Having a gay old time

[Vlad!]

I know we've had threads about this before, and I'm sure that anyone who's been a part of the church for any appreciable length of time is sighing and going "not again", but I've talked to a couple people lately for whom the issue of the church's position on homosexuality is a dealbreaker. It's been weighing on my heart lately, and I thought I'd share some of my thoughts here.

First of all, there's unquestionably the fact that the Bible does not speak favorably of homosexuality. In fact, whenever I see it mentioned it's always accompanied by broad censure. Which isn't to say that it's mentioned a lot, but on the other hand the Bible has a lot to say on the general topic of sexual immorality, and for most Christians I'd say that homosexuality falls pretty firmly into that category.

However, when we read the Bible we have to interpret it through the lens of culture and context. Also, we see again and again that God cares much more about our heart than our actions. I hope we can all agree that it's possible to have good actions and a bad heart; this is the sort of person Jesus would call out and rebuke much more strongly than those whose actions we might see as reprehensible but whose hearts were open and ready for repentance. In fact, Jesus frequently points out to the rulebound ultraconservative Jews of his day how by following the rules of the Scriptures to the letter they are violating the spirit in which they were given.

I've been trying to think of the issue of homosexuality in this same way.

First of all, the cultural interpretation aspect: I'm not as familiar with sexual mores in ancient times as some no doubt are, but as I understand it homosexual relations were de facto immoral. There wasn't really such a thing as same-sex marriage, and certainly same-sex marriage would not in any case be recognized by Judaism, whose laws forbade sexual contact between those of the same gender. The argument could certainly be made that in the culture where the Bible was written, censuring homosexual relationships would almost by default be a criticism of the lifestyle, not necessarily of the act itself. You could even say that if it were culturally permissible for a permanent, monogamous homosexual relationship to be established then the verdict of the early church would have been much different.

Additionally, when I consider the heart, I see externally little difference between those in a committed homosexual relationship and those in a similar heterosexual relationship. It is certainly the case--now as then--that in general homosexuality implies immorality. However, this doesn't mean that it's completely impossible to have a homosexual relationship which is equivalent to a Godly heterosexual relationship. I think we see through the words of Jesus and through the attitudes of the early church fathers that God doesn't tell us to do things without good reason, and that the important thing isn't a slavish devotion to a series of commands so much as an earnest desire to bring God glory and love others radically and selflessly.

Most of the discourse I've heard on this issue seems to be resolved by saying that we certainly shouldn't demonize and persecute homosexuals, but that we also shouldn't tolerate that sort of behavior in our church. There's certainly also the concern that with acceptance of homosexuality comes the potential for acceptance of the traditional homosexual lifestyle, which I think we can agree runs contrary to even the most rudimentary interpretation of God's commands. But isn't it possible that the traditional homosexual lifestyle is so radically contrary to our beliefs for the very reason that we give them no other recourse? We say that we shouldn't persecute them, but instead we tell them that they have to turn against what they feel is a fundamental part of their being and their selfhood in order to avoid eternal punishment? Christianity means dying to self, but it doesn't mean becoming a cookie-cutter mold, and the Bible says as much. People are different, and without these differences we can't function as a body. The line has to be drawn somewhere on what constitutes a part of "me" that is my unique and God-given personality and what is a part of my sinful nature that should be denied daily--and I'm sure most homosexuals would argue that sexual orientation falls on the side of the line that the things you get to keep go.

I'm sure I'm not being entirely convincing as a devil's advocate--I'm not even sure that I've convinced myself--but thoughts on this issue one way or the other are most welcome.

[bloop]

I'm wrestling with the issue in much the same way as you are.  My own church (which is part of the ELCA) has recently taken steps to legitimize same-sex relationships (or, at least, to leave such things to individual congregations to decide).  I appreciated the way we had it more, honestly.

[Aaron]

I'm wrestling with the issue in much the same way as you are.  My own church (which is part of the ELCA) has recently taken steps to legitimize same-sex relationships (or, at least, to leave such things to individual congregations to decide).  I appreciated the way we had it more, honestly.

more or before?

[bloop]

more or before?

both?

[chrisnu]

To the contrary, I appreciate dialogue regarding this subject. Where I have come from, where I was raised, this is the one topic you don't discuss. Talking about lust is commonplace, even dealing with pornography is fine, but not this.

Additionally, when I consider the heart, I see externally little difference between those in a committed homosexual relationship and those in a similar heterosexual relationship. It is certainly the case--now as then--that in general homosexuality implies immorality. However, this doesn't mean that it's completely impossible to have a homosexual relationship which is equivalent to a Godly heterosexual relationship. I think we see through the words of Jesus and through the attitudes of the early church fathers that God doesn't tell us to do things without good reason, and that the important thing isn't a slavish devotion to a series of commands so much as an earnest desire to bring God glory and love others radically and selflessly.

I know. The motivation in the two relationships is the same, and the only thing I can come up with to condemn one and not the other is "I believe God says so". I can't give a specific reason why God says so without going into circular reasoning, which I will do below.

But isn't it possible that the traditional homosexual lifestyle is so radically contrary to our beliefs for the very reason that we give them no other recourse? We say that we shouldn't persecute them, but instead we tell them that they have to turn against what they feel is a fundamental part of their being and their selfhood in order to avoid eternal punishment?

Here's the circular argument. "Why is homosexuality immoral?" "Because God says it's immoral, and any sex outside of marriage is immoral." "Why can't homosexual people get married? "Because God says it's immoral."

For someone who is homosexual, the church at large basically gives them three options: "ex-gay" therapy (which I talked about in the Tonex thread; I think it is potentially very harmful, and acceptable only if specifically called to by God), mixed-orientation marriage (which, without the possibility of total intimacy, seems a disastrous proposal), and forced celibacy, something which is considered a gift in Scripture. The other alternative is a lifetime of frustration, suffering, and possibly eternal condemnation.

Although I've been critical of "ex-gay" therapy and its "change or burn" mentality, I've thought about the alternative of acknowledging your orientation, but choosing to remain celibate. I have thought that this would be an acceptable compromise in the eyes of the traditional viewpoint of the church, but it's beginning to make less and less sense. If "homosexual practice" is the problem, does the qualifier "I"m gay, I just don't have sex" make sense? It seems like even openly admitting homosexuality from that viewpoint would not be OK. It's beginning to seem like an "all or nothing" situation.

This issue tears me apart. Why? My brother is homosexual. He grew up in the church, just like I did. He was publicly humiliated, abandoned by all his friends, and berated by clergy with whom he was coerced into counseling. He found some friends in the world who accepted him as he was, and he's gone now. I was hurtful toward him myself for some time, not taking the time to understand him. It has taken a long time to get to the point where our relationship is 'ok'. Even so, I dare not bring this up directly.

[Vlad!]

I appreciated the way we had it more, honestly.

Any particular reasons why?

For someone who is homosexual, the church at large basically gives them three options: "ex-gay" therapy (which I talked about in the Tonex thread; I think it is potentially very harmful, and acceptable only if specifically called to by God), mixed-orientation marriage (which, without the possibility of total intimacy, seems a disastrous proposal), and forced celibacy, something which is considered a gift in Scripture. The other alternative is a lifetime of frustration, suffering, and possibly eternal condemnation.

See, that's sort of what I'm saying. From talking with a couple homosexual men I knew in college, they would have loved to turn out heterosexual. They don't feel like they made a choice at any point. I know that we all have propensities for certain sins, and if it was just a matter of a person feeling occasionally tempted with lust for the same sex then I think the church has a pretty good bead on how to deal with that. But if it's a situation where any sexual contact with someone of the same sex feels as unnatural or even abhorrent as that with the opposite sex does to the rest of us, that's not necessarily something that you can just condition your way out of.

The other two options you suggest are really just non-solutions in my book. I know of at least one person who chose the celibacy route, and while I admire him--a man now in his forties--for choosing that road, Paul also says that "it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (I Cor 7:9). If you burn with passion for the same sex, well, where does that leave you? And a mixed-orientation marriage, the so-called "marriage of convenience", is really anything but. Because honestly, if the couple is committed to living the Christian life then that basically amounts to either the celibate life all over again or sex with someone of a gender you're not particularly attracted to.

And I feel for you in your family situation. I'm glad you have a relationship you can describe as 'ok'. Definitely cherish that. In college, one of my friends Freshman year was gay. He lived across the hall from me. He claimed to be a Christian and said that he didn't find any incompatibility between his sexual orientation and his religion. We would occasionally have words over this, and we gradually drifted apart. A few years later when we were both in graduate school I met him again and we spoke and had a good conversation for the first time in a long time. Not long after that, he was killed in the Virginia Tech shootings on April 16, 2007. Do I regret that I didn't condemn him more? I understand that the Bible says that you have to disassociate yourself with sinners for their own good, but when I saw his picture in the paper I just wished I had condemned him less.

[chrisnu]

See, that's sort of what I'm saying. From talking with a couple homosexual men I knew in college, they would have loved to turn out heterosexual. They don't feel like they made a choice at any point. I know that we all have propensities for certain sins, and if it was just a matter of a person feeling occasionally tempted with lust for the same sex then I think the church has a pretty good bead on how to deal with that. But if it's a situation where any sexual contact with someone of the same sex feels as unnatural or even abhorrent as that with the opposite sex does to the rest of us, that's not necessarily something that you can just condition your way out of.

I talked about that a little more in the other thread. About the people who have been set free from homosexuality: I've viewed testimonies of several, and they'll admit that they're still attracted to the same sex, but they'll only admit that under the guise of temptations. To me, that seems almost disingenuous, but at the same time, I understand why they think their feelings need to be compartmentalized as such: they believe that it's sinful to even identify with those feelings. You're not allowed to say "I am gay" or "I am bisexual", because that would be identifying with something contrary to God. (By the way, a couple testimonies I've viewed of people who have "changed" were actually attracted to both sexes to begin with, which means that the only change has been of behavior.) So instead, feelings just as strong as straight people have for the opposite sex have to be repressed and hidden, and the thing is, the feelings aren't any different.

What I just said is quite unorthodox, however. I think the Roman Catholic Church stated what most believe regarding homosexual people in "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons":

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

So just by being, they are considered disordered.

Similarly, it pains me so much when I see people throwing Romans 1 in people's faces. When did God give them over to these feelings, when it is all they have ever known, and it is all they can feel? I don't know...

[bloop]

Any particular reasons why?

Before, we allowed celibate gay clergy, welcomed homosexuals into (most) of our churches, but still thought of homosexual behavior as being against the will of God.  Homosexuality wasn't thought of as a "super sin", like so many more conservative churches are wont to do.  

Now, I don't like the wishy-washiness of the "bound conscience" narrative that allows congregations to basically do whatever the individual congregation feels like doing.  I think a firm, but loving and not overly judgmental, hand was a better approach.

[Vlad!]

So just by being, they are considered disordered.

Similarly, it pains me so much when I see people throwing Romans 1 in people's faces. When did God give them over to these feelings, when it is all they have ever known, and it is all they can feel? I don't know...

There is an alternative theory of sexuality which says that all humans tend toward the center of the continuum between "attracted to the same sex" and "attracted to the opposite sex", and that socialization (i.e. the nurture side of the "nature vs. nurture" dispute) is what guides the child to one extreme or the other. This seems to be at least slightly borne out by the fact that some who identify as homosexual have a history of same-sex abuse as a child. Also, there does not seem to be an entirely genetic component to homosexuality (the friend from college I mentioned before had an identical twin who was straight). It also seems to be true that those with a fairly laissez-faire upbringing tend to stay in the center of the continuum and thus, in the right circumstances, might identify as bisexual.

Given this, one could argue that although feelings of lust and arousal are built into our being, the object of those feelings is due to socialization. If you argue down that path, it suggests to me that "ex-gay" therapy could, at least for a subset of the homosexual population, reverse that socialization.

(There is of course the counter-counter argument, which says that this approach is tantamount to telling someone with cancer that she still has cancer because she just doesn't want to get better enough. If socialization is responsible for half the things some scientists like to claim it's responsible for, it's a pretty powerful force).

I'm still not sure what to do with this issue, exactly.

[bloop]

With hate crimes legislation up again, we need to be careful as Christians that we don't sound like we're saying hurting gay people is totally ok.  Sadly, our most vocal members on the right are not.

[Vlad!]

With hate crimes legislation up again, we need to be careful as Christians that we don't sound like we're saying hurting gay people is totally ok.  Sadly, our most vocal members on the right are not.

I think we need to be careful of this because it is not, in fact, OK, not because our government is legislating hate crime. If it takes a literal act of Congress to make Christians love people, there's something very wrong in the church.

[bloop]

There are reasons to oppose hate crimes legislation that make some sense to me (reading motivations is tricky, assault and murder and so forth are against the law as it is, etc.), but the vocal Christian leadership is anything but tactful, so I wish they'd steer clear of it altogether, personally.

(Does anyone else like going to conservative websites nowadays, going to their alerts, and sending emails to congressmen taking the opposite position by editing their form letters?  Yeah, I'm probably the only one.)

[chrisnu]

Oh boy. I got into it on Facebook with some fellow "church people". Some poll came up that asked whether we believed being gay was a choice, or whether it was genetic. Not believing it to be a choice, I chose the genetic option, and explained that I believed that sexual orientation was primarily psychological, not necessarily a conscious choice, and that change may not be impossible for some. I also posted on article written by Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a Christian psychologist who has had years of experience working with homosexual people. Within five minutes, someone starts copying and pasting Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 from another Web site, and accusing me of condoning a sinful lifestyle and being deceived - even though I was arguing from the viewpoint that homosexual acts are immoral, just not the orientation. (This viewpoint is actually consistent with our church theology, BTW.) It simply reinforced what I already knew to be true, that the average Christian hates homosexual people in that they remain willfully ignorant of a very complicated issue, and simply believe that if a gay person loved God enough, they will become straight.

One other thing, about prooftexting. Christians love prooftexting when it comes to condemning gay people. However, I can just as easily prooftext in four verses that nearly everyone who has been divorced and remarried is going to hell just as much as gay people are. But you never hear about that! Why aren't Christians calling remarried people to leave their adulterous lifestyle, and commit to a life of celibacy?

I am so very tempted to post this on Facebook, and see what kind of reaction I'll get:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF3hV0s6K5Q

The problem is that I know that isn't true, even though I can successfully argue it. I know that it isn't true because I have seen the fruits of marriages between people who have been divorced, and they are good. They are evidence of God's favor. I guess they should be thankful they're attracted to the right people.

EDIT: It looks like I've conjured up a shitstorm on Facebook. I'm not sure I want to look right now. Part of me wishes that I kept my mouth shut, and that's really sad. What I said in the Tonex thread is actually coming true: I'm being labeled as a heretic for simply giving an opinion and being willing to engage the issue rather than accepting what we've collectively believed without question.

[Vlad!]

One of the problems with being a moderator is that I need to be even more careful not to indulge in bad behavior. Thus, though I have an opinion on prooftexting (and also on the relative value of the opinion of anyone when offered on Facebook), I'll let it be rather than risk spiraling this thread hopelessly off topic.

I also posted on article written by Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a Christian psychologist who has had years of experience working with homosexual people.

If you could post that article here as well I'd appreciate it.

even though I was arguing from the viewpoint that homosexual acts are immoral, just not the orientation.

For what it's worth, I believe this to be the truth. I see nothing in the Bible that says being tempted is a sin (on the contrary, Jesus was tempted and he is without sin!). If a guy feels attracted to other guys, he is no more a sinner than the guy who feels attracted to women. It's only when he acts on it then it becomes a sin.

However, this doesn't really address the issue of what they're supposed to do. You could argue that heterosexual marriage is God's plan and that if they want to be married it should be heterosexual, but this just seems like a recipe for frustration for these two people.

[chrisnu]

If you could post that article here as well I'd appreciate it.

Sure:

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20081129/homosexuality-misconceptions-in-ministry/index.html

Dr. Throckmorton also has a blog where he posts regularly regarding these issues:

http://www.wthrockmorton.com/

He also has another Web site here, with various articles posted:

http://www.drthrockmorton.com/

[bloop]

Once again, in Maine this time, the "Christian" side wins by lying and alarmist propaganda.  Ugh!

[spacebrat311]

Once again, in Maine this time, the "Christian" side wins by lying and alarmist propaganda.  Ugh!

It's been a hard day for my roommates.

[bloop]

It's hard for me, and I have no personal stake in the issue, other than wanting those calling themselves Christian to act it.

[spacebrat311]

Agreed, but the fact that one of our roommates is gay makes things feel a whole lot more real.

[murlough23]

Chris, I conjured up that same shitstorm on Facebook a few months back, and it was in the comments section of my pastor's Facebook. (The argument was between myself and a seminary student who was a friend of my pastor. The pastor mostly stayed out of it, except to suggest we cool off when it got too heated.)

Since I'm still conflicted on the myriad moral issues here, my main things are: (1) I'm pretty sure that homophobia is a sin, and that even if the traditional conservative view on homosexuality being a sin is in the right here, it doesn't justify the way we generally treat them, and (2) Churches can impose whatever behavioral standards they want on their congregants, but I think they need to stay out of politics if their goal is simply to try to force everyone in their state/country/whatever to follow their moral laws. That's out of bounds.

Due to this, I'm quite thrilled that the hate crime legislation passed. Maybe that will give more supposedly righteously angry religious folks pause before assuming they can just throw out the rules about loving their neighbors. (On the other hand, I don't want to see "I believe this is a sin" spun as a hate crime, because people do still have the right to believe that it is.)

NP: "Rumpus", Karen O and the Kids

[Vlad!]

Honestly I'm not sure I'd consider outlawing gay marriage to be "hate crime legislation", but I do agree on political grounds that such legislation shouldn't have passed.

I do certainly agree that the attitude of most religious fundamentalists towards homosexuals zooms right past "Christ-like" on its way towards "scary and disturbing". I'd really like to see us avoid the situation we as a country got into with race issues, where we had such a history of abuse that now race relations are tinged with the specter of white guilt and the hot-button issue that is racism. I'm afraid that by being openly antagonistic, the church is going to find itself at odds with the prevailing mindset, which will lead to all sorts of problems down the road.

That said, I think these things don't get to the heart of the matter. You can agree with all this but still firmly believe that homosexuality is a sin and any expression of it is wrong and should be avoided. I'm still not sure whether or not that attitude is valid.

[murlough23]

Honestly I'm not sure I'd consider outlawing gay marriage to be "hate crime legislation", but I do agree on political grounds that such legislation shouldn't have passed.

Wait, what? Didn't Obama just sign a bill into law that recognizes hate crimes against homosexuals the same way that racially-motivated hate crimes and the like are recognized? That's what I was referring to.

I'd really like to see us avoid the situation we as a country got into with race issues, where we had such a history of abuse that now race relations are tinged with the specter of white guilt and the hot-button issue that is racism. I'm afraid that by being openly antagonistic, the church is going to find itself at odds with the prevailing mindset, which will lead to all sorts of problems down the road.

The way most of the Church probably sees that is that a culture war's being waged and they're not gonna bow to the pressure to agree with everyone else's loose morals or whatnot just to be socially acceptable. And I can understand that, but this isn't about changing your moral views, it's about learning to co-exist peacefully and productively with people who see it differently. And that's where we fail.

That said, I think these things don't get to the heart of the matter. You can agree with all this but still firmly believe that homosexuality is a sin and any expression of it is wrong and should be avoided. I'm still not sure whether or not that attitude is valid.

I think it manifests in how you treat people who have fully bought into the church thing, versus people on the outside who you hope to win over. I believe promiscuity is immoral, but it makes zero sense for me to go out and start condemning people for sleeping around. They don't subscribe to my system of moral laws, they see no imperative to listen to the words of Jesus Christ, they're just not on the same page, and I can't use the moral high ground to get them to change in any way. A practical appeal might work (i.e. you're running the risk of unwanted pregnancy, disease, whatever), but that will most likely just encourage "safer" sex. What's more important than that is the fact that Jesus loves them and that they can come as they are even if they don't clean up their act. because if they feel like we expect them to clean up their act first, that only points to the hypocrisy of folks already within the church who haven't cleaned up their acts, and are still spewing forth hatred, getting rampant divorces, cheating on their taxes, whatever. Once a person's within the Church, I think there's some leeway to say, "Hey, now that we both believe this Jesus guy had some good points, we need to talk about this harmful thing you're doing to yourself", but I see no reason why anyone outside the Church should ever find me trustworthy on such a subject.

So we can believe homosexuality is wrong if that's truly our conviction. (I'm still not 100% convinced.) But regardless, we need to learn how to truly love people, or else anything we say to them is total bullshit.

[Vlad!]

Wait, what? Didn't Obama just sign a bill into law that recognizes hate crimes against homosexuals the same way that racially-motivated hate crimes and the like are recognized? That's what I was referring to.

Ah, I thought your comment was in relation to bloop's post about the Maine vote earlier this month.

So we can believe homosexuality is wrong if that's truly our conviction. (I'm still not 100% convinced.) But regardless, we need to learn how to truly love people, or else anything we say to them is total bullshit.

Yeah.

[bloop]

I don't consider outlawing gay marriage to be a hate crime, either, but I do consider the tactics of the right in this case to be fundamentally dishonest, as they were in California's case as well.  I can't get behind that kind of campaign.

[murlough23]

I don't consider outlawing gay marriage to be a hate crime, either, but I do consider the tactics of the right in this case to be fundamentally dishonest, as they were in California's case as well.  I can't get behind that kind of campaign.

I think it's possible to disagree with an action, and to want that action to be illegal, without hating the people committing that action. That's more of an issue of whether you have grounds to dictate what that other person can and cannot do according to the law, and I think the Church is way out of bounds on that one. We can make whatever rules we want within our private institutions, but outside of religion, I see no practical reason why it matters one way or the other whether gays are allowed to marry. (If I'm wrong on this and there are secular groups opposing gay marriage, I'd like to know.) It's an issue of overstepping our bounds. Hatred was likely a motivation behind it for a lot of the people who banded together to outlaw gay marriage, but the act in and of itself is not hateful - just misguided.

And you're right, the campaigns waged by the right have been largely fear-driven and disingenuous. I feel like they know they couldn't win if they focused on the actual letter of the law, so they came up with a "slippery slope" argument that made people believe, "This could happen to me!" because it happened in some isolated and uncalled-for situation. Their real fear was, "Gay marriages will abound and our children will have to see gay couples in public and hear announcements that they're getting married, etc., and we'll have to awkwardly explain it to them." But it turned into, "Accepting gay marriage will be part of required curriculum in school" and "Churches will be required to marry gay couples", etc. I feel like if it weren't for those unfounded fears, cooler heads would have prevailed and Prop 8 wouldn't have passed. Then again, for a lot of Christians, it's "Give 'em an inch, they take a mile", so they'll do anything they can to get back at "the gay agenda". But there might have been enough folks on the fence who could have potentially gone the other way if not for the scare tactics. It's frustrating. I was hoping the world would have one less thing to hate us for. I suppose I underestimated the "So Be It Bloc" behind the "Orange Curtain", as well as the extensive rural populations of Central and Northern California. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29#Results for a map. Apparently I underestimated the conservative presence in L.A. County as well.)

I've probably mentioned this before, but I really appreciated the "voter's forum" that our church did to discuss the various propositions on the ballot before last year's election. Our senior pastor, while not advocating a specific position on any proposition, did stand up during that meeting to debunk the rumor about churches being required to marry gays. He simply explained that he's already legally allowed to refuse to marry a couple for any reason he sees fit. He could even be racist and refuse to marry an interracial couple if he wanted. (He wouldn't, of course, but unlike the recent case in Louisiana where a government employee refused to do this, he legally could.) Prop 8 failing to pass would have resulted in no change to the existing laws regarding this issue, because before that point, gays were briefly allowed to marry in California, and he was allowed to refuse to marry them. (There are churches that affirm gays and will marry them, and honestly, there's always the Justice of the Peace. it's not like a specific church could prevent a couple from marrying at all.)

Not long after the election last year, I was placed in the awkward circumstance of volunteering to lead a hike for the Young Adult ministry at our church and finding out that nearly everybody who showed up was someone I didn't know who went to another church and had the information passed on by a friend. During the hike, a number of them expressed their displeasure about Obama getting elected, and I quickly realized I was dealing with a pretty conservative crowd, so I kept my views to myself. Later on, Prop 8 came up and they went into the story about the schoolteacher who had taken kids on a field trip to a gay wedding and other such tales that probably had some grain of truth but that had been retold through Email forwards to the point of being unrecognizable. I attempted to correct some of these things as unfounded rumors, but it fell on deaf ears. I discovered during the drive home, in an unrelated conversation with a few of these folks about my work for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, that they were genuinely surprised by the fact that we had discovered moons orbiting distant planets, planets beyond our solar system, that the universe was as big as it was, etc. Not that I'd expect any layperson to be an expert on astronomy, but it honestly made me wonder if these people had even received a basic education in the sciences. I feel like ignorance about the way that the world is (or a rejection of that description on the basis of only believing what the Bible literally says) and ignorance about how our legal system actually works vs. how you're led to fear that it works are probably related things. I don't believe in forcing people to line up with my politics, but I do believe in educating them so that they can make informed choices when voting.

NP: "We Are the Beggars at the Foot of God's Door", The Normals

[bloop]

And you're right, the campaigns waged by the right have been largely fear-driven and disingenuous.

I agree, but I'll take it a step further.  The Church - you know, the one called to love her neighbor, and be obedient to the Word - is apparently willing to lie for "the greater good".  A political victory is more important than walking upright oneself.  Disgusting!

[murlough23]

I agree, but I'll take it a step further.  The Church - you know, the one called to love her neighbor, and be obedient to the Word - is apparently willing to lie for "the greater good".  A political victory is more important that walking upright oneself.  Disgusting!

Somebody within the Church knowingly perpetuated a lie, yeah. Most of the rest of them were just ignorant enough to believe the lie, because it sounded like it lined up with their existing worldview. Both are problems, but I think the ones who originated the lie are much more accountable here. Something about causing little ones to stumble and putting a millstone around your neck.

At the very least, if we're going to wage war on a political battlefield, let's arm ourselves with the facts and fight a fair fight. But honestly, unless I can see that some law or something that oughta be a law is causing direct harm to people who have no means to defend themselves, I kind of feel that the Church needs to stay out of it and work on getting their own people to live by example instead. The reputation of heterosexual marriage is so far into the toilet right now that I don't think we have much ground to stand on when fighting for the "sanctity of marriage" or some bullshit like that.

[chrisnu]

Like the Episcopal Church, the ELCA is splitting over this issue. Thankfully, the ELCA will not be suing departing congregations, as long as they join a Lutheran church body. Lord, have mercy on us.

[chrisnu]

I take it you folks have heard about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda. The bill proposes lifetime imprisonment for gay or lesbian persons involved in sexual acts, with the death penalty for for those who are HIV-positive. The bill also proposes the introduction of a three-year prison sentence for anyone who knows of the existence of a gay man or lesbian woman and fails to inform authorities in Uganda within 24 hours. The bill further states that anybody who “attempts to commit the offence” is liable to imprisonment for seven years. “The same applies to anybody who “aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage in acts of homosexuality” or anybody who keeps a house or room for the purpose of homosexuality. The bill would also apply the same penalties to sexually active gay or lesbian Ugandan citizens who are not living in Uganda, and would support extradition of said Ugandan citizens.

This absolutely macabre. The only thing the Church of Uganda (which is Anglican) has said thus far is that they do not support the death penalty under any circumstance, and are studying the bill. I hope they release an official statement denouncing the bill as soon as possible. This indirectly affects other Anglican church bodies which are in full communion with the Church of Uganda, including the newly-formed Anglican Church in North America. I know of many churches in the US and Canada who had chosen to come under the authority of the Church of Uganda before this new body was formed.

[murlough23]

Holy McCarthy, Batman!

Let me guess - if you're a hetero spreading AIDS, you're still free to go about your business? Because THAT'S what's killing Africa.

NP: "Spirit Sing", Cool Hand Luke

[chrisnu]

An update: the bill which will be presented to Parliament will drop the penalties of life imprisonment and execution. Thank God. It's one step in the right direction. Gay and lesbian people will still be prosecuted as criminals, however, and this update doesn't say anything regarding the prosecution of those who do not report gay and lesbian people to the authorities, or the extradition of gay or lesbian Ugandan citizens from other countries.

[spacebrat311]

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QEXEQ1FM

My undergrad thesis paper on what a church response to homophobia might mean. It kind of ignores the debate over homosexuality as a behavior sin in regard to what the Bible says, partially because I've generally made my stance on that clear in the past (I don't think that the Bible has anything at all to say about the phenomenon that we would describe as homosexuality, but has a LOT to say about pederasty, orgies, temple prostitution, and the rape of conquered men).

[murlough23]

LOL. You got a Cliff Notes version?

Not to beat a dead horse, but I tried making the argument once that the Bible was specifically referring to pederasty, temple prostitution, that other stuff you mentioned, and not consensual love relationships, because they didn't even understand the concept of such a thing at the time, and promptly got told that didn't mean God was limited from understanding this concept, and that if He wanted them to write about those other specific things, they would have.

 

I mean, this all hinges on our interpretations of obscure Greek words in a modern language which doesn't seem to have an exact translation. What's the basis for believing one or many English translations to be "inspired"? Sure, many independently translated sources seem to agree, but hasn't there also been an extreme amount of bias against homosexuality throughout most of history that would consciously or unconsciously contribute to such a connection being made in the translator's mind? It would be really embarrassing to discover after all these years that we had driven a segment of the population to such a place of anguish and persecution over a few mistranslated words.

[spacebrat311]

It's just a really hard and sensitive thing to discuss, and its really hard to imagine that yourself and the kinds of people who surround you might have caused this kind of pain in service of something misunderstood. I think that a discussion like this therefore requires A LOT of hospitality.

Anyways, sorry it's so long.

[murlough23]

It's just a really hard and sensitive thing to discuss, and its really hard to imagine that yourself and the kinds of people who surround you might have caused this kind of pain in service of something misunderstood. I think that a discussion like this therefore requires A LOT of hospitality.

Yes. I don't want these things to stop us from having the discussion, but it definitely needs to be approached with some humility. I have to own the fact that maybe (it hasn't been proven yet, but it's likely) I've been wrong about this for most of my life. The apology that would be owed if this were the case would be massive, and I suspect that plays into the psychology of some folks who may secretly wonder if they've got it wrong, but are afraid to admit to this wondering publicly, and will go down kicking and clawing trying to defend the position they've trumpeted loud and proud for so long when you try argue the issue with them.

And even with logical proof, it is likely to take an extremely long time for most of the Church to come around and see it. You know how long it took us to get from a few Christians going "Hey, maybe it isn't right for us to own slaves?" to the Civil Rights Movement? And there are still extremist, racist holdout groups within the Church. I don't mean to equate race with sexual orientation, but I fear that the scale of it may be similar in terms of how long it takes the Church to change, if proven that it needs to.

Anyways, sorry it's so long.

I am the one who should apologize for not having the wherewithal to read the whole thing. What has Twitter done to us?

Mostly, I was just hoping to get at a brief bullet-point type summary of your main points. From there, I could drill down to specific parts of the paper that discuss in detail the things I'm most curious about.

[Vlad!]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I tried making the argument once that the Bible was specifically referring to pederasty, temple prostitution, that other stuff you mentioned, and not consensual love relationships, because they didn't even understand the concept of such a thing at the time

I don't think that's the case, actually. From my admittedly spotty understanding of ancient Greek culture, homosexuality was more a part of life then than it is now; people weren't "homosexuals" or "heterosexuals", it was just understood that people liked having sex, and one might do so with a man or a woman depending on how one was feeling. Perhaps the concept of a committed, exclusive homosexual relationship was not present in the culture; I don't know.

But one thing I do know is that the Jews Paul was writing to in Romans definitely knew what he meant when he said "sexual immorality". After all, they knew Leviticus 18:22, which says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable". When the church elders in Jerusalem said that even the Gentiles were to refrain from sexual immorality (see Acts 15), they were probably referring not to an ambiguous concept of sexual immorality but to the Jewish laws pertaining to it, such as those in Leviticus 18.

I have thought long and hard about the possibility that the Bible actually permits a loving, committed marriage between two people of the same gender, but to me, the text is clear. Marriage is intended to be heterosexual, and sex is exclusively reserved for marriage.

I wish this weren't the case, and if there's a valid Biblical argument that I'm missing then feel free to clue me in, but I'm just not seeing it.

[spacebrat311]

I don't think that's the case, actually. From my admittedly spotty understanding of ancient Greek culture, homosexuality was more a part of life then than it is now; people weren't "homosexuals" or "heterosexuals", it was just understood that people liked having sex, and one might do so with a man or a woman depending on how one was feeling. Perhaps the concept of a committed, exclusive homosexual relationship was not present in the culture; I don't know.

I claim no authority in this matter except for study of this time period as a theology student. From the studies I've done, you're sort of half right. You're right in that those constructs—homosexuality and heterosexuality did not exist, and thus the sexual practices of Roman and Greek culture do not resort to this binary description. On the other hand, the "homosexual" acts that did exist were under specific contexts—orgiastic "free love" type celebrations that centered around temple worship, temple prostitution as part of this, the rape of conquered soldiers for shaming purposes, etc. What did not exist was committed relationship—marriage, between members of the same sex. It seems reminiscent to me of passages in the Bible that mandate certain forms of slavery without specifying them as anything other than simply "slavery". In cultural context this makes perfect sense. For a 19th century landowner, this does not. I'm not saying that this decides the case or something. The question remains open. However, claiming that the Bible prohibits the thing we call "homosexuality" is speaking outside of the biblical writers' possibility for commentary. It may apply, but only if we find that it does; this cannot be assumed. Whether, then, those passages apply seems to depend on whether a union of man and man or woman and woman makes sense within the church's imagination towards sexuality—whether church-oriented marriage is possible in this. For me, that is where the discussion really lies.


My paper is divided into three sections.

Pgs 2-11 are an Ecclesiology, a description of the church and its work in the world

pg 11-I don't remember is a description of how homophobia plays out as an issue in society. It describes how homophobic violence depends on violent rhetoric against gays, and how that rhetoric is dependent on a certain kind of idolization of the nuclear family as a construct. It also talks about the world that we construct for children, referencing studies done by sociologist Karin Martin on the talk parents use to explain sexual relationships to children, and how that talk almost universally makes gays invisible, causing their disappearance and forcing them "into the closet".

Section 3 is a discussion of how the church described in part 1 might respond to the social issue presented in part 2. There is discussion of the Israelite household structure as it critiques the nuclear family, but this household structure is not held up as ideal either. Drawing on Orthodox liturgy and various church actions that have already occurred, I attempt to reimagine marriage as sacramentally for the church—an arrangement in which two people are made to belong to each other in a way that undermines mutual possession and makes them belong inexorably to the church as the church belongs to and gives itself as food for the world.

[murlough23]

I don't think that's the case, actually. From my admittedly spotty understanding of ancient Greek culture, homosexuality was more a part of life then than it is now; people weren't "homosexuals" or "heterosexuals", it was just understood that people liked having sex, and one might do so with a man or a woman depending on how one was feeling. Perhaps the concept of a committed, exclusive homosexual relationship was not present in the culture; I don't know.

What you're describing here is more an issue of treating sex as something casual, which we know to also be bad for heterosexuals. It is not really an issue of the gender (or number!) of people having sex.

But one thing I do know is that the Jews Paul was writing to in Romans definitely knew what he meant when he said "sexual immorality". After all, they knew Leviticus 18:22, which says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable". When the church elders in Jerusalem said that even the Gentiles were to refrain from sexual immorality (see Acts 15), they were probably referring not to an ambiguous concept of sexual immorality but to the Jewish laws pertaining to it, such as those in Leviticus 18.

I don't take it at face value here that "sexual immorality", as referred to in the New Testament, directly refers to any specific commandment in the old testament, any more than I think commands to keep oneself pure in the New Testament are related to specific lists of things not to eat or wear in the Old. If these things are meant to be connected, it needs to be demonstrated exactly how they are.

To put it another way, Jesus freed us from a lot of the purity codes in the OT, and while there are rules in the OT that we still must follow (the Ten Commandments being a good example), there has to be reasonable evidence that these things are still expected of us. We can't pick and choose just because two things appear vaguely related.

I have thought long and hard about the possibility that the Bible actually permits a loving, committed marriage between two people of the same gender, but to me, the text is clear. Marriage is intended to be heterosexual, and sex is exclusively reserved for marriage.

Agree on the sex being reserved for marriage part. Not sure it's so clear on marriage intended to be exclusively heterosexual. The best we have here, at least from the Leviticus passage, is that marriage and sex were intended to be heterosexual at a specific time in history when God's chosen people needed to be fruitful and multiply.

I wish this weren't the case, and if there's a valid Biblical argument that I'm missing then feel free to clue me in, but I'm just not seeing it.

What you're seeing is based on a reasonable and understandable interpretation of "sexual immorality", with the conjecture that it was understood to mean the same thing to the people it was written to (and also in its phrasing in the original language in which it was written). I can see why most people would assume this, all things being equal, and thus why it seems like a minority of us are looking for a loophole. All the same, just because something appears readily apparent to a majority of people does not make it the truth. When such a difference in interpretation could cause such a drastic change to one's worldview and how the Church treats a segment of its population, we must take greater care to not just look through our own cultural lens.

[Vlad!]

I agree that we shouldn't look at the problem exclusively through our own cultural lens. However, I cannot help but believe that when Jews like Paul and James and the other Jerusalem elders were referring to sexual immorality--specifically when they were speaking to other Jews--they were definitely speaking in terms of what they regarded as immorality, which would be derived from their own cultural heritage. This is especially the case with homosexuality--referred to as "detestable" in the Leviticus passage.

Also, note that God repeatedly condemns other cultures for their homosexual practices, even to the point of wiping Sodom and Gomorrah off the face of the earth. If the problem was just promiscuity rather than homosexuality, why would the latter be specifically called out?

I see nothing in the scriptures suggesting that homosexuality was ever even condoned, let alone supported, by God or by the early church. And though we certainly can't interpret scripture just through our own cultural lens, we must interpret scripture through the lens of the Holy Spirit. I think it's possible to twist and contort the scriptures to say lots of things that are false simply by arguing possibilities and alternative interpretations. When I read the scriptures, even honestly wishing that we could put the homosexuality argument behind us and accept committed homosexual relationships as we accept heterosexual ones, I feel that this is not consistent with what the Spirit is saying. While I could be wrong about this, the fact that many people much wiser than me and more in step with the Spirit believe the same thing suggests that this is the correct interpretation.

As to your analogy between church attitudes about slavery in the 1800s and church attitudes to homosexuality now, I can't really comment because I wasn't around then. However, I will say that the South was and is known for accepting the parts of Christianity which are convenient for them and jive with what they want to believe anyway and no others. I personally believe that probably the average American and certainly the average Southerner who considers him or herself a Christian gives no more thought to Christ than is convenient to fulfill his or her own agenda. My impressions of that time period are that those people were bound and determined to have their slaves, and it was simply convenient for them that the Bible mentioned slavery. If they were even aware that slavery in that cultural context was different from American slavery, they did not care one bit. In the same way, there are plenty of people (Westboro Baptist Church, anyone?) who will gladly ally with the Bible in their crusade against homosexuality without paying heed to the parts that speak to their own faults, but this does not invalidate those of us who look humbly and deeply into the Bible for answers and cannot escape the conclusion that any sort of homosexual activity is not supported by the Scriptures.

(This isn't to say that the points spacebrat writes about are invalid; there's a big gap between saying "homosexual behavior is a sin" and saying "the church should have nothing to do with homosexuals", and a big gap even between that and saying "the church should actively persecute homosexuals".)

[spacebrat311]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. From the perspective of the studying and calling upon the Spirit that I've done, it seems like you're still reading these sexual immorality passages from the perspective of an assumption that the Bible even talks about homosexuality at all, which is a big leap as far as I'm concerned. Sodom and Gommorrah is a good example, because the text is rather clear that the cities were described for their treatment of outsiders and inhospitality, of which their sexual practices are simply an example.

I think that it's really convenient to write off the Christians we see as hard to claim (slaveowners and fundies for instance) as only using the Bible to suit their own agenda, and as insincere. I think that these people  are often just as sincere as anyone else, and I think that history will look back on us as just as horrific for reasons we as yet know nothing about. I think that this puts us on dangerously high ground to say that we must be better or more sincere Christians than these.

I also think that it's really convenient to be able to simply claim the Spirit in arguments like this, as if those you are arguing with should simply pray harder or be wiser and then they would see things the way you do. In my community it seems like it's the people who pray the hardest and spend the most time in honest and sincere pursuit of the text and the will of God who come to the conclusions that I have. That's part of why I've come to these conclusions, aside from their making sense to me as a logical argument or something. I don't think this works as a discussion point, however, because I honestly believe that those who disagree, including you and those around you, disagree sincerely, and in an honest pursuit of God's will. It seems like a cheap shot to bring that into the discussion, like an appeal to a spiritual authority that cannot be claimed.

But again, I think we're probably going to have to agree to disagree there.