I have recently involved myself in the giving of my opinion on the issue of homosexuality on the blog of a friend. This friend had started a discussion on this subject to open the lines of communication and engage in discussion about this as kind of an addition to some classes he is offering at his Church. It's pretty cool, actually, that the Church he heads is willing to tackle this issue and to not move into it with all guns blazing, "die homo die" kind of mentality that seems to be, at least behind the scenes, the real feeling of lot's of Christians. From what I can gather in his blog there are those in his church from this lifestyle. My friend invited all to share their comments but they had to do it by using their real names, no anonymous postings, and it had to be in the spirit of open communication. He would write a post and then people would comment on it. I couldn't resist so I offered my two cents.
My post basically entailed this approach: If we're Christians we must go to the Word of God and see what He has given us in His Word on this subject. It was not in a spirit of anger, antagonism or anything else. I also included some of my observations on what I have read about homosexual and lesbian people who say they are Christians and that God blesses what they are doing. My post was responded to by a lady who is a lesbian and from what I could gather, in a relationship with another woman. Essentially, she said that the Word of God was not clear on the issue, and that I have never known a gay or lesbian couple of faith and that she knows that when the two of them are together everything is right in the world and her life - they love each other.
I have gone back and read and re-read that post, and others after it, numerous times in order to understand it. I have come to some conclusions and I'm sure will reach other conclusions as I ponder it. #1 - I really do believe the Word of God is clear on the subject. I can't understand how anyone can read the verses associated with homosexuality and say the Word isn't clear. What I think, however, is that because this is such a huge part of a person's life (it's who and what they are) hearing that a loving God condemns this behavior puts them over the edge. #2 - I have never knowingly met a gay or lesbian couple who say they are Christians. I've know a few gay and lesbian couples, but none who are Christians. They are about as normal as anyone else is. And, the ones I have known are pretty nice people. #3 - I've no doubt whatsoever that this lady and her partner love each other. In fact, I would go so far as to say (of course I don't know them at all) that their relationship may even be more stable and "better" than a non-homosexual or non-lesbian relationship.
The thing is this: These last two realizations have NO impact on what scripture says AT ALL! Scripture should be a guide for our thoughts and actions, not vice-versa. If scripture says something I'm doing is wrong, how I think or feel about it NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. As soon as this is posted it is immediately labeled as hate, intolerance, anti-gay, backwards, etc. In this day of tolerance there is very little of it when a person brings the Word of God to an issue - to ANY issue. When a person agrees with something there is smiles and warm fuzzies up the wazoo but when a person disagrees...bye bye tolerance. Now it's offensive and hurtful, and hate mongering and homophobia running rampant.
I do not hate people in this lifestyle. Those I have known, as I've said, are pretty nice people. But that has nothing to do with sin. I'm a nice person and I'm RIDDLED with sin! I'm in a committed, loving relationship and I'm full of sin! When my wife and I are together, all in my world is right, but I have the darkest heart on the planet. If what the Word says is ignored we're left with an "everyone did what was right in their own eyes" mentality. If the Word isn't clear on this subject then how do I know it's clear on another? The Word is the Christians guide for..."teaching, reproof, training in righteousness..." The Word is our solid Rock. I do not tell a person in this lifestyle that they're in sin because I hate them. I do not say that God condemns this behavior (it's not the only behavior he condemns) because I think I'm above them or want to hurt them. The Word shines the light on our sin and, hopefully when it is exposed we are driven to God. This is the point: To share the love of Christ with a person in the hope that they will see their sin and come to Christ in repentance and for forgiveness. This is true for a homosexual and a non-homosexual. However, if a person thinks they are doing nothing wrong, and are told they are only doing what God created them to do, and continues to ignore what scripture says then when the Word says, "God gave them over...", He really does give them over to it. I'm sure it's the most wonderful, blessed feeling in the world but those great feelings have nothing to do with what the truth of the matter is. We have what the Word says and if this is ignored, and the pleas of people calling a sinner to repentance or ignored then how long before God gives a person over? What must He do to make it more clear? As Jesus said, "If you don't believe what Moses wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" - John 5:46
I do not hate homosexuals. I'm not from the Westboro Baptist mindset ("God hates Fags!"). I just have to say that a person can bring the Word of God to a situation and speak on a subject or issue from the Word and it's not hate. The Word is clear. And Jesus Christ died to save sinners, the homosexual and the non-homosexual.
4 comments:
Really interesting reflections here, Curt. The Anglican diocese of which our parish is a part has been dealing with this issue for some time. I am not at all pleased with the way that the "discussions" have proceeded. Basically, they have left it up to the individual parishes to decide, giving them no real theological, biblical or ethical guidance. The good news is, however, that the issue has caused us to do a fair bit of thinking about these matters, particularly about the meaning of Christian marriage, male and female, and the bearing of children. I don't have it figured out yet, but I have wondered if the Roman Catholics are on to something!
I agree with you that Scripture is quite clear on homosexual behavior. I think that part of the problem is that Scripture is also apparently clear a lot of things. For example, you're not supposed to shave the side of your beard, nor are you supposed to borrow money at interest. I suppose those are Old Testament prohibitions. Nevertheless, it has caused several to ask why it is that Scripture condemns homosexual behavior. Some have wondered if perhaps the prohibitions against homosexual behavior are time-conditioned and specific for God's people only at a particular point in history. Others (like myself) have thought that there is a deeper theological reason that underlies Scripture's prohibition against homosexual behavior. If so, then this should probably be brought out. I would be very interested in your reflections on this topic. The other question that has dogged me in this whole matter is what to do pastorally with those who are in long-term civil marriages with others of the same sex, who perhaps even have children together.
Thoughts?
Hey Dustin. It is disappointing to hear of denominations that will not take a stand on this issue. The salt losing its saltiness. It is encouraging that yours is at least leaving the decision to individual parishes instead of abandoning Truth altogether and fully adopting the worldly mindset. I can see how this would drive each member in the parish and each body of believers to Christ and to examine the Word and see what He has said about this. In my mind, that can't be a bad thing. God seems to always have a way if turn crap and garbage into blessing.
The Old Testament prohibitions that you mentioned, and many others (don't wear clothing with mixed threads; not eating meat with blood in it; clean and unclean animals; etc.) I can't speak on at length. I have viewed these as coming from the “old covenant” and we are under the “new covenant”. However, seeing God's mind on these, why He would say these and what could it possibly have to do with anything (who cares what my beard looks like? I have a goatee.), could be an interesting study. Perhaps God wanted His people to be different from the nations around them and these are how minute the differences were to be – He got really specific. And, Paul did expound on the Law in Romans. Anyway, my limited thoughts on that.
I think it would be a very tough position to be in as a Pastor and have to counsel a married same sex couple who had children. My thoughts tend towards beginnings. If the foundation is sin then to continue in it...you get my point. I assume one person in this couple comes to Christ. Having repented of this sin this person will seek to follow Christ and agree with scripture that this is sin. At this point I can only assume the other person in this union will not stick around. With children in the picture this makes it even more difficult. I think this would be similar to a divorce. Who gets the kids? Visitation rights? What effect does this whole thing have on the kids? What if both people in this union come to Christ? They will see from scripture that they are in sin and will repent. They will obviously continue in sin if they continue as a married couple so they must separate and either remain celibate or marry someone of the opposite sex and live as God intended. What happens to the kids? Custody battle?, etc., etc. Sin is like this huge pot. The deeper you get into it the greater the layers one has to contend with when one wants out. If humanity did things the way God intended then this would not even be an issue. But we're all sinners and we don't obey God and we go our own way and we must go through the consequences of our having done this. How many people have I hurt, how have I brought shame to Christ's name when I've gone my own way and, in my sin, hurt people? I would envy no person in the scenario you have asked about.
I have a teaching tape from John MacArthur on the subject of homosexuality. You can listen to it on his website. In it he mentions the reasons for why God is so against this – it obliterates the distinction between male and female He ordained at creation. Ever since then satan has been trying to obliterate God's distinctions in creation. Paul, in Romans one says, “They exchanged the natural for the unnatural.” God made the natural way He intended and man, as a result of his wickedness, goes for the unnatural. Check it out if you haven't already.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. Obviously not exhaustive and given from a chair in an office, not from the “front lines”.
What are your thoughts?
Really helpful thoughts, Curt!
The way you are handling the prohibitions in the old covenant that we no longer follow as Christians appears to be theologically sound, in my estimation. The problem is that there are also prohibitions in the New Testament which we no longer follow, such as women wearing head coverings (1 Corinthians 11) etc. Many would also contest the prohibition in 1 Timothy against women teaching men. In both cases, it is thought that the author of these texts was mired in his own culture and that it no longer applies to our contemporary world in which women and men are understood to be equal. I happen to think there is more going on these texts then this position would allow. But I do think that we need to wrestle with the historical relativity of Scripture. This is not to say that the Bible should not be authoritative in such matters, but it does mean that we need to be cautious about reading our moral guidelines directly off the pages of Scripture. That sounds very liberal... and I don't mean it that way. But the Bible is an historical document even though it is also God's word for the church.
I think MacArthur might be on to something in his explanation for why homosexual behavior is considered a sin in Scripture. However, I think that underlying the distinction between male and female, which God certainly ordained, is a theological assumption. In other words, God made men and women different for a reason, and that reason is not merely biological. It is also theological. In the rest of Scripture the union between a man and a woman in the covenant of marriage is used to depict the relationship between God and Israel and Christ and the church. That is to say, marriage between a man and a woman, and all that that involves, is a created witness to God's love in Christ by the Holy Spirit for his chosen people. Marriage has a sacramental function. If we obliterate the distinction between man and woman in the marital union, we obliterate marriage's analogy with God and his people in covenant. The distinctive thing about God's covenant with his people is that it enables a fellowship or communion between two unlike "things," namely God and human beings. Marriage gives witness to this fellowship-in-difference.
I don't think that this view is without its serious problems, however. It may actually involve me in implying that men and women are not only different but also in a relationship of superiority and inferiority to one another. I'm not sure I want to go there.
Thoughts?
Hey bud. I also agree with marriage between a man and a woman being a picture of Christ and the Church and that homosexual unions obliterate this picture. As well, "wrestling" with scripture is something that I rarely do as I, and perhaps most, prefer to be spoon fed by others without the digging for myself. When issues like this come up though, for me and for your denomination, it forces one out of that position of sitting waiting for food to actually going out and hunting for it. I/We should wrestle more with the Word.
The inferiority/superiority between man and woman is something that I had not thought much about. I think this does exist but in terms or role, not value. Woman was created for the man as a helper. This implies inferiority/superiority. Christ is the head of the Church, where this is very evident. In our world we seem to have no problem seeing this as viewed in Christ and the Church but between man and woman...look out! I have heard a little on the passage you mentioned and I also think there is more going on than what a cursory reading of it entails. One teacher said that given the culture of the day and how women were looked upon, what Paul was saying was actually kind of revolutionary in that it elevated women. I wish I could say more but the rest of that session is gone to me. Anyway, it seems they took the role of the woman as being inferior and turned that into her value as well. Inferior and superior are such inflammatory word these days when used in this context, but they're not in the context of Christ and the Church. Curious...
Anyway, we digress. It's kinda cool how one issue makes one think of others.
Post a Comment