I have friends who are traditionalists, with whom I disagree on the topic of homosexuality. However, we have a mutual respect and a shared love of God that does not diminish in the light of us disagreeing on this issue. We respect each other's viewpoints, understanding where these views come from and why they are held. And we continue to love one another and fellowship and serve God together. This, I believe, is an approach very true to the teachings of the Bible, particularly of the Apostle Paul, and is consistent with the prayer of Jesus as recorded in John 17:
"I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one – I in them and you in me – so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me"
Paul also highlights the fruit of the Spirit as being love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. However, the acts of the sinful nature are shown to include hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions.
My problem is with the more conservative wing of the Church. Discussions with them (never truly discussions, they always seem to turn into heated debates and arguments) always seem to follow a particular pattern. The order might change and there might be subtle shades, but broadly, the pattern is as follows:
1. They put forward a view that the Bible is unambiguously clear that God opposes homosexuality. So, if you take one of the handful of passages and show an alternative view that leads to some ambiguity, rather than acknowledge this, they jump onto another passage. If you then take this next passage and do likewise, the anger mounts against you and they start to talk of the overwhelming message of Scripture and the internal consistency of God's message. Now, at this point, if they were to pause and acknowledge that yes, there is a different reading but that they don't agree on your interpretation, that would be fine. It doesn't breach our relationship and we can agree to disagree and acknowledge that our actions have to have integrity with our reading of Scripture.
However, usually they believe your new interpretations are not consistent with their understanding of God and therefore are not likely. But interestingly, here the argument has changed. It is now no longer saying that things are unambiguously clear, but that there is a broad, overarching theme. However, if this theme is built on the pillars of interpretation of a few verses, then it makes sense that a challenge to these verses can result in a challenge to the overarching (perceived) theme. Conversations rarely get beyond shouting matches and the throwing of Bible verses at you, however. I have also noticed that when you present an important Biblical principle, rather than addressing this, they will throw an apparently contradictory principle at you. For example, if you quote a verse about loving your enemies or refer to passages where the Church was encouraged by Paul to work together despite differences, they will quote another passage about dealing with heretics, as if this in some way negated Paul's other teaching.
2. When a shift does occur from claiming individual verses back up the anti-homosexual position, a broader view is put forward that the Genesis template clearly shows marriage is to be between one man and one woman. This is actually a good point. However, where things unravel is when you say that this is the ONLY acceptable model for covenant marriage. 2 Sam 12:8 has a very uncomfortable passage for traditionalists. God here is actively participating in polygamy. Every time I have mentioned this passage to a traditionalist, I have only been met by silence and a jump to another argument. Also, Jesus was single and Paul promotes celibacy (where those have that gift). These are different ways of living that are a deviation from the argument that all men must marry one woman. It shows that while it is A template, it is not necessarily the only acceptable model for human relationships. When discussing God's participation in polygamy, I would much rather hear someone honestly say "I don't know why God did this". This would be honest and shows us that we don't always know or understand the Bible at face value and we need to wrestle with these issues in prayer.
3. Then some will angrily talk about the inability of 2 men to reproduce. This is not a theological or Biblical argument, but is often used. It is true. But some married heterosexual couples are likewise unable to reproduce and some choose not to. Are they in some way sinning by living together as a married couple? Adoption is also an option to all these couples, and there are many moving testimonies from adopted children of the love they felt for having been "chosen" to be loved, in a way that is reminiscent of the Christian story.
4. Some talk of different gender roles and a hierarchy of male over female. This does not sit comfortably with me at all, particularly in light of Galatians 3 ("There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"). It is also not an argument about sexuality, but of power and dominance in a 2 person relationship. There is also such diversity within gender groupings, that any argument that each gender contributes something unique to a relationship has little evidence to back this up.
5. Some worry about the harm caused to children if raised by gay parents. Studies do not appear to back up these concerns. In fact, there is more harm caused by divorce or being raised by a single parent according to studies.
6. Homosexuality is seen by some conservatives as a choice. They believe that the issue we are discussing is purely one of sex. Therefore, the act of sex is a choice and you can choose whether to have it with a man or a woman. Presumably they would argue that if you want to have sex with someone (of the opposite gender), you would need to marry them first and then be allowed sex. However, our studies of sexuality clearly show that sexual orientation is not a choice. Ask people if they believe homosexual orientation is a choice and surprisingly, many will say "yes". However, ask those same people when they chose their sexual orientation and you will likely be met with confusion, as they would think they always were and didn't ever make a conscious choice to be attracted to someone of the opposite gender. As a heterosexual man, I never once made a choice to be sexually attracted to women. It just happened naturally.
The metaphor people use is also very interesting. Conservatives like to talk of homosexuality as being like an addiction (e.g. an alcoholic). The logic follows that you help an alcoholic to recover and not drink alcohol. However, sexual orientation is more like being left handed, right handed, or in a few cases ambidextrous. You do not force an orientation change. Also, using one or the other is not inherently right or wrong, but it is what you do with your hands that is good or evil.
7. Finally, a bemusing argument, often from a place of desperation to attempt to silence you, is that the Church has believed the traditionalist view for centuries and therefore why should we change it now? The first clear answer is that we understand the issue of sexuality better now. It is clearly not just a lustful orgy-like behaviour that society needs to condemn. It is genuine same sex attraction that has the same perils, hopes, dreams, opportunities as heterosexual attraction. A second answer is to point out that the Church has been spectacularly wrong in the past. Take for example the flat earth or scientific discovery. Just because people have a view for a long time doesn't make that view more valid than a new, enlightened view. That is really no argument whatsoever. We might as well say we have sinned for centuries, why should we stop now?
Where I would be in total agreement with a traditionalist, would be if they said that their conscience would not allow them to express their own homosexuality. The Bible actually tells me what to do in that situation (see Romans 14). I must not put a stumbling block in the way of my brother or sister. Nor should any minister be forced to conduct a wedding against their conscience. I would stand up and strongly defend the right of a traditionalist to act with integrity according to their conscience. The question is, would a traditionalist stand up for me in similar situations?
What exhausts me is the constant arguments that go in circles, never listening to other views, not willing to even contemplate that there might be truth in another's position, and calling you a heretic or unsaved believer if you dare to disagree with their conservative view. I have been accused of sneaky tricks, of heresy, of probably not being truly saved, of being confused. Thankfully, praise God, I have also met some wonderful, peace-loving and gracious traditionalists, that I am proud to call my brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we disagree on homosexuality and if we might vote differently on issues (e.g. marriage).
I genuinely am at a loss to know what to do with the other people though...
The words of Paul to Titus (Titus 3) ring in my ears and I keep asking God if there is another way: "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned." I fear I have gone beyond the second warning in many conversations from people who wish to eject any believers from the Church on account of a different interpretation of what the Bible says about homosexuality, or who call for division and disunity, all in the name of God.
I would appreciate any wisdom from readers to know how we progress in this situation, where one party refuses to even listen and have fellowship with one who disagrees on a single issue of doctrine, in this case, the place of homosexuality in God's kingdom.
God bless
I think you have three options:
ReplyDelete1) stop talking to the people you have been talking to - this debate has been going on so long you are neither going to find anything new or surprising to say or win the argument so just give up and get on with something else
2) talk to them about a related but different matter that might shift things a bit (I would recommend pointing out that the New Testament is also hostile to heterosexuality, even if less so)
3) try to find a way to make disagreement on this matter less, perhaps by engaging more directly with the question of whether all those involved are sincere in their commitment to Biblical authority (which may raise some interesting and difficult issues if you take my view that in fact almost none of them are, on either side).
Thank you Nick.
ReplyDeleteI am naturally drawn to your second suggestion... After a short recuperative sabbatical from painful debate!
Option 3 sounds almost fun, if I were a hardier monk! ;-)
Thank you and God bless. I enjoy your postings.
I would recommend option 1 personally, unless you have a real need to engage with this stuff. I don't see any immediate prospect of any progress with this in the near future. The churches have become so polarised and the positions are so well rehearsed that it's best left alone (which is, more or less, what we've been doing in the URC since 2007 - how much longer we can sustain that is in question now but the pause has definitely improved the atmosphere somewhat).
ReplyDeleteHi Nick. Thanks again. It is hard to follow point 1 when some of these people appear to represent you to others (e.g. the media). But it would certainly ease the blood pressure to care less about what they say, and trust that people will know it is only one view!
ReplyDelete2 Sam 12:8 has a very uncomfortable passage for traditionalists.
ReplyDeleteI'm always baffled at the idea that anyone might think of David, of all people, as a role model in sexual affairs. It's pretty clear that whatever God sees in him, sexually, the man is at best an idiot, at worst a murderous monster, and definitely not someone to be emulated.
Also, Jesus was single and Paul promotes celibacy (where those have that gift). These are different ways of living that are a deviation from the argument that all men must marry one woman.
I don't think anyone does argue that all men must marry one woman, though: rather that if a man marries, they should marry a woman. It's quite a significantly different argument (he said, as a heterosexual bachelor, so from a position of some experience in this matter).
However, sexual orientation is more like being left handed, right handed, or in a few cases ambidextrous. You do not force an orientation change. Also, using one or the other is not inherently right or wrong, but it is what you do with your hands that is good or evil.
That's true for hands, but not necessarily true for all things that are inherent. For example, sexual orientation towards children is just as inherent as left-handedness, right-handedness, heterosexuality, or homosexuality, but it is also inherently wrong.
Just because something is 'the way you are' does not mean it is right. Sociopaths are the way they are, but that doesn't make it okay to be a sociopath. Some desires are as inherent as right- or left-handedness, and yet ought to be resisted. The questions is whether homosexual desire is one of these inherent-yet-wrong desires; simply pointing out it is inherent is orthogonal to the question of whether it is wrong.
Hi "Anonymous",
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing some interesting thoughts. You make 3 good points, and so I'll give you some of my musings on them below.
1. I really have to agree with you here! I think that the Bible is full of "heroes of the faith" who behave abominably at times! In the context of the point I was making, however, it is not so much a focus on David as a focus on God. In the quote of 2 Sam 12:8, we are told that God actually gives David multiple wives (he doesn't condemn David for taking them). There is also a hint of this permission for polygamy in Lev 18:18 (why outlaw one specific case, rather than just multiple wives in general?). The story of David is an example of how things are never as black and white as we sometimes think. To say there is only one permitted model of marriage and that is one man, one woman, is not, I think entirely consistent with the Bible.
For the record, I am against polygamy. I think it can hurt and devalue people and in our day and age is not a godly way to live. There might have been a time and a context when it was a way of providing and caring for women after men had died in wars etc. but that day is in the past.
2. My point with the Jesus and Paul examples is that there is an argument by some (traditionalists) that Genesis 2 states that men are made to marry women and any other model must be sinful. I take your point about what the argument being made is, but I can't see a Biblical model that says "here is what marriage is, and it can only be between one man and one woman". I don't think we really have much in the way of understanding of marriage in the Bible - apart from the concept of faithfulness and love. Much of our Christian teaching on it is quite modern (and I think much of it is healthy). The other interesting thing about Genesis 2 is that the wearing of clothes is clearly a result of sin and the fall and yet we do not condemn non-naturists. I believe that homosexuality is a "deviation" from the norm, but not a sinful one (as, say old age or illness or needing to wear glasses).
The point I am trying to make is that not every deviation from the Genesis template is sinful, just because it is different.
3. I would be genuinely interested to know if you could point me in the direction of any research that shows sexual attraction to children is natural in some people. However, even if it is, I would suggest there is a difference between a man/woman being attracted to a young boy/girl and acting on it, and a man/woman being attracted to another man/woman and wanting to commit to lifelong, faithful union with that person. The Great Commandments sum everything up and the Loving our Neighbour as ourselves I think declares a responsibility to care for the well-being of others. Children are a very vulnerable group in society, particularly sexually. I don't believe a child is in a position to make a life-long commitment of union to an adult.
Significant psychological (and physical) harm could be done to a child, which is why I would oppose sexual relations with children (again, this is a more modern view, as we believe Mary was probably around 13 years old and many young girls bore children in these times).
You are very right to say that just because something is natural, that does not make it right. Equally, it would be wrong to say that just because something is unnatural (or less common), it must immediately be wrong.
I appreciate your thoughts and contributions. Please feel free to add more to any of the postings if you wish. God bless. :-)