
November 21, 2009 at 12:18 pm
“It’s just that I happen to have looked at the contextual evidence and recognize the need to reject head coverings, female silence in church, AND homosexuality. Am I right in assuming you’d accept the first 2 but not that latter?”
I see a distinction between those situations. Two are more cultural and the other speaks to sexual morality, something that is foundational to both Judaism and Christianity. Paul also spoke of women in a context that showed how much he respected them as having a role within the church. Nowhere did he give any quarter to homosexual practice. It rather is spoken of as cutting off one’s kingdom inheritance.
November 22, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I have been following the conversation and would like to weigh in on some points.
This post is interesting in that Evangelicals are becoming more accepting of blessing and affirming gay couples. This is as it should be. No one should be made to feel less than in any fashion, a thing most gays are working on ad nazium to rectify. My sense is money is playing an undisclosed big part in this also. Those who don’t discriminate are large in numbers and may be affecting the little wicker money basket. Mark, can you comment on this?
As a soon to be parent in a male/male relationship, I do want to say there are many perks for a child in this category. First off I notice that there is a lot of intense planning that goes into effect for same sex parents, unlike the notorius amount of accidental pregnancies that happen in and out of hetero marriage and non marriage, religious or not.
I have two straight friends that had an unexpected child 6 years ago. The Pill, failed. It was a devastating disaster for all involved. The parents split up because of the overwhelm and the child is still a living with one parent child. The little girl is amazing, but she will most likely be doing a lot of therapy in her later years with such a rejection oriented role model.
The damage done to children through abandonment rejection adoption single parenting and sexual irresponsibility is magnanimous in the straight community. I think since this is the case, we have to weigh the effects of all situations. In a gay couple’s case, more than not there is a stable loving environment for a child to adhere to, free of much of the above. With the mom/dad argument I do understand the male female principle however, I feel that love and understanding is more important. “It takes a village to raise a child.” The number of single parent homes is staggering. Would we rather see a child needing adoption stay in a non loving emotionally devastating unstable situation, instead of a loving stable two parent home that is gay? Where is the “Christian love” in that? That’s just plain cruel.
Karen,
Your argument about mankind being off balance and harmed due to gays hanging out in cliques marrying and/or raising kids is interesting, as gays have been here doing much of that forever and society seems to be doing just fine, unharmed. Your arguments about yin yang balance seems to stem more within the gay community which is simply native to part of that group, than filtering over into the harm of humanity. As far as emmeshment by same sex groupings, doesn’t that fall under the category of co-dependence? This situation is not true for all gay people. It also exists in the straight community. Promiscuity is the same thing, it is in the str8 community in spades.
To establish a unified argument that gays cause harm to humanity, there would have to be solid cause that does not also exist in the straight community i.e. harm to children through poor parenting anomalies. At this point, there is nothing in the gay community you have touched on that is an obvious undefeatable harm or grievance. Gays are wired differently that straights, as such our behaviors go with that territory. There is also no perfect relationship model that humanity as a whole can follow, so to try and put us all in a box seems a rather useless expending of energy.
There is no doubt that being gay in a str8 man’s world is a tough business to resolve, but again it goes with the territory. With the level of hostility towards gays, doesn’t it seem natural that we would be a bit more screwed up than most, at least on the self acceptance level? As we find more acceptance within the human race, I think gays will become more self accepting and abandon their fears around self and sexuality.
On another note, could someone please clue me in on how “the church” looks at gay celibates compared to actively sexual gay people? Are celibates somehow prized more or . . . ? I’m wondering how the social food chain plays out on that one.
I am also wondering if gay celibates use the component of desiring outside acceptance to rectify their inner acceptance issues as part of their decision making process, conscious or unconscious.
Darren, it sounds like you have been on both sides of the coin, maybe you could shed some light on this.
My observation is that those who go “gay celibate” need to demonize sex in order to gain some semblance of grounding within. Much like lovers demonize each other on a break up to ascertain their reasons for breaking up, only to find later that they are both not so bad and reestablish communication.
In this way Darren, I kind of see how you may have come full circle, where you broke up with your sexual self, maybe demonized it, then reassessed the part you broke up with (a lover in this metaphor), later and reconciled. Hence you went from affirming, to non affirming, then affirming and blessed. Does that fit or make sense? It would seem that in this metaphor, the lover is the sexual orientation and sex act, that celibates want to break up with, but cannot extricate because it’s like a hand or a leg, hence the intense struggle of trying to detach from a lover that is actually the self. That seems grueling and impossible. Debbie Darren and Karen, what is your hit on this analogy of breaking up with a part of yourself, and the intense energy that takes, God ordered or not?
It’s nice to weigh in again. I know that last time I was here I was viewed as stepping on some toes. I hope time has healed all wounds as they say. I sure will watch it if such was the case.
November 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Karen,
I had to send this when I read it, just after writing my comment. With your comment about over enmeshing women etc, well it made us laugh here. In my relationship, I am definitely the “woman” emotionally and Jared is the more “male” energy, as I believe we all contain both. And for the life of us, we truly can’t figure me out emotionally at times.
Enjoy!
………………………………………………………………………….
A man was walking along the beach and found a bottle. He looked around
and didn’t see anyone so he opened the bottle. A genie appeared and
thanked the man for letting him out.
The genie said, “I am so grateful to get out of that bottle that I
will grant you one wish. I can only grant one.” The man thought for a
while and finally said, “I have always wanted to go to Hawaii. I’ve
never been able to go because I cannot fly. Airplanes are much too
frightening for me. On a boat, I see all that water and I become very
claustrophobic. So I wish for a road to be built from here to Hawaii.”
The genie thought for a few minutes and then said, “No, I don’t think
I can do that. Just think of all the work involved. Consider all the
pilings needed to hold up a highway and how deep they would have to go
to reach the bottom of the ocean. Imagine all the pavement needed. No,
that is just too much to ask.”
The man thought for a few minutes and then told the genie, “There is
one other thing I have always wanted. I would like to be able to
understand women. What makes them laugh and cry, why are they
temperamental, why are they so difficult to get along with. Basically,
what makes them tick.”
The genie considered for a few minutes and said, “So, do you want two
lanes or four?”
November 23, 2009 at 6:01 am
Kurt said: “Would we rather see a child needing adoption stay in a non loving emotionally devastating unstable situation, instead of a loving stable two parent home that is gay? Where is the ‘Christian love’ in that? That’s just plain cruel.”
Kurt, need I point out the obvious — that this statement stems from a false-dichotomy premise? You are not allowing for what most people consider the best-case scenario, and which most certainly does exist: a loving, mom-dad parented family.
And Kurt said: “There is also no perfect relationship model that humanity as a whole can follow, so to try and put us all in a box seems a rather useless expending of energy.”
Au contraire. Christ’s love of his Church is the model. That most of humanity follows it poorly does not negate it.
To answer this question (” … could someone please clue me in on how ‘the church’ looks at gay celibates compared to actively sexual gay people?”), the Church is *supposed* to look at them as it would look at anyone tempted to sin or sinning in any area: with compassion and with a view toward comfort, discipleship and restoration.
There are many today wanting the Church to look through a politically correct social lens or filter. Christ is apolitical. Anyone who is sexually active outside the bonds of traditional marriage is living in sin. The Bible is quite clear on this.
“Debbie Darren and Karen, what is your hit on this analogy of breaking up with a part of yourself, and the intense energy that takes, God ordered or not?”
Obviously, we all can choose whether or not we want to dissociate from a tension that is too unpleasant or difficult for us to navigate. But living in the tension is a given. It’s how we learn and grow.
That’s my take.
November 23, 2009 at 7:29 am
Kurt,
Thanks for chiming in!
Hmmm, interesting analogy. I guess the reason it doesn’t quite fit with me is b/c I was never initially affirming. It was a denial process. In that sense, you could say that I was in love with my lover, but couldn’t fess up to, so I clumsily circumvented it, b/c I had already demonized it. Then, I later came to realize that it wasn’t so bad after all – and was able to admit my love. That make sense?
A word of caution, Kurt: do be careful how you speak of “gay celibates”. I don’t know what personal experience you’ve had with a life of celibacy yourself, but we can’t funnel everyone’s experience into a single entity. I’m sure that those who are currently pursuing a celibate life (like Karen) would no more appreciate an analogy about all gay celibates feeling a need to demonize sex in order to make peace with themselves than you would like gay celibates insinuating that practicing gay people have shut off all moral avenues to God in order to practice their “lifestyle”. Perhaps it would be better really try and understand where people like Karen are coming from. Are there some gay celibates who demonize sex? I’m sure. I certainly don’t know enough about Karen to say whether this is true of her or not. But, I don’t feel the need to place her (or any particular gay celibate) in a box so that I can minimize their experience and thus feel better about my own. I also think it’s possible for gay celibates to not necessarily “demonize” sex. Denying it to some extent is obviously necessary – but denying themselves sexual opportunities is not quite the same as demonizing.
Debbie,
I think you’re right in pointing out that Kurt has offered a bit of a false dichotomy. It’s not as if the ONLY choices are horrible parents or gay parents. But at the same time, you seem to have ignored a very real and prevalent issue: there are a myriad of foster kids out there for whom their choice IS just as Kurk described.
We could argue all day about whether the one mom, one dad way is indeed the ideal. Let’s just assume that it’s true. That still doesn’t solve the issue at hand: what do we do with the tons and tons of kids who have no home? There simply don’t seem to be enough “ideal” homes to go around. So we are, in fact, left with a really bad dichotomy. There are some really horrible straight foster parents out there (who end up abusing these kids, for example), there are tons of orphanages out there to take care of these kids, there are some single parents who are willing, and there are gay parents. Put yourself in the position of one of these poor kids. Who would you choose to raise you? The abusive straight parents, the state, a single parent, or a loving gay couple? It’s not just a theoretical issue. It’s not just a false dichotomy. I think Kurt’s scenario deserves a bit more thought and credit than you’ve given it.
Also, I’m not sure you really dug deep to answer his issue regarding the church’s view of gay celibates.
Kurt, I’ll give a crack at that one. It honestly depends on the church. For instance, I know there are some ultra-conservative churches out there that are throw-backs to the 50’s, and they’d look down equally on ANYONE who was gay identified (regardless of whether they were celibate or practicing). They clearly need an education.
Most of the evangelical churches that I’ve had experience with, and/or know about would probably not fall into that category. And you are correct (and I’m not sure why Debbie was shy about admitting this): most of them would look down on the practicing gay, and glorify the celibate ones. Practicing gays are second class citizens.
In some churches, they’ve become good at treating everyone pretty well. BUT, even if no one actually says it, or necessarily treats them differently – behind their backs they talk about how they’re praying for the practicing gays to be “saved”, or to “finally get right with God” (as if they WERE right, and the poor gays were wrong). But then, behind closed doors, they’re also probably praying that those poor celibates develop opposite sex attraction so they can be happy. These churches have a way to go yet . . .
Then there are churches like my church, where they are looked upon equally. Practicing or celibate, we trust that we’re all imperfect, and all on a journey. We also trust each other to hear from God – so no journey is belittled, every one is cherished. We have no one right answer or agenda for anyone, save being in real, intimate relationship with Jesus.
But churches like mine (and the one in Colorado which is the subject of this post) are pretty hard to find. Thank God it’s getting a bit easier as time passes though! But your assertion is correct methinks: for the gay person seeking a church, they are MUCH more likely to find welcome reception if they are celibate than if they are practicing. But it’s not always necessarily easy even for the celibates.
November 23, 2009 at 8:52 am
Hmmm. Your statement, Darren, about Kurt’s statement about foster children made me curious. So I did some checking. Here’s what I found.
“An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents within the United States. Gay and lesbian foster parents are raising approximately 3% of the Nation’s foster children.” (http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayfoster.htm)
About.com also provides some insight, and refers to the Urban Institute for statistics:
“This report (http://www.urban.org/publications/411437.html) provides new information on GLB adoption and foster care from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004).”
The report says, “An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.” More than 16,000 of those are in California, alone. It also says, “Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.”
So, that’s 3% of foster children and 4% of adopted children.
I’m not sure why you say, Darren, that “myriad” children only have the options Kurt describes and that you agree represent a false dichotomy. You also seem to be implying that we are to presume gay foster parents are, as a rule, better equipped to care for children than are straight ones. Am I misreading you there?
As for the many problems in the foster care system, in general, they are well known. And a sad state of affairs. I do not discount them. I didn’t know I was expected to comment on them. There are many other things I have not commented on here yet, as well.
“And you are correct (and I’m not sure why Debbie was shy about admitting this): most of them would look down on the practicing gay, and glorify the celibate ones.”
I’m neither shy about this assessment, nor do I agree with it. Glorify a celibate gay person? Why? How about glorifying God? He’s the only one worthy of it. We are to worship the Creator, not the created on any level (remember our comments in this thread about idolatry). I have spoken out many times about the hypocrisy within the Church that takes the form of winking at heterosexual sin and demonizing gay sin. It’s a problem, right along with all the other hypocrisies in the world.
November 23, 2009 at 9:51 am
Debbie,
I’m not sure how these studies are at all relevant. The question is not “how many of the adopted kids out there are adopted by gay parents?”, but rather, “how many kids out there are never adopted?”
Telling us that few of the adopted kids are actually adopted by gays is a no-brainer. Of COURSE many aren’t adopted by gay parents: 1) There aren’t many gay couples out there (compared to the number of straight couples) as homosexuality is a sexual minority, and 2) there are several states that BAN adoptions by these more or less willing and able parents. What we need (and I really don’t have the numbers here, but feel free to search for something more apropos) is how often kids aren’t allowed the option of a loving gay home.
I did not in any way mean to imply that gays don’t have the same chance of being dysfunctional as straight ones do. They certainly are! Again, it’s not about false dichotomies, but about real dichotomies that exist. (In fact, the second article you link to affirms my supposition 100%, and demonstrates that if bans on gay adoptions happen nation-wide, it would have quite a detrimental affect on the foster system, and cost the US quite a bit of money.)
I don’t mean to be a stickler about this, and I don’t mean to annoy you, but it seems that you’re quite insistent that gays are simply unfit to ever parent. The question is why? Again, I don’t have the numbers, but I know that there are TONS of kids out there who could be fostered or adopted, but arent . . . so again, do you think it’s better they stay wards of the state, or do you think they would be better served in a loving home? In other words, why are we limiting the number of homes these kids can go into? Clearly there aren’t enough straight ones, so what’s left is single parents and gay homes . . . or remain wards of the state. And again, I ask you, if you were in that position (and weren’t going to be adopted by a straight family), which would you choose?
“I’m neither shy about this assessment, nor do I agree with it. Glorify a celibate gay person? Why? How about glorifying God? He’s the only one worthy of it. We are to worship the Creator, not the created on any level (remember our comments in this thread about idolatry). I have spoken out many times about the hypocrisy within the Church that takes the form of winking at heterosexual sin and demonizing gay sin. It’s a problem, right along with all the other hypocrisies in the world.”
Debbie, your tone here seems markedly different than previous interactions we’ve had. You seem a lot more defensive and dismissive. Have I said something to offend you?
Please forgive me if my word choice was clumsy, but let’s not quibble over words. Replace “glorify” with “respect”. My intention wasn’t about theological basics such as “God only should be glorified”. Please don’t be dismissive of my view by way of semantics. It’s not fair, b/c I’ve taken every effort to not get nit-picky about little words you use, and try to engage the spirit of your words.
You know as well as I do that there are many Church communities out there that will show favoritism towards gay celibates, and make gay practicers seem like outsiders, or at the very least as “less than”. What you may NOT know is how that feels – maybe you’ve never tried to be in a church community that doesn’t trust you in the same way that it would trust a celibate couple. But let me tell you, it’s really, really painful. And unfortunately, it’s the reality for more churches than not. You have the luxury of being one of the “normal” ones, Debbie. You and your husband can walk into any church in this country and not get looked down upon (until you actually admit you’re bi, that is!) Not true of my partner and I. Kurt asked if there was a difference in the way people are viewed in the church, and you didn’t actually answer the question. You talked about what the church *should* do, and I was only pointing out how you bypassed his actual question. So what exactly do you disagree with? You seem to affirm my point when you say “I have spoken out many times about the hypocrisy within the Church. . .”
November 23, 2009 at 10:17 am
Okay, so now that I have finished my 20 page paper on why Catherine of Siena starved herself to death . . .
Darren, your response to my statements is one of the best I have gotten from the “other side.” I appreciate how you seem to understand the nuances of what I am saying (probably because we come from similar backgrounds) and that you try to honestly engage with what I am putting forward rather than just reacting or defending. It really helps me to reflect more on my thoughts, so thank you! So to respond to what you said:
1. You write: “Yin/yang theory: I must admit that I do see this trend in hypersexual male only relationships, and enmeshed female only relationships. My question, however, would be . . . do these not occur so often in the gay community b/c gay relationships are still in their “adolescence” so to speak? Would we expect these relationships to get healthier once society has stopped denigrating these relationships.”
It seems we both need to research this more to determine if we can answer these questions. So, we both agree that we see some “symptoms” occurring. The question is–what is causing them? Is it because, as I propose, a yin/yang imbalance? Or, is it as you propose, the effects of stigmatization of homosexuality? What you propose is certainly a legitimate possibility. Perhaps we could look at trends in countries where homosexuality has been affirmed for a lot longer? As the US has become more accepting even over the last 15 years, are we seeing these symptoms abating? It will be difficult to research this because there is so much vested interest on each side to prove a particular point. But its still worth exploring.
Though, because men and women are different, it is natural that the relationships would manifest differently. Men and women are just wired differently–for example, women toward monogamy and men toward desiring multiple partners. This is pretty well accepted as evolutionary (women needing to have stable partners to protect young, etc). The question is–is having a double dose of testosterone in a relationship beneficial? Or is there balance that the genders provide. If my theory is ever proven correct, then what I am putting forth would indeed be a negative side-effect of homosexuality. Something that should be seriously considered in terms of what God is telling us through creation regarding sexual ethics. But, I agree there could be other possibilities and we have to do more research. I guess we can both add that to our long lists.
2. You write: “I agree COMPLETELY that sexual boundaries are good for society. What I don’t agree with is this notion that the same-sex boundary is somehow equivalent to the incest boundary. I think that’s getting into murky territory. Incest produces documented, evidential harm.”
What about a consensual incestuous relationship between two adults–father and daughter who do not have children. What harm are you referring to?
My own bias is that I “feel” like homosexuality is more natural than incest. Incest is repulsive to me. But what about those to whom these things “feel” natural to them? And it is consensual, loving–none of the parties seem to think there is harm. Would you then support incest?
One of the reasons I have difficulty accepting a gay-affirming argument is because I still have not seen a good reason for why we can accept homosexuality but not incest. The argument comes back as–birth defects in children. However, not all incestuous couples will have children. And its the same argument conservatives use against homosexuality–problems with reproduction. Taking out reproduction, why would we support a loving homosexual relationship, but not a loving incestuous relationship between an adult father and daughter?
3. “I can’t agree that marriage’s primary function is to create families . . .Granted, I recognize your argument is more nuanced than the typical “gays shouldn’t marry b/c they can’t create kids”. You’re also pointing out the inherent “harm” in not having a male or female figure in the home. However, there have been no studies to date that actually show harm to children of gay parents.”
I think the question is whether or not studies suggest that children benefit from having both genders for optimal development—Not whether or not gay or single parents can do a good job. Of course they can. But, is there something developmentally beneficial that both genders provide? It would make sense that there would be because it requires both a male and female to create a child. And ideally both individuals who created the child would be involved in caring for their own off-spring. I do think there are studies that show fathers contribute something different than mothers in development and vice versa. And that these are meaningful. I don’t know very many young boys who like not having a father. Rosie-O’Donnell’s son was raised by two loving female parents, but kept wanting to have a father. Why? Perhaps because he wanted a parent who “looked like him.” That is, he knew instinctively that he was missing something meaningful and longed for that.
You write: “At this point, I see your argument really being about gender roles, and the importance of the child having significant interaction with those opposite-pole roles. In this way, I don’t see any kids I adopt missing out on much. As an example, we tend to think of women as being the “nurturers” of children, and men being the disciplinarians.”
No, I am not referring to gender roles when I refer to the benefits of both genders. Gender roles are usually socially constructed. I am talking about the “aura” of male and female that is often difficult to describe in words. For example, there is a reason you are primarily (exclusively?) attracted to men, and I suspect it has to do with more than just body parts. There is something about men that is different from women that draws you. The same with me–I can’t always put into words what those differences are–but emotionally women affect me differently than men.
I remember one of my Asian friends talking about how important it was to her to have leaders “who looked like her” as role models. Its not that white female (or male leaders) were less intelligent or that they served in different job “roles.” Rather there was something meaningful about having an Asian role model. I think the same could be said for gender–when, at the same-sex parent is missing. Though I do see the other gender as offering something unique as well. Including how to have healthy relationships with the opposite gender–thus contributing to gender harmony in the universe, etc.
You write: “Also, if we’re going to be REALLY utilitarian about this, wouldn’t you say it causes LESS harm to the community for a child to be raised in a loving, same-sex home than to be wards of the state for all of their adolescent life?”
Yes, definitely. Obviously, there are many many orphans and any loving home is better than no home. I am not opposed to gay people being parents. One of my good friends has a little boy from her partnership with another woman (they have since broken up) but she is one of the best parents I know.
The question I am getting at is–not how we can we redeem unfortunate situations. But what does the “ideal” tell us about sexual ethics. Isn’t the ideal a sign post that says hey–this is how its supposed to work? No, we cannot always have the ideal. But that is a separate issue. We have to pay attention to what the ideal says to us. And if that ideal suggests something about God’s ethics. Then after that we can begin to address the realities of living in an imperfect world. So, I would say the ideal tells us what God wants for sexual ethics. But, that since there are so many orphans, we have to make do with less than the ideal.
In regards to gay couples then–are they redeeming an unfortunate situation (adoption). Or are they causing a less than ideal situation by purposely creating families with one parent missing (i.e. in-vitro, surrogacy, etc).
You write: “It’s been documented recently in penguins: a female lost her husband, and another female (that was never known to have any interaction with the males) essentially bonded to her, and they acted exactly like a male/female family – complete w/ cutesy penguin intimacy (e.g., nuzzling).”
We have to be careful about taking something like this as “homosexual.” This is not necessarily homosexual behavior. For example with some animals there is homosexual imitation for dominance issues, etc. What it means for them can be entirely different than what it means for us. Also, animals sometimes eat their own young too. I don’t think human behavior should be based on animal behavior.
4. “First of all, if gay relationships are a rejection of the opposite sex, isn’t celibacy just as rejecting? Also (and perhaps this is just my experience), but I go to a very hetero-dominant church. The few gay couples that are there are all very well connected in the community. The lesbians hang out with guys as much as anyone else.”
I would say celibacy is neutral. Its not favoring one over the other. Also, I don’t think all gay people segregate themselves–take yourself for example. I am speaking of a larger trend that I have noticed. Perhaps its just anecdotal evidence that doesn’t really pan out in the end. I would have to do more research. But, I’ve just noticed that as a trend in the larger community there seems to be segregation. This was borne out in some of the statements lesbians made in the book “Leaving the Life.” So others have noticed it too. I imagine if I walked through Boys Town in Chicago, there would probably be evidence of this kind of segregation too. After all, why is called Boys Town?
5. “I’m not sure why you think that the brain is not static, but other organs are.”
I would need to spend more time really thinking this through. But, my basic thought is that there is a structure to the body and a “motor” that animates it. Its the brain that animates the structure so to speak. Let’s take the example of transsexualism. Someone whose static structure says they are male, but internally–in their mind–they feel like a woman. Just because their mind says they feel like a woman doesn’t change the structure. Because the structure is static. That is why they undergo surgery to modify the structure. I would argue that our emotions, psyche, attractions are much more unpredictable and ebbing and flowing etc than the structure. And what does that structure say to us about who we are and sexual correspondence?
You write: “Our whole aim here is to show that extending the boundary to same sex couples DOES cause harm.”
I have some questions about the whole harm thing.
1. Does something unethical always cause harm? We are making an assumption here and I don’t think we can necessarily make that assumption.
2. What do we do about the fact that some people see harm where others don’t? For example, the psychologists I mentioned who argued that adult-child sex is not harmful, its just the society that stigmatizes it. In situations where adult-child sex does not seem harmful, should we permit it?
November 23, 2009 at 10:25 am
I personally don’t separate gay celibates out from gay active people, as I think gay sex happens in the mind for both sets, though one set does not act on it with another person. I find it a sexual action inside ones head for a celibate person to think another same sex person is “hot” and could get aroused if one continued to think about them.
A murderer is judged for the sin of murdering, but we all know he is a man or woman. A murderer may just murder once in life over a bad one time situation. Gays are doing “gay” 24/7 in their minds as that is how they are wired. With gay and gay sex, we have gay male and female as the constant, unchanging self, whether one acts sexually with another or not. So how is being celibate supposed to quench this realty that in fact, a person is gay at a basic ongoing level, unlike a person convicted of a one time murder? It would seem that if one is gay, they are sin itself as their basis for reality, so how could anything like celibacy change that to a non sinful situation? In this model, would not a gay person be more like a serial killer, constantly planning 24/7 his next form of attack on his next victim, even if only on the subconscious level? Like wet dreams, how are “wet dreams” considered with a celibate gay person, are they “sinful”? They are certainly subconscious.
November 23, 2009 at 10:44 am
Darren, here is Kurt’s original question: “Would we rather see a child needing adoption stay in a non loving emotionally devastating unstable situation, instead of a loving stable two parent home that is gay?”
Now, you tell me that’s not a loaded question. And please tell us how it does not imply that the usual foster parenting arrangements are inferior to gay ones.
“I don’t mean to be a stickler about this, and I don’t mean to annoy you, but it seems that you’re quite insistent that gays are simply unfit to ever parent.”
How so? I am going to let you explain your reasoning on that to see if it merits further discussion. I’ll give you one point: it’s hard not to see how some kids could be better off with loving gay couples than in the often-abusive foster care system, where they are bounced from home to home, many of which are in it for the money.
You are concerned about my tone now, Darren. And you say you don’t want to be a stickler, but you are coming across in another way to me, hence the tone of my response. Do forgive me for the misunderstanding over the “glorify” thing. We’ll leave that one. I absolutely wish to keep the tone of this discussion civil and respectful. It took us a while to get it there, and we ought not forfeit that.
“What you may NOT know is how that feels – maybe you’ve never tried to be in a church community that doesn’t trust you in the same way that it would trust a celibate couple.”
What’s a celibate couple? To me, that can only mean a gay couple, and why be a couple and be celibate?
Actually, there are folks in my church right now who are not comfortable with me, even as an “ex-gay.”
“You have the luxury of being one of the “normal” ones, Debbie.”
“Normal”? Oh boy! You should speak to my long-suffering husband about that. In all seriousness, my (our) struggle changed forever any illusion we had of normalcy in our relationship. That is not to say that I would ever equate what my “station” in life today is with that of any gay-identifying person, celibate or not. Those struggles are tough.
I am blessed to the extent that I have grown and allowed God to press me into poured-out wine. To be under compulsion by that same God to use that to His glory and for the growth and healing of others is not a walk in the park either. It is the life I live “under the blood,” and joyfully so, even were He to slay me.
November 23, 2009 at 10:57 am
PS I pose this analogy in response to whether or not gay affirming in same sex partnerships is a good or bad idea via the church. It seems it might be best to make it an all or nothing situation, as that is what it comes down to for many.
PSS Karen, you posted your comment at the same time I was in post and comment mode also. Please don’t take that as ignoring you, as such was not the case. It has happened more than once with you and I oddly enough, you beating me to the punch.
November 23, 2009 at 11:18 am
PSS However, after reading your comment, I do see you seem to be ignoring me. ; )
November 23, 2009 at 11:22 am
Debbie,
Ha. No, you’re right, I DO see Kurt’s original question as being a loaded one! I said as much in my reply to you. However, what I was getting at is getting beyond the literal words, and to the spirit of his question. The question, as posed, is loaded – but the deeper question he’s really asking is: “for those kids who don’t have loving hetero parents knocking at their orphanage door, would you rather have that kid with a demented straight family, or a loving gay one?” Perhaps the even deeper question is “do you see anything positive at all about gay parents, or are they all – as a rule – unfit for parenting?”
Now, you have answered it. Thank you! I think as gay people, Kurt and I like to be affirmed that we’re not simply degenerates with nothing to offer. Often, those with a conservative point of view are so focused on the ideal ideology, that they hesitate to visit real situations, and the positive things that can happen when the ideal can’t be reached. To put it another way, there are some conservative folks out there who – as my mother says – “are so heavenly minded, they’re no earthly good.” Thank you for not being one of them!
Let’s talk tone. Are you saying that your tone was the way it was b/c mine was the way it was? If so, then there may be some merit to that. Please forgive me if I seemed disrespectful in my response to you and Kurt. I had a really off day yesterday – it was my own anxiety issues coming through, I’m afraid. Had nothing to do with you! In fact, I wasn’t even trying to be curt or anything! I honestly didn’t realize that my emotions were bleeding through my words to you. So, I too would appreciate to continue in the same vein we have been.
Heehee. Also, please forgive me my quick typing. I didn’t mean “celibate couple”. Replace that with “celibate person”, and I think you’ll understand my drift.
But it does bring up an interesting aspect we’ve yet to discuss: covenant relationships. There are some gay celibates out there who make a covenant to be together for companionship, just not sexually. Debbie, there is really good reason to be a couple and be celibate. The life of celibacy is a desperately lonely one for some. Miserably so. Like, “want to commit suicide” lonely. I wouldn’t begrudge someone if they had a lifelong, non-sexual companion. There are some good people I know on the Side B of things on GCN who are in such types of unions, and I would no more demean or belittle their choice than I would Karen’s or your own.
And in that same vein, I don’t want to minimize your experience. As I stated to Kurt, there are some churches out there that are simply uncomfortable with ANYTHING outside the realm of pure heterosexuality. And those churches have a lot of growing up to do. And for what it’s worth, I”m sorry for what you’ve had to go through. I suspect God will use you to help them grow a bit. So I’m happy about that
And I do hope it was obvious that my point about “normalcy” was put in quotes for a reason. I know it hasn’t been easy for you nor your husband. I hope my meaning was clear . . . that when you go to a church, no one KNOWS you’re not normal until they hear your testimony. It’s pretty obvious though when my partner and I walk into a church. Some are oblivious (after all, why couldn’t we just be “roomies” or something?), but some pick up on it. You can tell by the stares and the glares. One day the Church universal may get honest and realize that NONE OF US is all that normal
Karen,
Thanks for the response! Good stuff! I’ll comment a little later!
DJ
November 23, 2009 at 11:45 am
Darren, I’m glad you cleared up the “celibate couple” typo.
And yes, I am aware there are some gay folks who have celibate relationships they refer to as “covenant.”
I think we only got a tad ratcheted up in our tone. No worries. Sorry you had an off day yesterday. Happens to us all. (Hehehe. Want to try being a 55-year-old woman with hormones all over the map? Did I mention my long-suffering husband? LOL.)
OK, your points are clearer to me now. Thanks.
“I think as gay people, Kurt and I like to be affirmed that we’re not simply degenerates with nothing to offer.” Gee, I reckon. I don’t think of either of you as being “degenerates.” You’re serious thinkers. And you’ve had a tough row to hoe.
Yes, between the two of us — and we’ve got a fair amount of company — I hope the Church does start getting a different perspective on doing the hard work of love. They need to hear all our stories.
I am not ignoring anyone else here, by the way. Just continuing to mine a vein with Darren/Kurt.
November 23, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Darren and Debbie,
Good to see smooth waters between you guys. I think we all get a little heated and take it out in certain ways, even Karen, by not talking to certain people when she is possibly “processing” or judgmental towards others, like we all do at times.
I think it is admirable to regroup inside before talking again when things are in a volatile state, get clear and happy by seeing how we may have misperceived a situation, then respond. I really respect that.
Karen,
If you feel ignored or upset by Francene, and might like more information or clarification towards you, would it not be the loving thing to do by asking for it, rather than snubbing someone when they are trying to hold onto an olive branch with you?
Darren,
Thanks for clarifying that your “denial” process was from the get-go, and that you found your sexual self acceptance second and not third; or the affirming- denial-affirming way.
Do you see single gay life-long celibates as being in sexual denial maybe for more God realization, rather than knowing they can have both sex and God at the same time, if they got past the negs?
I personally have no issues with sexuality. I was born gay affirmed through and through.
Debbie,
Thanks for your input. In my statement:
“Kurt said: “Would we rather see a child needing adoption stay in a non loving emotionally devastating unstable situation, instead of a loving stable two parent home that is gay? Where is the ‘Christian love’ in that? That’s just plain cruel.”
I surely did not mean to rule out the positive side of things. My statement above was coming from an angle of orphans in orphanges. Next time I will be more concise.
Then was said: And Kurt said: “There is also no perfect relationship model that humanity as a whole can follow, so to try and put us all in a box seems a rather useless expending of energy.”
And you said, “Au contraire. Christ’s love of his Church is the model. That most of humanity follows it poorly does not negate it.”
I was talking about human relationships, rather than theological relationships. However, I do see your point from the theo stance. I see Jesus is responsible for the redemption of earth/mankind.
Thanks for those stats also, they are always helpful!
November 23, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Kurt and Francene–I am not sure what you are referring to? Is there a question I have not answered? I would encourage you not to make judgments about people simply because they may not have given you a response.
I have spent extensive time engaging in conversation with both of you, and at this time I don’t have anything more to add. Whereas with Darren, this is the first time I have had a conversation with him.
Also, this is a “free forum”–no one is obligated, including myself, to respond to everyone’s comments. People can engage as they have the time and desire. We all have lives outside this blog (at least I do!). As a matter of fact, I need to go study for my Aramaic oral exam and write a 20-25 page paper on temple prostitution in the book of Hosea.
November 25, 2009 at 5:38 am
I think folks are sensing it’s time to take a Thanksgiving hiatus in this discussion. I am planning to travel, and perhaps others are, as well. Wherever you are, may you all have a wonderful time with family and friends as we reflect on the many things we all have to be thankful for.
Have fun eating.
I’m doing Martha Stewart’s shortbread-crust pumpkin pie recipe (albeit a bit lighter on the filling) this year. Sounds sinfully good.
November 27, 2009 at 4:28 pm
As far as not accepting incest: Did not Abraham marry his half *sister* Sarah without prohibition from God? Or does that not count because it was before the time of the Law being given? Just wondering…shouldn’t no incest be an eternal truth as no homosexuality is considered an eternal truth?
November 28, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Sarah was his niece. Incest and homosexuality are forbidden by God our Creator.
November 29, 2009 at 11:57 am
I don’t believe that is correct: she was his half sister which is why the lie to Pharaoh was only partly untrue. Please state the verse which says she was his niece.
And even if she was his niece, the blood ties are still too close. We do not allow that in a secular society which seems to permit most of anything. In only a few states in the U.S. is marriage between first cousins even allowed.
This is the problem that we have with eternal truths especially as we try to pin them on that long ago Garden that was ideal: we find that much of what existed there does not allow for other times and places — such as polygamy which God did not condemn.
A friend of mine recently asked me, “Do you have a relationship with a Person (Jesus) or with a book (the Bible)? As I was not raised fundamentalist or evangelical, I would like to hear that discussed at some point if Karen is willing to do that.
Is the Bible exactly the same as Jesus? If not, why don’t we literally worship it? Or maybe we do…
November 29, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Genesis 20:12 does state that Sarah was Abraham’s half sister: the daughter of his father but not his mother. (Probably a polygamous arrangement).
December 5, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Now, that it has been stated as Biblical truth that Abraham was in fact married to his half-sister, the conversation has grown stone silent. Why? Are we willing or not willing to say that he and she were in an incestuous relationship that God approved of or at least tolerated?
Or do we simply want to dismiss it because it throws a wrench into our preconceived systems? I find this very interesting in lieu of accepting the Bible as the plumbline for our decisions and lives.
December 5, 2009 at 4:36 pm
My response answer hasn’t changed. Out of respect you had asked for Karen to answer on your questions, AM. As for sin God has been tolerating it since Satan’s fall.
Lastly, His word states, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word points us to God, to worship Him. My relationship is with Jesus Christ and I know Him more and more through His Word the Holy Bible. You can read this for yourself from John 1:1-18 and all of the book of First John.
December 6, 2009 at 6:30 am
AM–I suspect the conversation has ended because people were ready to move on, and holiday things have consumed people’s time. I also do not have much time to respond. But here are two quick thoughts:
1. Abraham was a pagan Chaldean who converted as an adult after he was already married to Sarah (and it was also before the Law had been given).
2. Much of the Bible is stories of how God’s people didn’t do what he asked. Its very much a confessional book in that regard. The writers were well aware of the Law when they included all the stories that contradict it. That was intentional. If they had wanted to put on a pristine image, they would have edited out the goof ups.