Thoughts on Homosexuality

[The Exodus]

Don't wince. This is not a rant or a hatespeech. It is a search to understand more fully how to think about homosexuality. I want to seriously engage with people who have opposing views concerning homosexuality and how it is currently being handled by the Church, and also to hear some of your opinions about it.

The first thing to do when dealing with homosexuality is to separate two things: the actual act of having sex with someone of the same sex, and the inclination to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. I only want to deal with the morality of the first distinction. No one is in complete control of their urges. I can't help the fact that I'm attracted to women anymore than homosexuals can help the fact that they're attracted to people of their sex, so let's leave that at the door. What I want to address is acting on that impulse.

Politically speaking, I'm Libertarian (though not in all ways.) I think, from a government standpoint, people ought to be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of someone else. This means I think they aren't obliged to pray, observe a given sexual orientation, honor any sort of hierarchy relationshpi between husband/wife, or even love their neighbor, for that matter.

But when it comes to Christanity, things change. I don't think we as human beings are so corrupt and depraved that we cannot recognize good and evil when we see it. I do think however that we don't always know what is best for us. There is a certain way the early Christian faith establishes this basic point. If it isn't realized, people are free to basically do whatever they want.

It's a slippery slope to start to celebrate certain behavior which has unanimously been, traditionally, immoral. If you start accepting certain actions as right, if you "change with the times" so much that your system of ethics changes as well, the progressiveness that is espoused will eventually itself be outdated and traditional. I'm reminded of a line by Lewis. Someone told him that his views were too old-fashioned. He smiled and replied, "yours will be too someday."

I've yet to encounter any Christian-based logical arguments which support the notion that homosexual practice should be celebrated that do not undermine a) reason b)authority c) tradition and d) scripture. Of course, I've heard a lot of emotional arguments, but, as far as I'm concerned, our emotions aren't the best judges. They are too fickel; they change day to day and depending on what mood one is in.

Since I believe humanity to be fallen (though not totally depraved), I think we have been given fallen bodies that we don't have total control over. With these bodies come evil passions, concupiscience, and a general attitude of rebellion (though none of these "diseases" are unconquerable, and I don't think we ought to go to Hell simply for having them or being born.) If homosexuality is celebrated because it is "part of one's nature", at what point is the line drawn? Suppose a murder honestly felt he had a predisposition to kill? How do you condemn the one act, but accept the other? I know that in the one case, you are injuring another person, but that says nothing about the argument in terms of acting on impulse or according to one's nature. Suppose your predisposition is to hate people, or never pray, or think yourself better than everyone else. How can you, based on the argument that we ought to act on our own nature, criticize any of these dispositions?

Is Christianity about denying the self? If yes, we must actually deny something we inherently desire, otherwise, we wouldn't be denying anything. It's easy for me to deny gay sex, because I do not desire it. It's not so easy for me to deny heterosexual lust, because I do desire that. According to the progressive line of thought, at what point do you say a certain action is allowed, and another action should be denied?

My point is and main contention with the progress, liberal attitude of acceptance of homosexual behavior is that it undermines our understanding of human nature. It sets up its own system of ethics and does not act as if it is handling the truth. It creates its own truth. As I said above, such a view is a very slippery slope. One that, I fear, is bound to drop off into subjectivism/post-modernism.

I think the celebration of same sex behavior is a reaction against the horrendous discrimination of homosexuals in the past. Personally, I think homosexuals are just like everybody else. Every person has temptations that are not good for them to act upon. I struggle very much with my own fallen nature, and I've never experienced homosexual attraction, which is why I speak with great cuation on the matter. But I've yet to encounter any Christian-based logical arguments which support the notion that homosexual practice should be celebrated that do not undermine a) reason b)authority/tradition and c) scripture. Of course, I've heard a lot of emotional arguments, but, as far as I'm concerned, our emotions aren't the best judges. They are too fickel; they change day to day and depending on what mood we're in.

In my view, the current arguments set forth do not offer any reasonable reason to celebrate an act that has been viewed as sinful since the beginning of Christianity.

Thoughts?

[friendofbill]

I've just been reqading a most remarkable little book entitled The Phoenix Affirmations, by Eric Elnes, pastor of CrossWalk America. It has a good bit to say abut the relationship of today's chuch to and with homosexual people.

Christian points of view on this are so diverse that it is hard to keep track of them, and everyone who has an opinion on the matter is certain that his or her opinion is the only possible correct opinion, so that any debate on the subject tends to be come an I AM RIGHT shouting match. For that reason, I tend to stay away from threads that raise the issue of homosexuality, nor will i try to insert an opinion here that says I AM RIGHT and tries to settle the thing once and for all.

I would suggest, however, that the most relevant Scripture on this subject in the NT may be John 21:20-23, the final encounter of Peter with Jesus after the resurrection. As they speak, and Jesus has patiently commissioned Peter to "Feed my sheep," Peter notices John hanging around and raises the question: "What about him?" and Jesus says, in effect, "You ask about my plans for him? What is that to you? Follow me."

I take from that passage an indication that I need to be 100% concerned with listening for directions from the Master and following those directions, not taking my brother's inventory and deciding whether he may or may not be received into the Kingdom of God. I recall that a woman was brught to him, caught in the very act of adultery, and act which is unquestionably sinful and in fact evil; and that instead of turnig up His nose at her, or lecturing her about being a bad girl, He reminded her accusers that they smelled pretty bad too. And then He told her, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." Is it likely that, had she been caught with another woman, He would have had her stoned?

So based on the passage from John, I personally would welcome a gay person just as anyone else into the church, and do what is my job to do, introduce that person to Jesus, and let Him do the judging and, if He chooses, the correcting. I think the very fact that so many Christians weigh in on this subject of homosexuality, and do not agree with each other about it, suggests that there is not one simple "Cut and dried" answer. That the "answer" each arrives at will be the answer that is suited to his or her psychological need and makeup.

I'm also reminded of a passage from Thomas Merton's New Seeds of Contemplation: "The devil makes many disciples by preaching against sin. He convinces them of the great evil of sin, induces a crisis of guilt by which 'God is satisfied,' and after that he lets them spend the rest of their lives meditating on the intense sinfulness and evident reprobation of other men." I think that explains, at least to me, the screwball fringe of Christians who parade around with signs that say "God hates fags" and turn their faith into an occasion of hate and violence. It may well be that homosexuality is sinful; certianly, most societies of men in history have held that to be so. But adultery is also sinful, and has been so defined by virtually every society; and Jesus used it as an occasion for forgiveness.

This probably does not address the question you wanted addressed; I do not think that question can be addressed, for the reasons I have outlined above. I suppose, in the long run, the issue is not "Is homosexuality evil?", which is neither proveable nor can it be dismissed, but simply, "How do we react to the homosexual who comes seeking Jesus?"

Pax domini
Art

[Karen]

Art: an excellent post. Amen.

[The Exodus]

Art, I very much agree with the attitude you take regarding homosexuals. They shouldn't be discriminated against, hated, made fun of, etc. just because their sexual inclination. Your post was a very good reminder also that Christianity shouldn't be about pointing the finger at others who have sinned, but recognizing that we all have sinned. As Jesus went on to say, "may he without sin cast the first stone."

I also appreciate you honestly saying that you did not answer the question I presented: namely, just because someone is naturally homosexual, is it morally ok to act on these impulses. This is not to say I have the right to condemn anyone who does act. As I said, I'm a sinner just like everyone else. But still, the question ought to be addressed, because, if we adopt the progressive attitude of "if it feels right, do it", we start on the down-slide of a very slippery slope.

So, thanks for your comments. I just want to make sure, though, that the the question doesn't get shuffled under the rug.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think the argument that we should accept homosexuality as an act because it is natural is really a good one, but I don't think most serious proponents of the gay rights movement really use that argument, anyway.

I do think that it is important to remember that for people who identify as gay, it is about what they are more than what they do - they primarily see homosexuality as a matter of their being, not acting, and so of course it is an emotional topic. And rightly, I think, they realize that denying something they see as part of their own nature is a bad idea - "know thyself" is an important element in our ability to understand everything else, even God.

But as for the issue of the act of homosexuality and our change in attitude toward it, I think it stems from a larger change in our understanding of marriage, procreation, love, and friendship. Love is understood as an emotional state rather than an act, marriage is seen as the highest kind of friendship rather than another kind of relationship altogether with an objective nature created by God, procreation isn't an integral part of marriage at all, merely something we do for personal fulfillment, and sex is simply an expression of emotional love or even for fun, and doesn't need to happen within marriage.

Given that change in understanding, which has been partially or fully embraced by most churches and is clearly reflected in their marriage services, I think allowing gay marriage is a totally logical conclusion.

And as for your main question, without addressing the others I don't think we can hope to go forward as churches or a Church in answering it.

[rusmeister]

You're not going to get far on a discussion like this. John has put a gag order on discussing it, which is a shame. The issue reveals the true nature of the issue - that it is a (spiritual) war where there is no compromise. One side or the other must prevail. (I understand why he did it, but it de facto means that you can have no opportunity to hear (any further) attempts to present rational defense of opposition to the justification of same-sex sexual relations.)

Most people today have no idea that there really could be rational opposition based in (what we call religious) faith. It has been couched as an issue of "rights" which is meant to squelch all talk attempting to show that it is not a question of rights at all, for example. The questions are framed in public to make opposition appear to be based on unreason .A true understanding of the best of that position is the one thing you cannot get from the media, and now you can't get it here, either. What that adds up to is a victory for supporters of same-sex relations without any understanding of who they defeated in the public arena. In the long run, it'll lead to a kind of civil war. The side that loses will go underground but won't disappear. Christianity kept one side down for nearly 2,000 years. Then suddenly, a number of churches and denominations capitulate and begin teaching the opposite of what their faith had always taught and boom - you have this situation, where the public is being taught to falsely perceive that only the proponents of same-sex relations have reason on their side.

Take a look at this thread - you can get a sense, at least, of the back -and-forth discussions - and arguments - that would result: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=7839
(I wouldn't care to repeat what I and others have already said. I would suggest taking some time to peruse that thread. Obviously, you should focus on the posts of those who hold the opposing view if you seek understanding. (I personally think Stanley's posts are especially good) The goal should be understanding the best arguments of "the enemy".

[john]