Why Homosexuality?
The question has been posed in a comment by zakcq and I feel that much of his comments were very thoughtful and deserve an honest response. By his first comment I have the feeling that the main thing he was questioning is, why homosexuality? Being a part of the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) we are facing the issue of homosexuality in part because of the Called to Common Mission movement, commonly called CCM, and our churches joint agreement with the Episcopalian Church and a heavy move by those GLBT activists and supporters that wish to impose on the ELCA a statement of faith that denies the sinfulness of homosexuality, so for me it is personal and I am having to face the question. I need to respond to the "anti" litany that was given because it lends itself to a very broad assumption that I think is unfair, but it is commonly misused and abused.
I am not "anti" anyone - homosexual, fundamentalist, buddhist, muslim, etc. Just because I don't agree with them does not make me against them, I don't agree with many things and many people but does that make me against them?
The problem with this debate is an understanding of "sin" which no one seems willing to define in this entire argument. Those that I have spoken with on the GLBT side continually argue that "sexuality is a gift from God and God created me homosexual, so therefore how can it be sinful?" This argument neither answers the question of sin because it is only a half-truth, just as telling someone that Jesus Christ was a man, true, but if that is all that is said it is heresy because Jesus Christ was both man and divine. So the statement that sexuality is a gift from God or better stated sex is a gift from God only gives a half-truth because all of us are sinful and the gifts that we receive from God are also corruptible in our sinfulness, so the argument that sex is a gift from God and if with that gift sexual desires are given for those of the same sex than poses the false argument that if sex or sexuality is a gift from God, then any sexual desire that we have must therefore be naturally placed there given by God and cannot be sinful (Pelagius made similar arguments). Utilizing this argument should make all sexual sin not sinful, correct?
This is very personal because it has entered into the church of which I am a part and threatens to tear it apart. It is very personal because it turns the focus away from Jesus Christ and on homosexuality. I don't look at myself as being overly righteous, I admit that I am sinful and only through Jesus Christ can I be redeemed. I just don't believe it is being truthful to acknowledge that homosexual relations is not sinful and would not be loving of me to say something that God has truly convicted me is wrong.
When I was outside of Christ homosexuality did not bother me in the slightest. I had many homosexual friends and in college let some of my friends use the extra bed in my room when I wasn't there. I have visited gay establishments and have worked with many homosexuals in my life. I prided myself on the connotation that I was "straight, but not narrow". What changed me is coming to faith and the Holy Spirit convicting me that homosexual relations was sinful just as I was convicted and am continually convicted of my own sinfulness. God has changed me and within the context of the church I have to stand on the conviction placed on my heart. Outside of the church, politically it is a nonissue for me, but when it comes to the spiritual issues involved I must speak the truth in love. I have no dislike for homosexuals, I love them and they are welcome, but the sin I do not and cannot love. I will not bless or ordain adultery, gossip, murder, etc., why is it that I am judged for not believing that it is the same or should be the same with homosexuality?
Here's some other questions I have on the GLBT movement:
GLBT stands for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered...
I can understand how the gay marriage movement benefits Gays and Lesbians, but I don't understand the benefit that it would have for Bisexuals or Trangendered people, can someone explain?
How can someone who is bisexual ever truly be in a committed relationship? If so, how is a committed relationship defined?
What biblical and historical information is there that supports homosexuality?
Where is the conclusive science on the "gay gene" theory?
These are just some things that I've pondered and asked, but no one can really seem to answer without throwing in emotional appeals...just the facts, all I want is the facts.
The greatest issue that we face with this issue is defining sin - the difference from how I understand sin and how it is utilized by the GLBT's and their supporters is I define sin as a state of being and they define it as judgment. I would argue that biblically sin is and has always been defined is a state in which we all find ourselves which is a state of being. Once we can all come to terms with and agree on the biblical definition of sin then the talk can truly happen. The biggest problem with this debate is it's not a debate at all because of buzzwords like diversity and tolerance have had there definitions perverted. Diversity of thought means or at least meant an openness to look at various viewpoints, understand various ideas, and respect man different cultural and social identities and tolerance was a willingness and an openness to others views and ideas, but the perversion that has entered in the definition is that there must also be acceptance of and agreement with those viewpoints and/or ideas.
The question has been posed in a comment by zakcq and I feel that much of his comments were very thoughtful and deserve an honest response. By his first comment I have the feeling that the main thing he was questioning is, why homosexuality? Being a part of the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) we are facing the issue of homosexuality in part because of the Called to Common Mission movement, commonly called CCM, and our churches joint agreement with the Episcopalian Church and a heavy move by those GLBT activists and supporters that wish to impose on the ELCA a statement of faith that denies the sinfulness of homosexuality, so for me it is personal and I am having to face the question. I need to respond to the "anti" litany that was given because it lends itself to a very broad assumption that I think is unfair, but it is commonly misused and abused.
I am not "anti" anyone - homosexual, fundamentalist, buddhist, muslim, etc. Just because I don't agree with them does not make me against them, I don't agree with many things and many people but does that make me against them?
The problem with this debate is an understanding of "sin" which no one seems willing to define in this entire argument. Those that I have spoken with on the GLBT side continually argue that "sexuality is a gift from God and God created me homosexual, so therefore how can it be sinful?" This argument neither answers the question of sin because it is only a half-truth, just as telling someone that Jesus Christ was a man, true, but if that is all that is said it is heresy because Jesus Christ was both man and divine. So the statement that sexuality is a gift from God or better stated sex is a gift from God only gives a half-truth because all of us are sinful and the gifts that we receive from God are also corruptible in our sinfulness, so the argument that sex is a gift from God and if with that gift sexual desires are given for those of the same sex than poses the false argument that if sex or sexuality is a gift from God, then any sexual desire that we have must therefore be naturally placed there given by God and cannot be sinful (Pelagius made similar arguments). Utilizing this argument should make all sexual sin not sinful, correct?
This is very personal because it has entered into the church of which I am a part and threatens to tear it apart. It is very personal because it turns the focus away from Jesus Christ and on homosexuality. I don't look at myself as being overly righteous, I admit that I am sinful and only through Jesus Christ can I be redeemed. I just don't believe it is being truthful to acknowledge that homosexual relations is not sinful and would not be loving of me to say something that God has truly convicted me is wrong.
When I was outside of Christ homosexuality did not bother me in the slightest. I had many homosexual friends and in college let some of my friends use the extra bed in my room when I wasn't there. I have visited gay establishments and have worked with many homosexuals in my life. I prided myself on the connotation that I was "straight, but not narrow". What changed me is coming to faith and the Holy Spirit convicting me that homosexual relations was sinful just as I was convicted and am continually convicted of my own sinfulness. God has changed me and within the context of the church I have to stand on the conviction placed on my heart. Outside of the church, politically it is a nonissue for me, but when it comes to the spiritual issues involved I must speak the truth in love. I have no dislike for homosexuals, I love them and they are welcome, but the sin I do not and cannot love. I will not bless or ordain adultery, gossip, murder, etc., why is it that I am judged for not believing that it is the same or should be the same with homosexuality?
Here's some other questions I have on the GLBT movement:
GLBT stands for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered...
I can understand how the gay marriage movement benefits Gays and Lesbians, but I don't understand the benefit that it would have for Bisexuals or Trangendered people, can someone explain?
How can someone who is bisexual ever truly be in a committed relationship? If so, how is a committed relationship defined?
What biblical and historical information is there that supports homosexuality?
Where is the conclusive science on the "gay gene" theory?
These are just some things that I've pondered and asked, but no one can really seem to answer without throwing in emotional appeals...just the facts, all I want is the facts.
The greatest issue that we face with this issue is defining sin - the difference from how I understand sin and how it is utilized by the GLBT's and their supporters is I define sin as a state of being and they define it as judgment. I would argue that biblically sin is and has always been defined is a state in which we all find ourselves which is a state of being. Once we can all come to terms with and agree on the biblical definition of sin then the talk can truly happen. The biggest problem with this debate is it's not a debate at all because of buzzwords like diversity and tolerance have had there definitions perverted. Diversity of thought means or at least meant an openness to look at various viewpoints, understand various ideas, and respect man different cultural and social identities and tolerance was a willingness and an openness to others views and ideas, but the perversion that has entered in the definition is that there must also be acceptance of and agreement with those viewpoints and/or ideas.
5 comments:
your being a member of the ELCA does make this a much more relevant question to you. I was unaware of your affilitation and apologize for that. In my experiance it is most often people from "non-denominational" evangelical churches who speak in the terms you do. I know a lot of ELCA members (my wife is one) and i've only ever met one other who acts and speaks like an evengelical. my mistake.
I can understand how the gay marriage movement benefits Gays and Lesbians, but I don't understand the benefit that it would have for Bisexuals or Trangendered people, can someone explain?
-people still desire a relationship. someone who is bisexual still is looking for that "special someone" they are just willing to consider anyone. just as a monk does not lose thier sexuality by being chaste, a bisexual would not lose thier sexuality by being commited to a person of either sex.
How can someone who is bisexual ever truly be in a committed relationship? If so, how is a committed relationship defined?
-read above. again. you love your wife, that doesn't mean that you loose your attraction to other people.
What biblical and historical information is there that supports homosexuality?
-biblically, the ban on homosexuality comes from the old testiment as a part of the hebrew "purity" laws. It may or may not (i don't know) fall under the same sorts of bans as pork. It has always been a struggle of christians to try and figure out what parts of the old testiment are important to us and what was for the jews at that time. Paul also addresses what could be construed as homosexuality in Romans, however, this is also unclear. In Rome, it was common practice for people to have sexual relations with people of the same sex as an act of worship to roman gods. Of course Paul is banning that, but as far as "regular" gay people it is still unclear. Historically, the roman empire was one of the "gayest" places ever, but homosexuality has existed in every culture that there are written records for.
Where is the conclusive science on the "gay gene" theory?
-this is soooo modernist. you guys always are looking for the conclusive answer. The conclusive answer is that there isn't one. My personal belief is that both sides are right. There are probably things in our physiology that make us straight or gay, and there are probably things in our upbringing and physcology that make us straight or gay.
Question for you: Would you ever go to a divorcee in your church and tell them they are living in sin?
by the way. I think the ELCA has a great opertunity in all this.
You notice when Jesus was hanging with the prostitutes and tax collectors, he never said "turn from your prostitution" or "turn from your tax collecting" he always said "turn from your sin"
if there happens to be lots of gays and lesbians who come to your church (which would be great!) perhaps you'd consider a simaller tactic. We don't need to be the holy ghost for people. That is what it is there for. It's a personal opinion, but I think that all of the work the protistant church has done in the past 500 years to try and define all of the sins has driven us needlessly apart and taken away from holy spirit. It's all of the deism of the 1700's that made us believe that we were the ones who needed to do the defining.
"I would argue that biblically sin is and has always been defined is a state in which we all find ourselves which is a state of being. Once we can all come to terms with and agree on the biblical definition of sin then the talk can truly happen."
- i just read this part again and wanted to comment on it as well. If sin is a state of being, then certainlly self-rightouesness, for example, would stand out as being the sin of choice for most chirstians. You write that we must agree so that talk can happen. If you agree that self-righteousness is a sin, then why wouldn't we spend the a large portion of our time talking about this major sin. I guess what I mean is, there aren't worse sins then other ones. By giving homosexuality so much attention, at the cost of sins that are far more rampent, it makes it appear as if you think it is a worse sin, and since most homosexuals aren't christians, we make it appear as if we think they are worse then us and that we are opposed to them (them, not the action that we may disagree with). This is our problem. Even if your intention is not to talk about a person but an action, there is no way that it will be interprited in that way, and you are making one more barrier between that person and god. I just don't see how talking about homosexuality as often as the church does serves any sort of purpose. If anything it seems counterproductive. Why isn't Jerry Falwell coming out with statement after statement about hypocracy subverting our schools, or liars in government? I truely believe that the main, if not only, reason that we focus so much on homosexuality is to avoid dealing with the stinking, rotten cancer of pharisitical behaviour that is eating at our churches and our souls. And it is not coming from the presures of our cultures, it is coming from ourselves.
"I don't agree with many things and many people but does that make me against them?"
In the end, only you, with the help of the holy ghost, can make that assesment. For me, i've spent years now trying to get people to stop hypocracy in the church, and yeah, for me, i'm reallizing right now that I am flat out against them, in fact, I may even hate them, even though it didn't start that way. That's something that I'm going to need to talk to god about.
There is a song i like:
You were so busy stearing the conversation towards the lord;
you didn't hear the voice of the spirit begging you to shut the fuck up
you thought it must be the devil trying to make you go astray
because it could not have been the Lord because you don't believe he'd talk that way.
I think the point is that a lot of the time we get so set doing what we think is right that no matter how God would try to get our attention we can't stop. I think it takes real bravery to do something unexpected when God calls, even if it isn't what other christians expect of us.
Man, zak, you really keep coming at me on this one, well, I'm pondering things still and much of what you say I don't wholly disagree with, there is truth, but it is edged and isn't the whole truth. You continually bring up the idea of self-righteousness and you also bring up a bit of what I like to call "post-modern" elitism which is to attack a statement with, "That's so modern." Well, I'm going to let you in on a little secret that I've come to know...it's all a mixed bag when you come to post-modern, nobody knows exactly what is post-modern and what's not post-modern. Isn't it true that in the world some things are and some things aren't - it's just a fact of reality. For example, I can blame alcoholism on life history, family history, cultural context, but the fact still remains that I decided to take the first drink and it escalated from there. It is true that those socio-economic and familial history does play a part, but there is no "alcoholic" gene. To say that side steps personal responsibility.
As another pastor that I heard best describe the difference between a penitent person (one who repents) and a non-penitent person (one who doesn't repent) is that a penitent sinner when they fall in the mud puddle of sin brushes off and keeps going in their walk in faith, they will encounter more mud puddles along they way, but they continue on through, whereas a non-penitent person falls in a mud puddle of sin, pitches their tent, and stays in it.
Call me self-righteous, it's just another way to marginalize my view and place yourself above me. That's fine zak go right ahead. I see it more that God has replaced my heart and has made it difficult for me to watch others stay caught up in the ugliness of sin. On your question of divorce, I don't like divorce, divorce is a broken relationship and the God that I believe in, the triune God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - is not in the business of broken relationships, He is in the business of mending broken relationships. The difference between a divorcee and what is trying to be forced into my denomination is that a practicing homosexual is in the midst of his/her sin and promoting it as between otherwise, but I will guarantee that you will almost never hear a divorcee telling others the positive benefits of divorce. Divorce is troubling for me because I know from my own life what pain it causes having witnessed my parents divorce.
Zak, I'm not trying to put myself on a holier than thou, self-righteous pedestal, but I feel that you may feel that on this issue I'm just some Roy Phelps style hick that just doesn't know any better or hasn't truly thought deeply about this issue. All I'll have to say is that you're wrong. This issue is one that saddens me, not because I think I am better, not because I think I am some great savior, but because I want to help bring the goods. I want them all to know the savior that changes lives, I want them to know the savior that has changed my life, and I need to be truthful when the truth needs to be spoken. The Holy Spirit entered me with a vengeance and it twists me up. I am in no way against homosexuals or wish to villianize them.
What is more loving one who sees a friend doing something that is potentially harmful, but does nothing in fear of offending them or the friend who does all that they can to stop the friend from continuing in the harmful way?
My problem is that when I see people in the mud puddle I stay and throw them a rope, because a rope was thrown to me. I have friends and family that hold me accountable, don't you have friends holding you accountable?
nobody knows exactly what is post-modern and what's not post-modern.
-not at all true. people may not know entirely what post-modernism means in a christian context, but philosophers have been examining post-modernism for almost 60 years now and there is are very clear ideas of what it is.
"For example, I can blame alcoholism on life history, family history, cultural context, but the fact still remains that I decided to take the first drink and it escalated from there. It is true that those socio-economic and familial history does play a part, but there is no "alcoholic" gene. To say that side steps personal responsibility."
-this is exactly my point. you are looking to have homosexuality explained, either as sociaital or physiological. Like alcoholism it is probably both, and like alcoholism, "recovery" should be a very caring, personal thing between those who are close to you and yourself and god.
"Call me self-righteous"
-i never called you self-righteous, i said, " self-rightouesness, for example, would stand out as being the sin of choice for most chirstians." Which also brings up your point about pitching a tent. My point is not to tell you that homosexuality is ok. my point is that your time would better be spent helping your churchmate tear down this tent, as many more of them are living in it.
I think you are still missing my point. if you would notice, I haven't actually said what I think about homosexuality (nor shall i) although I think you are going on the beief that I am pro? I'm the first to admit that i'm an ass. I have no problem with people thinking that, but my goal is to make people think about things that they might be unconfortable with. I just wanted you to think about whether or not the internet is an appropriate place for the kind of posting that you had put. At least two people that you don't even know saw it (myself and jessica).
You talk about having friends and family to keep you accountable. I'm all for that, and I think you should keep your friends and family accountable. I've never said that you shouldn't talk to your friends and family about this, especally if it is an issue for them. Blogging doesn't do that, and it shouldn't be compared to it.
I'm not a big fan of quoting the bible at people, (again, the whole self-righteous thing, and the fact that I tend to be an ass by nature) but I do want to leave you with a couple of example of what I'm talking about. My first challenge is to try and look at the way the gospels deal with sexuality. What did Jesus do? Second is this verse, from Romans, "We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves.
Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up."
Post a Comment