…the gay conversation
It’s been a busy and crazy day today. We’re rearranging our staff offices; I’m dealing with chicken pox at the home, dealing with a rock being thrown into our church office window [luckily, no one was in there because the pastor sitting there was home because of an ailment], getting ready to head out tomorrow to Sabbath for couple days, and blah blah blah. And it’s probably about to get a little crazier…
Last night, I finally had a chance to respond to an email I received from Dan Savage, the editor of The Stranger - wittingly described by a friend as “the alternative paper to Seattle’s alternative newspaper [Seattle Weekly]. As readers of this blog know, he authored what I thought to be a witty review of Quest Church in the paper’s last edition. I was surprised that he posted my personal email and his response on The Stranger blog for the rest of the world to see. Oh well. My hope is not to engage in battle. That is the farthest thing from my heart. Most that know me will attest to this… While many have assumptions that Christians are hate filled, bigoted and ignorant, it’s my hope that more will realize that issues of justice, compassion, and mercy are dear to the heart of Christians - because they are near to the heart of God.
I am first posting my latest email to Dan, and then posting my first email and then his response…I share this here [with some trepidation] knowing that anything can be said. I guess that’s the beauty and beastly nature of blogs. It’s my hope that my email to Dan will answer some of the numerous responses from his readers and because I know my email will be posted anyways on his blog. Last week, I very much enjoyed reading the thread of comments from Scot McKnight’s [jesus creed] post about the church’s lack of compassion with the gay community. I had no idea that I’d be smack in the middle of this conversation as the culprit of that bigotry…
Related Links: Listening; Gracious as All F#*k; and The Gay Dialogue
*****************************
My latest email:
Dan,
Thanks for the prompt reply. Maybe it’s just me, but I was surprised that you posted my reply on the Slog Blog w/o my permission. I responded to your personal email with my personal response not knowing that it would move into a public venue. Perhaps, it’s just a given and thus, will take that as an OK for me to post our dialogue on my blog. So be it. However, please do not interpret my delayed response as “silence.” I’ve been backlogged on my emails which is why I responded to your first email within the hour saying that I’d get back to you in a week or so. Clearly, you are more of a brilliant and witty writer than I am. You can articulate your thoughts quickly; I’m slow.
To your email, thanks for the education on my syntactical usage of “lifestyle.” My usage of that word wasn’t to imply that you don’t have a “similar” lifestyle to me. I’m sure you go to work, eat, fart, take care of your kids, pay exorbitant property taxes, go bowling, and remove weeds from your backyard. What “rubs” [me] the wrong way isn’t the sex either. Why would that rub me the wrong way? Isn’t sex and physical intimacy an important component of the larger human need for intimacy?
You asked me a direct question: “But where’s Quest on the gays? Just as progressive? Or leaning on Leviticus?” Thus, I tried to answer your question directly while attempting to convey [clearly I failed] that it’s neither “progressive” or “leaning on Leviticus.” You wanted an answer and I’m saying: “I acknowledge how painful it must be for the majority of the [C]hurch to disapprove of one’s gay or sexual identity. I understand that to be gay is not to put on an accessory. It’s not an elective class; not secondary, peripheral, and may not even be a choice for most. It’s personal and speaks to the core of one’s identity. While I at times in the past have been tempted by simply looking at this from a theological or sociological perspective, I have been cautioned by friends – both straight and gay – to be wise not to dehumanize the issue. It’s not simply about academics, books, exegesis, hermeneutics, interpretation…they are real issues and real stories for many people.
That is why I am cautious and discerning how I communicate my thoughts – however firm or open they might be. That is why I don’t like to openly post my “views” on the gay issue on my blog, the church site, or elsewhere because I know that it’s not just simply an issue. It involves and affects people – feelings, emotions, and souls. I’d rather respond to people individually. By the many responses you’ve received, it’s clear that your readers are pissed off at my views and thus, pissed off at me…I am a bigot, a closed minded fool, a fundamentalist, and other nice stuff.
While it may surprise you or your readers, there are many Christians [at least the ones that I roll with] that are conflicted over the issue as I am. There are many that genuinely wrestle with issues of mercy, justice, and compassion. I have wrestled, studied, prayed, argued, listened, and wrestled more over the issue. It’s not my intent to damn people. To have my answer received in such ways is what grieves me. And the reality is that it is what folks are looking for. That is what you were looking for. On both sides of the issue, people simply seem to care about the answer to this question, “Are you for or against…” The answer is the end of the conversation.
So, here are couple questions for you. Your readers are more than welcome to post their thoughts on this blog…
- Is it possible for a person to be in friendship with you that holds a different position on the gay issue?
- Is a person – despite their friendship with a gay person – automatically a bigot if they don’t share your view?
- Rhetorically speaking – can you and I be friends?
- And here’s my last question for the time being. That is, if you’re interested in dialogue – which I wasn’t quite sure by the tone I perceived in your email. Is it possible for a person or a church to be “welcoming but not affirming?”
As for your question about marriage: I don’t own marriage or the social institution of marriage. While I personally believe marriage to be a gift that God gave to creation to be enjoyed in a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman, I don’t believe in legislating my beliefs upon you or others. So, to answer your question directly, I’m open to the gay community and their right to marriage.
The church can be so obsessed with morality and conversion that it loses out on the beauty of conversation. While I can’t speak on behalf of all Christians or even all at Quest, I can only speak for myself: I am an open book. I am both a learned and a learner. I struggle with this issue even while I have an answer to your question. I am open to pursuing dialogue, conversation, and friendship – this is my life philosophy and the manner in which I seek to influence Quest as its lead pastor. I desire to learn how to better Love God and to Love my neighbors.
Look forward to your response.
e
**********************************
My first email in response [posted on his blog] to Dan’s email asking, “I know where you’re at re: women in leadership roles. found it on your blog…but where’s quest on the gays? just as progressive? or leaning on leviticus?
I really wish I was more articulate…
Dan,
Sorry for the delayed response. Not that you were waiting by your inbox waiting for my reply…
Because we are theologically so different than Mars Hill, that’s why the “Mars Hill wannabe” definitely rubbed a few of our church folks that wrong way. As you might assume, MH and driscoll can be fairly polarizing so for those on the other spectrum, it’s not the best thing to be compared to him.
Regardless, to your question about our position on gays. No matter how I answer, I know it’s going to always hurt or offend one side or the other. I say this not to be trite but it’s been a difficult issue. Always is when you’re dealing not just with an issue but one that deals with people…human souls. Quest welcomes the gay community but does not affirm the gay lifestyle.
While I can’t speak on behalf of every single person at Quest, I believe I speak for many when I share that there’s much hypocrisy in the church especially when we isolate homosexuality out of the context of the larger conversation of sexuality that needs to be addressed. Heterosexuals have much to answer to. So, while I do not affirm the lifestyle, I also believe in human rights and the rights that the gay community deserve—the most important one being the freedom to be safe. I wrestle with how a gay person can feel safe in the church—even if they are “welcomed” when their lifestyle isn’t affirmed as God honoring…
Let me know your thoughts if you have the energy.
e
*******************************
This is Dan’s response:
Is the right to marry included on your list of rights to which we’re entitled?
Re: The gay lifestyle. What you mean is gay sex, right? My “lifestyle” is probably shockingly similar to your own: go to work, go home, eat, take care of my kid, pay the bills. It’s the sex I have with my partner that rubs you the wrong way, so to speak. There is no “gay lifestyle,” Eugene. Some straight people have no kids, never marry, and sleep around—which is what the phrase “gay lifestyle” invokes. My unmarried, 45 year-old heterosexual brother Billy lives a much gayer “lifestyle” than I do.
And, yes, straight people have their own sins to answer for—but your philosophy at least allows for straight people to have fully intimate lives, loving partners, and some sexual release. Your theology disallows that for me, so… I don’t see as how that amounts to equal treatment. Copping to hetero shortcomings (“Hey, look at the way we dress!”) while advising gay people to forgo all intimacy, a.k.a. “the gay lifestyle,” does not amount to the loving tending o’ the flock that you seem to believe it does. Telling people that God disapproves of their deepest needs for love and companionship, and that they must forgo that “sin” in order to be right with God, is an act of emotional and spiritual violence.
If there was a God, you would answer for it one day. But there isn’t and you won’t.
Dan
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
I’m not a Christian nor do I ever want to go to church. Nor do I understand you Christians but I do want to thank you for taking the time to dialogue.
While you wrote it in your email to Dan, you need to know how much it pains me and the gay community when it is said or implied that God doesn’t love me the way that I am.
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
I can hardly belive that you cannot see how bigoted your position is. If you replace the word “gay” with “inter-racial” in the questions you posed perhaps you will see what makes your position untenable.
“Is it possible for a person to be in friendship with you that holds a different position on the gay issue?
Is a person – despite their friendship with a gay person – automatically a bigot if they don’t share your view?”
Is is possible for me to be friends with someone who believes that inter-racial realtionships are wrong? No.
Is a person – despite their friendship with an inter-racial person – automatically a bigot if they don’t share my view? Yes.
It’s a ridiculous claim to say I accept you but not what you do, the two are intertwined. To separate the two is a false dichotomy.
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
Eugene,
Thank you for being so sincere. I am also a Christian and a Pastor and I am in the same boat as you. There are questions that we as Christians have to be willing to answer in love
We have to admit that we may not even have all the answers and thank you for being that person who is willing to talk about issues and not just reject people.
Mary Jo Hansen
lafuentemin.com
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
I’m not Dan, and I don’t speak for Dan. And I’m not gay, nor am I a religious person. I do hang out on the Slog a lot, and I try to express moderate views there. I understand your dilemma quite well, because I spend a lot of time thinking about how to bring Christians (and gays) back into the public dialogue instead of just shouting at each other. I spend a lot of time explaining to people on the Slog that Christians are not always close-minded bigots, and now I’m going to try to persuade you that gays aren’t either. There has to be room for dialogue.
What I hope I can do is explain WHY people on the other side think the way they do. When prominent public Christians express their opposition to gays, they are, as you acknowledge above, striking at the core of who they are as people. That is hurtful, and it cannot honestly be hard for a thinking person to see that.
The reason I’m going to the trouble here is because I am impressed by your attitude. I understand the Christian attitude of searching for answers, and “learning how to love God better”. This is an aspect of Christianity that has been almost entirely lost in the public debate, which is now all about the checklist of positions and which ones you’re for and which ones you’re against, and there is no other option besides “for” or “against”, or even room to discuss things. I respect your openness on this question. And I freely ackowledge that there are just as many close-minded bigots on the “gay side”.
But here I am not addressing the Slog readership. I’m addressing you. I hope I can make contact here and we can maybe understand each other a little better. I’m thrilled that you’re even interested; I wish my many hard-right Christian relatives were!
I think you need to be more explicit about what you mean by “the gay issue”. You ask: “Is it possible for a person to be in friendship with you that holds a different position on the gay issue?” I’m not sure that being “friends” is the real question here, but if it is, clearly the answer is “no”. Because when you say “the gay issue”, you’re talking again about WHO THEY ARE.
If you change the word “gay” to “Jewish”, what happens? Obviously, it would be possible for you to “be friends” with a Jew, even though neither you nor the Jew would in a million years expect the other to change his theology. You could perhaps even have interesting and fruitful conversations about what you believe, and why. But being gay is not like being Jewish.
It’s more like being of different races. From your surname I’m guessing that you are of Asian heritage. Would you be willing to “be friends with” someone who believed that being Asian was morally wrong? Because that is exactly what you’re doing here.
Again, what is the “gay issue” you’re talking about? You say you are “open to the gay community and their right to marriage. ” That doesn’t really answer the question, does it? The question is “do you support the right of gays to marry?” And if so, in what way do you support it? If you privately agree but thunder against it from the pulpit on Sunday, as so many of your colleagues do, that’s not going to make you any friends. Because it IS a civil rights issue, where real people are being denied actual rights that you and I take for granted — like being able to inherit property, or visit your spouse in the hospital, or a thousand other things.
I think what I feel, and my gay friends feel, is that you haven’t taken the next required logical step, which is this: once you see that there are rights involved here, you have to then — HAVE TO — start to see the withholding of these rights as an injustice. You can’t just say “oh, yeah, gay marriage, it’s OK as long as I don’t have to perform them, let’s stop talking about it now”. I think a moral conscience is REQUIRED to see injustices, and feel them.
Gays are not separate from you and me. They are part of us, as people, as Americans. If they are suffering an injustice, YOU AND I are suffering that injustice too. I hope you can learn to see that.
I understand that you are conflicted over this. I can’t help you find a theological understanding of how gays can be all right, other than “God don’t make no junk”; a loving God would not make people who are fundamentally wrong. But being gay is fundamental. This is something you’re going to have to work out inside your own heart.
I think it’s going to have to involve you coming to an understanding that certain Biblical expressions are cultural and not absolute, but I don’t know. I know that even the strictest Biblical literalist has to eventually agree that there are conflicts in the Bible, and that these may represent conflicts not in God but in the understanding of God by men. And attitudes towards homosexuality may represent one of those conflicts. I’m not a theologian, so I don’t know.
Your next question, “Is a person – despite their friendship with a gay person – automatically a bigot if they don’t share your view?” That depends on what view you’re talking about. If your view is that they are excluded from the Grace of God because of their homosexuality — which is what? a sex act? an identity? a turning away from God? — then yes, you are probably never going to be able to avoid the label of “bigot”. If your view is “you shouldn’t be gay”, or “you should endeavor to become straight”, you’re never going to get anywhere with them at all, because you are denying them. “I think your belief about X, Y, or Z is wrong” is nowhere near as exclusionary as “I think that who you are is wrong”.
Your next question I’ll skip, because quite frankly I don’t understand why you would want to “be friends” with Dan, or anyone else, on the basis of what you’ve got going here.
Your last question, though is: “Is it possible for a person or a church to be “welcoming but not affirming?” “. The simplest answer from your perspective is yes, of course — you can welcome all sorts of people, and the best churches have always opened their arms to sinners of every description, because everyone is a sinner, right? But be careful here. If you’re going to say “of course we welcome sinners, prostitutes and drug addicts and homosexuals, we are all the children of God” (which I have heard people say), because you’re equating homosexuality with prostitution or drug addiction — a sinful behavior. That’s not going to make you any friends in the gay community, because that hurts people in the gay community, to say that the core of their identity is a sin, or a moral failing. Do you see the difference? We are all sinners, but your sin is not your heterosexuality. You may fall victim to crimes against God’s grace, anger, lying, covetousness, laziness, whatever, but your sexuality is not one of those. What you DO with your sexuality may be, but not the FACT of it.
If a heterosexual member of your church deceives a woman in order to persuade her to have sex with him, that is undoubtedly a sin. You might say to him, no, that’s wrong, think what you’re doing and try to go with God instead, but you wouldn’t say to him, I welcome you into my church, but I can’t affirm who you are as a person. It would never occur to you to say that. But a gay person, who has by your lights NO OUTLET for this central aspect of his personality, his sexuality, cannot be “affirmed” no matter WHAT he does sexually.
Consider this conundrum: how would you deal with a man who came to you and said, “I am gay, I have only homosexual desires, and have only ever had homosexual desires; I cannot bear to have a sexual relationship with any woman — it repulses me. But I know that homosexuality is against God’s will, so I have chosen to stifle my desire and remain celibate”. Would you welcome him? Would you AFFIRM him? Would your heart break to see him snuff out such a part of being alive? What would be your reaction if you realized that doing so is causing him terrible suffering? What does God want a person like that to do?
Because that is what the traditional viewpoint of Christian pastors has been, that that suffering is God’s will. You can understand how that would annoy some people! How can God demand suffering like that? How can God demand that injustice?
I hope I’ve helped you see the other side a little better. I don’t know if you’re ever going to persuade Dan Savage of anything; or even if you’re going to persuade him to talk to you about it. Again, I don’t speak for him. But I understand his point of view, and I think it’s a powerful one. I think you have more to gain from this conversation than he does.
But if you want to talk to him, I think you’re going to have to open up a little more than you have: you’re going to have to actually address the issue. Explain it to him — why are you not able to “affirm” him? What is it — talk about your theological point of view. What is it, specifically, about homosexuality that you cannot accept? Don’t hide behind phrases like “lifestyle” — that’s a deeply coded word that masks a lot of real feelings, possibly very ugly ones. You have to understand that most gays have been having conversations like these for years or decades; they’ve heard all the arguments, and they’re sick of it, because when you get right down to it, at core it’s about sex, and discomfort at talking about sex. I really do believe that most objections to homosexuality stem not from theology but from personal fears and personal rigidities.
But again I want to tell you that I think you’re brave, because you’re trying to bridge a political gap, and I want to see that gap bridged. I want to be able to talk to Christians. We’re all here, none of us are going anywhere, and we can’t go on shouting at each other forever. So, thank you for that.
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
PLEASE tell me that the super-long post I just typed in here and have no other copy of didn’t just disappear in a cloud of dust!
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
Fnarf: Sorry. Didn’t get posted…
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
clarity, i find the position that being gay is the same as being a person of color very difficult to accept. in my experience, it is simply not helpful to this conversation. people cannot choose their ethnicity or race. do not hear what i’m not saying: i’m not saying homosexuals can just choose to not be gay. that is a position i do not hold. i do not pretend to fully understand identity formation, but as a youth pastor, i wish i did. it would make my job much easier if i could just tell kids to quit being the way they are.
i agree with Eugene, the question of homosexuality is bigger than we “church folk” have allowed it to be and my fear is that the conversation will not happen because we are scared out of our minds that it will wreck all of Christendom. for some ridiculous reason, churches split rather than deal with issues we don’t agree on.
my hope, and what i see as Eugene’s hope, is that we can have a conversation; have a cup of coffee; argue, disagree, cry, yell, laugh, and be better human beings. my hope is that we can all somehow draw closer to our maker by taking time to have a tough conversation about both identity and spiritual formation…
thank God for grace!
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
Chad,
I am confused by your response. Why is the analogy not helpful to you? If you agree that sexual preference is not a choice then it really is the same thing.
You might not wish to admit to your inegalitarian beliefs but they are there.
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
here’s where i’m coming from. i’m very sorry i wasn’t clear enough. when a person walks into a room or into a church you cannot tell his/her sexual preference. however, when an African-American walks in, he/she cannot hide their skin color; it is impossible. we can pretend to be a lot of different things and deny our true identity, but a person of color cannot hide their skin. for example, one cannot be pulled over for being gay, but many black Americans have been pulled over unjustly. i hope this helps clarify my previous comment.
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
Eugene - I want to thank you for engaging in this conversation so respectfully, even though I am someone who falls 100% in the “nothing at all wrong with gays, gay sex, etc.” camp. I love Dan, but personally wish he had been a touch more respectful in his response.
What I want to know is, if it’s not the sex that rubs you the wrong way and it’s not because Leviticus says it is so, then, why is there any conflict at all for you with this issue? What is the rationale for not affirming the “gay lifestyle”? I am not sure you articulated your rationale for that in your letters….
I can understand why Christians believe the seven deadly sins (or other major sins) are sins — committing them harms the sinner or others, or is generally indicative of poor character or lack of self-control. But, I don’t understand at all why homosexual sex (or homosexuality) would be considered a sin by Christians. It is truly baffling to me sometimes…
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
I am responding to you as both a gay man and a Christian.
I grew up in one of the most conservative denomination in the Protestant Christian religion, Southern Baptist. I would remember that every year, the youth minister would dedicate one full month on preaching how being gay is evil. I always knew that I was gay, even before my teenage years, I knew I was gay, but was suppressing it because I was afraid of what others might think.
It is funny that people don’t ask themselves the questions if they are gay are not. If you are heterosexual, the obvious answer is that you are not gay. You are attracted to members of the opposite sex. Can you ever change the fact that you are attracted to members of the opposite sex? Nope. Why the double standard on gay people? Sexual orientation is not a sexual preference. Sexual preference is how one has sex rather than who you have sex with. That you can choose, orientation is something you cannot choose. Also, there is some interesting data that has just come out that shows gay people display different genetic marking that would suggest it might be genetic.
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
Actually Chad, there are African-Americans who have “passed” for White so it’s not impossible for someone to hide their ethnicity…just incredibly difficult for those on the darker end of the spectrum. Also, while being gay might not be immediately obvious it is quite frequently noticable. Long before many of the gay people I know ever came out of the closet people knew. People knew in high school and gave these boys a hard time, they knew in junior high and picked on them, they knew in elementary and teased them. And as for the argument that gays dont get pulled over for “driving while gay” like Blacks get pulled over for “driving while Black” that doesn’t stand either because gays have been attacked simply for being gay. If you look at the numbers of hate crimes you cannot say that gays are not identifiable, if they weren’t identifiable then there would be no hate crimes commited against them by strangers,.
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
I think Julie has a good question.
I’d suggest that whenever there is a social change, there are always people who would rather have things be as they have been than take the opportunity to ask, “Do I have a chance now to hurt fewer people?” Society has changed and the way people interact with Christianity has changed as well. Christians have a long and magnificent past to consider.
It would be facile to say Jesus would have looked at every single change with an eye towards helping those who had previously been downtrodden and discarded… He was a human, right? And clearly of the opinion that some people were wrong and ought to be shown a better way. So who knows if he had classes of people he just irrationally didn’t like?
Still, the image is of a guy who went out of his way to point out that the poor and disadvantaged and victims of racism and all were more welcome to him than those sitting the catbird seat.
And I don’t think Christians should worry about social change. Gods are tough. I can’t forsee a time when “I am that I am” would have to slow his mustang down.
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
chad: What does the identifiability of race vs. sexual orientation have to do with it anyway? I don’t see what that has to do with whether or not it’s a valid metaphor. Also, your automatic jump to the white+black in an interracial marriage. I guess that’s that’s natural, but what about a marriage between a curly-haired jew-lookin’ white dude (like me!) and an ethnically-jewish girl. If you frown upon that marriage, yes, you’re a bigot and no, I can not be your friend.
Same thing with gay marriage. I’m sorry bigot, I can (and will!) be friendly to you like I am friendly to everyone, but we’re not going to be friends.
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
Chad,
Your first comment says that race and sexuality are non-equivalent - and your justification indicates such!
You assert: “People cannot choose their ethnicity or race. ” This is your justification for why race is not equivalent for comparison. Logically, if this is the only reason offered (as it is in your response), the implication is that gays do choose. You then follow this by asserting that you do not know or believe that gays choose their orientation.
This is cognitive dissonance!
So I can respond in one of two ways.
1) I can try to address the issue that sexuality, at least in the case of some, is innate. A single gene controls sexuality in flies. And while we are not flies, this supports the notion that there is a biological underpinning in sexual orientation. If you want to deny the science out there, it’s your prerogative. Obviously there’s a lot more to love than a simple gene, but at its very core attraction is a biochemical response to a visual stimulus. Not that it’s not magical or spiritual in its own right, but fundamentally, we’re in the realm of biochemistry.
2) I can ask you what you really meant, because both in that reply, and the one that followed, you back-peddled and didn’t really progress your argument. So, either race and sexuality are a fair comparison, or they’re not. Just because you can “hide” sexuality but you can’t hide race doesn’t make sexuality any less integral to the you that is you.
But simply suggesting that one can hide their sexual orientation and not their race, and that’s why “People cannot choose their race or ethnicity” - what you’ve really said in all this is, “People can choose to hide their sexuality, but they cannot hide their race or ethnicity.”
And really - that’s an evil position to take.
I’d rather accept G-d on my own terms and contribute to society as a cancer researcher than have anything to do with a religious organization that subscribes to that belief. I suspect at the end of the day I’ll have done more for humanity than those who’ve sought to prevent the inclusion of my family and myself in a spiritually rich atmosphere.
Thursday, June 28, 2007 at
As a Quest member as well as daughter of a gay parent–I will share a couple thoughts:
I believe there is a deep need to respect the unimaginable heartache the Christian Right has caused among the gay community thus far. Regardless of WHAT we (individually) believe on the issue–we have to recognize that, as followers of Jesus, we have royally screwed up in loving the lgbt community.
We need to apologize. over, and over, and over again.
We need to speak LOUDLY against those who are responsible for the degradation of the lgbt community, both socially, spiritually, and politically.
As Christians, it is not enough to simply welcome discussion with the lgbt community–I think we tend to make the mistake of patting ourselves on the back for being willing to engage in dialog. The hope of engaging in conversation with people who have been so deeply hurt, for so long is–in my belief–asking for too much, at this point. Though, if the lgbt community has enough grace towards a group (Christians) whom have caused them so much pain–that they would be willing to engage in such conversation–then, well,maybe we ought to take a lesson from them on what it means to show love and grace.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Pastor Eugene,
Sounds like you’re having an intense week. I want you to know how much I appreciate your leadership and sincerity. Coming to Quest has been incredible. You and the other pastors have done much to change my views of church. I appreciate that much of what you’ve written here is what you seek to communicate in your teaching on a regular basis. Hang in there and thank you.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Dan’s statement that Christian philosophy narrowly allows for straight people to have intimacy, love, and so-called “sexual release” simply disturbs me. It isn’t so much what is written that worries me (he does have some rationale, after all) as much as the fact this argument exists. Why has our society delegated (emotional) intimacy and love to marriage? I find it simply stupid that there should be a one person maximum on the amount of absolute trust and faith we can have. Although I agree physical connections can catalyze friendship, it’s odd to equate body contact with mutual belief in the other. Maybe this is just my life experience, but I don’t understand the connection.
I don’t like the word “release” regarding sex. I’m stealing this from someone in my memory, but it turns sex into a bowel movement. Using my own life as an example, I’ve been asked a few times, recently, why I do not have a “girlfriend,” probably on the basis of my age and social status (this seems weird and elitist to write in an anonymous blog comment, but it is honest; if I was in need of a significant other it would not be that hard). Simply put, I’m a Christian and if God wants me to die an unmarried virgin, it wouldn’t be a loss. I have greater passions in life other than being distracted by hormones, (That’s what I wish I could say, but to be honest, I am distracted quite a bit.) Nevertheless, I really enjoy my life, sans “sexual release.” I’m totally straight and I think it is likely I will one day get married, but I’m open to the possibility of there not being anyone.
I hear about far-right or semi-far-right Christians trying to reorientate sexualities of the “broken”, and it sounds like the wrong idea to me. If anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, single or married, cannot resist sex or lust (not mere sexual<i> feelings</i>) then the problem isn’t of orientation but of magnitude.
On a tangent: I do not have any faith in this following statement, but I have toyed with it on occasion. I’m so scared to simply suggest it, I even put it as a question. <i>Is homosexuality God’s gift to help some resist heterosexual marriage?</i> If anyone isn’t exhausted by my late-nite ramblings, I’m curious about responses.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
FNARF: look what i found in the spam box! you wrote so much that it went in there. God answered your prayers…
you wrote so much that i don’t know where to start in my response.
Kate: thanks for sharing those succint but powerful thoughts.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Hi,
This topic is particularly sensitive, so if you will, please bear with me as I try to paint a new landscape for our journey towards the truth about who we are.
I identify as a human.
And let me just say at the outset that I don’t believe we are going to convince anyone of anything concerning identity (sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender roles) unless we have a foundation of empathy and compassion. So, all you bitter and angry bloggers out there, before you read my comment, you should probably give me a call first–and we can meet over coffee so you can vent, and I can listen. Don’t read this if you don’t intend on hearing me out.
…
I believe that every one of us bears the image of the beautiful, communal, life-affirming God of Creation.
I believe that every one of us and our communities also reflects a distortion and perversion of this identity.
And while I’m not great enough a scholar to convince everyone on everything I believe, I would hope that we can all agree that beauty and ugliness co-exist in this world. And If we can agree on that, then the next nugget that follows is that these two natures rage inside each of us, revealed in our behavior towards ourselves and others… that we are simultaneously capable of the highest good and the darkest evil. That we can say, “I love you, Mom,” over the phone and in the same breath say “Fuck you,” as we wish death on the guy who cuts us off on the freeway.
But this is where we might disagree:
I believe that the way I am and the way things are–my behavioral problems and the status quo–just won’t cut it.
I believe we must recover an identity that allows us to pursue freedom and wholeness as individuals, and fairness and dignity for others without the burden of guilt and shame that society and religious people often heap upon us.
To recover this identity, Jesus Christ says (in no weak language) that the caveat is that I must embrace my death. Yet, as I do this, I end up finding true life.
…
“The gay thing” is not the issue. Although people tried to make it the issue, It never was. At the core, it is about empathy and compassion. It is about acceptance and care. It should be about a common vigilance to shed all that is lesser in pursuit of what is right and just. People were created with dignity and should be treated with fairness, but everyone (Christian or not) misses the point. We all want to feel heard and loved.
But it is when we say we are content with ourselves with regard to this core issue of love that we lose our ability to change the world. And, whether we admit it or not, most of us who want to see social reform need some grace and mercy every now and then.
The problem here is that we all want to demonize others so that we can feel right. I personally think it’s much more freeing to admit that we got it wrong.
After all is said and done, who we share our lives with and who we show love to will show what we really believe.
The gay non-Christians will tell you who the real Christians are.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
One comment on the gay marriage/inter-racial marriage discussion… For me, the analogy is a useful one in this discussion because it’s just as totally nonsensical to be opposed to gay relationships as it is to be opposed to inter-racial relationships. I don’t think the “is being gay the same thing as being black” conversation is the point, though. The point is that opposition to being gay or being black (or gay relationships or inter-racial relationships) is completely illogical and unable to be supported by any argument or rationale I have ever heard (which is why I am curious what Eugene’s rationale is on “the gay issue”).
I am 29. In my grandparent’s generation, it was socially acceptable to be racist. My grandfather fought the in the Pacific theater in WWII and hated Japanese people. When I was 12, my best friend’s grandfather did not want us to see The Bodyguard because of the inter-racial relationship it portrayed (Kevin Costner/Whitney Houston). Behind his back, we laughed and rolled our eyes at him. Why would you care that a black woman and a white man were dating? It made absolutely no sense, and we just wrote it off to having grown up in a different time. For my generation, though racism still exists, it is not socially acceptable to be a racist or to disprove of inter-racial relationships (well, maybe at Bob Jones University, but in most circles anyways).
My parents are not homophobic, but many of their generation are (I am using homophobia casually to mean everything from outright hatred of gays to “love the sinner, hate the sin”). In my generation, there are fewer who are homophobic, but it certainly still there. I sincerely believe (hope?) that in 20 years, my children and everyone of their generation will be rolling their eyes and thinking, how could anyone care that people are gay?
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Eugene,
I find this situation to be ironic of sorts. You have been the first and only Christian pastor in the years that I’ve been to church that have regularly preached love, compassion, and grace to be extended to the Gay Community. You do this while still speaking of God and the nature of sin - and all of us are sinners. So, how is it that you’re being compared to other pastors and christian leaders that preach hate and intolerance on the Slog?
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Wow, what a beautiful mess this is. I am really glad to see such honest conversation from so many people, especially since it’s obvious that so many have been hurt by the Gay/Christian divide.
Fnarf, you’re absolutely right, there is a lot discussion that’s been going on in the LGBT community that Christians are ignorant of, and I really appreciate reading your response, I think I learned a lot about the psyche of the LGBT community.
I also agree with Katie, and want to apologize here as a Christian - or rather, a follower of Jesus (speaking of loaded words) - to any gay person I’ve offended merely by claiming the religion that has come to represent so much suffering in this world.
Finally, thanks PE for your honesty. Praying for grace-filled conversations from both sides and that it won’t be over next week.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
RG - I think it’s because for many gay people, this is a binary issue. Do you accept me as a human being as I am or not? There’s no middle ground. Obviously, everyone understands that there is a difference between pastors who scream from the pulpit that homosexuals are going to hell and someone who wants to engage in a respectful conversation, but who still believes in “love the sinner, hate the sin”. But, for people for whom this is an intensely personal, emotional issue, who have experienced so much hatred in their lives just for being who they are, sometimes it’s just tempting to lump everyone together - are you for me or against me?
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Lets not talk about Bob Jones University…that is too close to home. I worked/served with alot of students from that school back in the day. (hehehe…so I will not go there)
Back on track, Pastor Eugene addressed some keys questions to Dan, which places a reciporal responsiblity; the responsibility the gay community has to the community as a whole.
It far harder or more of a challenge to fight against an institution (i.e. church and their beliefs) but its far more rewarding to gain a friend with someone who will accept you where you are or for who you are and that doesn’t mean they have to agree with it all.
My only concern with a debate like this is, is this venue. Talks like this need to be more personable, in my opinion.
Keep it simple and fair.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Fnarf: Thank you so much for your perspective, and even more, the respectful and constructive way in which it was presented. I too am a member of Quest and think it is odd that P.E. is getting slammed like this, so much so that it kept me up for several hours after my initial reading last night when I was attempting to go to bed. lol. I spent the time wrestling with this issue in my head and trying to reconcile, refine, re-work my personal beliefs and views so that they would be more in line with the absolute love that God’s story is about. Although I disagree with one or two minor points that you made, you have given me a good deal to chew on and consider. Again, thank you very very very much for your input on this matter.
Thank you to everyone, especially you P.E.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
JULIE [dang, i really wish there was a numbering system for the comments] - thanks for your questions.
it’s clear that i need to be careful with the loose word choices i have used like “gay issue” or “lifestyle” and such… i’m still thinking of a better term or phrase to describe what I’m alluding to.
like many at quest, i don’t take the bible in its literal interpretation. the bible is an expression of God’s love. i have no problem saying that it is the word of God but cringe when words like inerrancy and infallibality are used. i don’t worship the Bible. i worship and love God. I worship and love Jesus. in my relationship with God, i acknowledge both my BEAUTY AND DEPRAVITY. I believe that I am a sinner - wicked, depraved, and hopeless on my own. I don’t mind sharing that because the depth of God’s love and grace is that much more profound as I reflect upon the nadir of my depravity.
when people ask me my views about the “gay issue,” i answer it from the perspective that it is asked upon me. i am a pastor. people come to me asking my views as a christian and as a pastor. i’ve found it difficult to dialogue with people with bible verses, exegesis, and such because our interpretations can be so different. even the so-called scholars of the Bible and Hebrew/Greek have varying opinions.
the question i wrestle with is NOT “Does God love gays?” that’s an affirming yes.
the question i wrestle with is “In God’s perfect creation, before the Fall of humanity, is homosexuality what God intended?
JULIE and OTHERS - I’ll be in and out of town for the next few days so you’ll have to excuse me if I’m unable to regularly chime i here as I’m unsure of my internet access.
peace…
e
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Like Dan Savage, my partner and I are adoptive parents. Our “gay lifestyle” is tending to our family. When choosing a church, we don’t settle for one that is “welcoming but not affirming”. It’s not healthy for us and it’s not healthy for our sons.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Well, Eugene, I personally think that YES, homosexuality is what God intended, because if he didn’t, why are there so many of them? I can’t believe that something so basic to how people are can possibly be considered a sin.
I do understand how some kinds of gay BEHAVIOR can be considered a sin. I don’t agree, but that’s not important. As long as your position on sexual behavior is honest and true and consistent, it’s your belief. No one has ever suggested that pastors should bless anonymous sex in bathhouses or those hideous rainbow flags if they don’t like them.
There are of course all kinds of heterosexual BEHAVIOR that various churches frown on, and non-sexual behaviors as well. But we’re not talking about behavior; we’re talking about IDENTITY.
Look at my example again. A heterosexual man commits a bunch of sexual offenses — not crimes, just sleazy behavior that the church doesn’t approve of. He comes to you and says “I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have, I won’t do it anymore”. He, I’m sure, would be completely welcomed back into the arms of the church, and no one would say anything about “well, we’re not opposed to your basic sexuality, just the way you have expressed it”. But that IS what you are saying to gays.
You’re saying, “I’m uncomfortable with who you are”.
You’re saying “I know it’s not a choice, but it sure looks like a choice to me, so I’m going to act as if it was one — but I want credit for agreeing that it’s not a choice anyways”.
The person who needs to step in here and talk to you is a homosexual Christian, who can tell you from their perspective how they arrived at the position they hold. I probably can’t go any further with you here. But I know that many Christians HAVE come to a way of thinking where they can accept and embrace homosexuals.
I think you’ll find that most homosexuals are not all that interested in having straight people agree that they have a right to exist. They don’t want your approval; they want your absolute acceptance. Homosexuals are God’s creations too. Aren’t they? There’s all kinds of people in the world.
I struggled with this a long time ago, but not anymore. Now, it’s a complete non-issue with me. I love my homosexual brothers and sisters exactly as much as my straight ones, in exactly the same way. Look at it this way: I don’t want to have sex with them, but I don’t want to have sex with most straight people either. When I’m hanging out with my buddies, we’re not having sex; we’re enjoying life. What kind of sex we have isn’t an issue; I don’t know and I don’t care. Homosexuality is just part of life, the same as heterosexuality is. The sexual impulse is a really weird and confusing part of the brain, anyways.
And remember this, too: when you suppress it, you damage people. You damage people when you turn them away from your heart, and when you say “I’ll accept your presence, but I don’t agree with what you are”. And one of the biggest ways you damage people is by turning them against THEMSELVES.
Look at some of the high-profile incidents recently. Look at Ted Haggard. Here’s a man who as much as any man on earth wants to be straight. But he can’t. And he hates what he is inside, and that hate drives him to completely insane acts. Not just the sex he sought out, or the drugs, but the deeply perverted words of “Christianity” he made himself speak in his church. You say you’re wrestling with whether God intended homosexuality? What do you think God’s view of one of His spokesmen on earth using his pulpit to express self-loathing like that?
It’s the most tragic thing on earth, seeing a man who believes that he himself is an abomination before his God. But that’s where people end up.
A lot of homosexuals frankly don’t care. They don’t go to your church, they don’t talk to you or other Christians, they live their lives the way they want to. They’re denied some basic rights but on a day-to-day basis they are to a large extent untouched by bigotry. That’s the whole point of having gay cities and gay neighborhoods. In fact, a lot of what gets called “the gay lifestyle” was created specifically because they’ve been excluded from “the straight lifestyle” for so long, at least if they want to be honest.
But a lot of homosexuals, closeted ones, are afraid and terrorized. They’re terrorized by their own thinking, terror that is reinforced by their surroundings, if they live in an anti-gay Christian congregation. Think about what that would be like for a minute.
I know you don’t think the race argument is valid, but think about it for a minute. Think about a black, or mixed-race person who is light enough to “pass”. they can pass for white, but that means that when they live in the white world they are constantly denying themselves. Denying yourself? I think that’s worse, ,more painful, more damaging, than denying God. Remember, too, that in parts of the US, until quite recently, you were “black” if you were as much as 1/16 black — 1/32nd black and you were “white”. Do you really want to revive that kind of destruction of personhood?
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Blake: Pastor Eugene isn’t getting “slammed”. Please step away from the victimhood a little! It’s a delicate discussion — for you guys, and for us. It’s hard for you to find a way to discuss homosexuality openly and directly without giving offense, and it’s hard for people like me to find a way to discuss Christianity without giving offense. The whole point of this discussion is that we are, I hope, both setting aside the emotional aspects of our grievances here. If you want to progress, you’ll let your toes get stepped on a little. That’s how it works, if you want it to work.
I am willing to let you get a little offensive if you need to, as you learn how to talk about the issue. It’s like I always say, “how do I know where the line is if I don’t cross it a little here and there?” People, especially in today’s political climate, are all set to jump up at even the tiniest perceived offense. I think if you want to get somewhere here we both have to let that down a little.
No one is getting slammed. The people who are slamming you (and they exist, you’d better believe it!) are not here on this forum.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
e cho:
I mean this criticism constructively: Your greatest weakness in your discourse lies in your use of allusions. “i’m still thinking of a better term or phrase to describe what I’m alluding to,” you say in your precious post.
Stop alluding. Just say it. We’re all grown up, and dancing around the issue with allusions that are subject to misinterpretation will only lead to further misunderstandings. Just say exactly what you mean, and we’ll go from there.
You also wrote:
“In God’s perfect creation, before the Fall of humanity, is homosexuality what God intended?”
I think you need to explain that more fully. If the answer to that is “No”, what does that mean, exactly, for those who are not purely heterosexual?
Would that make them a mistake? Sounds a little harsh to me. Or do you mean to imply that homosexuality is the devil’s work, thereby making homosexuality satanic in nature? (I’m asking, not assuming that’s what you meant). Those are the only two explanations I can think of which involve an answer of “No”.
I fail to see any productivity in even asking that question. It is a question which cannot be answered, as God’s intentions cannot be fully known by mankind. But in asking it, we invite people to answer it anyway. And as I have shown, some of the answers to that question invite bigotry of the worst kind.
As well ask if God meant for there to be people with allergies. The question of whether or not allergies were “intended to exist by God before the fall” is a question nobody ever asks — because it is ridiculous. And I contend it is just as ridiculous to ask that of homosexuality.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Except, Toby, that allergies are a defect, while homosexuality is not. That’s the crux of the issue. But your basic point is a good one.
A better analogy would be blue eyes and brown eyes. Chad, way up above, said about race “you cannot hide your skin color”, but you can hide your eye color. What if everyone was wearing sunglasses? The “sunglasses of homosexuality” (oh, dear, that’s bad, but hang on) is the fact that we’re not having sex. I mean, really, when someone says to me “I’m gay” or “I’m straight”, what meaning does it have TO ME if I’m not going to have sex with him or her? Frankly, I don’t even know (or care) if they’re telling the truth or not.
But some people believe that being homosexual is against God’s perfect creation. There’s your issue.
Put it this way: if I came into your church and said “I’m homosexual, but celibate; I’ve never had a gay sexual experience, even though I want to”, would you affirm him?
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Eugene: bravo.
Fnarf: bravo.
This should become a book or something. Everyone needs to read this.
Confirmed what I suspected: Clearly there is injustice; this has become a new civil rights movement.
After reading the other side, I see the (C)hurch is more clearly in the Pharisee tradition now more than ever.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
I know this is a hard and uncomfortable conversation. But I think its an important one, and I’m so glad for a place like there were people can just try to be honest and say what they think. Thanks for creating this kind of space, Eugene.
Fnarf - I really appreciate so much of what you have said. While I disagree with you on some points, I need to hear what you’re saying and I appreciate you taking the risk to show your heart. I’m wondering though, do you recognize the importance of the listening to the voices of those who recognize their attraction to the same sex, and yet choose to not act on it because of their Christian beliefs? Not every Christian who is attracted to the same sex is a Ted Haggard living in denial about it. Some are people with lots of self-awareness and openness about where they are - but, for their own personal reasons, they choose to not act on it. It’s not self-hatred, or denial of who they are. I think that perspective is important too in this conversation. I’d hate to paint an un-nuanced picture of Christians who are attracted to the same sex as either being fully accepting of it (and therefore healthy) or in denial about it (and looking like Ted Haggard). There is a legitimate middle ground where many Christians live of their own free choice.
At the end of the day, I want to love people and their sexual attraction does not get them included or excluded from that any more than their eye color. I just want to point out that there is a very wide range of healhyt positions that Christians can take on this. I have friends who are Christians and homosexuals. They have no desire to change, and I have no desire to ask them to. But, I also know people who recgonize their attractions, and choose not to live by them - and that is a healthy and legit choice for them too.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Yes, Fnarf, you are absolutely right: allergies are a flaw, homosexuality is not.
I chose my example on the basis that no matter what you or I say, some will still see homosexuality as a fault of some kind. In fact, the question itself implies (heck, it screams) that homosexuality may be a flaw. I was attempting to illustrate how the question is moot either way.
Flaw or not, it makes no difference. It is still a ridiculous question to ask, as the question has no real productive answer. People with allergies are not condemned or beset upon by Christians for having allergies. They are not forbidden to have allergic reactions by their church.
Homosexuals will still be homosexuals, regardless of the answer, and if it is a “flaw”, it is still wrong to deny them the right, the need, to be accepted.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Jennifer, I think it’s really sad to think that there are people who don’t have any sexual expression at all, because that’s what their religious beliefs tell them is necessary. Because that’s what it sounds like you’re saying: it’s OK to be homosexual as long as you don’t “act on it”, i.e., have any sex at all.
That sounds soul-destroying to me.
Think about it: I want to, but I mustn’t. You are still fighting yourself. And by “want to” I’m not even necessarily talking about sex; I’m talking about the freedom to love one another. A healthy Christian heterosexual marriage is about a million other things besides sex acts. Are these denied to homosexuals too? Must they say “no, I want a life companion, but I mustn’t act on it”?
Sure, this might work for some people, but not for many.
Is there a different middle way, that says that sexuality is part of God’s creation whatever form it takes? Obsessive adherence to the strictest possible understanding of “the rules” can get in the way of God’s love. Love is what it’s all about, isn’t it? Paul in the second letter to the Corinthians, 3:16: “the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life”. (Oh, no, I’m quoting scripture, not a good sign at all).
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
[...] do this because Eugene’s convo w/Dan Savage of The Stranger on homosexuality and religion is an eye-opening, enlightening, [...]
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Jennifer,
Yes, this might be “hard and uncomfortable” for you. It is hard for people to admit that they are oppressing others…you can say all of the things that make you feel better, “I want to love people.” But at the end of the day you are still being bigoted and discriminatory towrds and entire group of people simply because of who they are. Alos, I disagree that it is a healthy and legit choice to not act on love. If you love someone and deny it in order to live up to the standards of your religion, you are not embracing your true self.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Fnarf,
I understand that it seems outrageous, even impossible, to you. You are totally free to hold that opinion.
I guess it doesn’t seem that odd to me because I know Christian heterosexuals who, for their own reasons, choose to live in celibacy. They freely choose it. And they are happy with their choice. Who am I to tell them they are living a soul-destroying life? I don’t see why Christians who are attracted to the same sex would be any different. The life of celibacy, when freely chosen, is a legitimate Christian option that is not an expression of self-hatred. This is a long-standing part of our tradition that some people follow for their own reasons. Who am I to say that is a choice that makes them less than whole?
While I would never want to try and change anyone who didn’t want to change…I also wouldn’t want to withhold support from those who freely choose celibacy (or even those who, despite the presence of same-sex attractions, still pursue heterosexual marriage). I respect your opinion, and I understand that we may differ here…but I just think if we’re going to talk about this issue we should use the full spectrum of colors, not just 2 polarized ends of the spectrum.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
“I also know people who recgonize their attractions, and choose not to live by them - and that is a healthy and legit choice for them too.”
Jennifer, unless you were also referring to hetersexuals who chose to be celibate, I’ll have to disagree with you too.
Celibacy, in and of itself, is fine and dandy when freely chosen. When a group of people are encouraged (by being told their sexual preferences are evil or sinful or what have you) to take up celibacy so that they will be deemed “more acceptable” to another group which does not have to practice celibacy… well that’s a double-standard, to say the least.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
LOL
And I see that you were, Jennifer.
The last paragraph of my previous post is still relevant, though.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
[...] a breakthrough article from our colleagues down in Seattle that wrestles with this issue. And some of the more quotable [...]
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Toby,
LOL :-)
Yes, that is what I was trying to get at. I wouldnt want to force celibcy on anyone either.
I’m just trying to say that there is a whole lot of middle ground between Ted Haggard (has attractions, but keeps them secret) and a Christian who acts on their same sex attractions.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
I highly recommend that everyone read Christopher Hitchens book “god is not Great”. It is often the case that Christians get little more then a handful of the same old verses quoted to defend fundamentalist theology. Just bromides. Rather then simply studying the bible, study also Christian history, especially the history of the church. Some resources’:
1. Any Bishop Spong’s books.
2. “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Erman
If you are encourged to explore for yourself and respected for doing such by your pastor, then you are in a church. If not you are in a cult. I don’t see Quest as a cult though.
Then reach your own conclusions, not Cho’s or the popes, etc
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Okay, so people, both heterosexual and homosexual can choose to be celibate if they want. I’m not sure where that gets us in this discussion. Particularly if we’re saying that the reasons either a Christian heterosexual or a homosexual would would choose to be celibate are the same. If for some reason the Christian homosexual has *extra* reason to be celibate because there is something in their “Christian beliefs” that indicates so, well, I think that’s what Fnarf/Toby/myself would object to.
I’m still thinking about Eugene’s question.. “In God’s perfect creation, before the Fall of humanity, is homosexuality what God intended?” I agree that knowing what the implications of a yes or a no answer to this question would be helpful in the discussion. Or an example of something that is and is not what God intended. But, “homosexuality is not what God intended in God’s perfect creation” would be a rationale for not affirming homosexuality that I have not heard before, so I’d like to understand where you’re coming from.
Other arguments that are given by “non-affirming” people basically boil down to, because the Bible said so, because it’s unnatural, because it’s yucky, or because it cannot result in procreation or the expression of marital love — none of which are even remotely convincing or logical to me.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
I appreciate the fact that this conversation has been so civil and I don’t wish to be nitpicky but, using celibate homosexual christians as some sort of excuse for the behavior of most Christian churchs on the issue steams me a bit. It amazes me that “Celibate Gay Christians” are some sort of class apart. That they alone of all peoples gay or straight, christian or non have come to the conclusion that gay sex is sinful and they stay celibate for a closer walk with God. Because obviously the choice is made completely outside the context of what Christian churchs are teaching about the sinfulness of the gays. They must make their decisions based in some sort of vacumn, and having decided to be celibate they can then be used to allow demonization of gay people because if you were a good person you’d just be celibate like them. It seems like if must be back breaking work.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Julie,
I hear your objection about Christians who have same-sex desires choosing celibacy because of those desires. And, in a very real sense, I’m with you - I wouldn’t want any group forcing that decision on any other group.
But I also think a Christian person who is attracted to the same sex can admit that is how they are, and still decide to embrace celibacy (or even heterosexual marriage) because they are also something else besides that. Sexuality is not the only thing that defines us. I just don’t see what is wrong with a person who says that they want to put their desire aside because of their religious belief - if they are freely choosing to do so (we all agree that forcing this on anyone - subtly or overtly - is wrong). If someone says their same-sex desires are an “extra” reason they are freely choosing celibacy, who are we to say that is unhealthy? Shouldn’t people be allowed to define themselves by the beliefs they freely choose? We call could list any number of grids through which we define ourselves…I don’t see any reason to be upset if someone wants to give one grid priority over another grid. That is one totally healthy option for some people.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
I have question: why can’t the christian view of “welcoming but not affirming” be respected by some in the gay community?
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
As a queer boy, growing up in a fundamentalist church north of Seattle, the message of love and tolerance were never the focus. My pastor had messages like “Is it Joyful to be Gay”, he still has that one on tape/CD. My Youth Pastor had stories of people he knew who had “come out of the sin of homosexuality”… he also had stories of people who fell back into that “sin” and contracted AIDS and died of it.
Eventually, with the help of another online community and some good friends in my Real Life, I learned a bit more… I looked into the scriptures myself, and have come to a point where I accept the fact that I am physically attracted to men and women. I also accept that my God loves me, cares for me, and wants the best for me. Another aspect of my Faith is that I know that I am doing my best to follow Christ’s example, to love my God and my neighbors, but I also know that I fail. I’m not aware of all my failures, but they happen. No one failure, though, is larger than any other. A white lie to my supervisor is no greater than losing my temper and swearing up a storm at an inanimate object.
I do think sex before marriage is something to be careful of, very careful. I do think God meant for people to find a mate and to live with that person, to grow with that person, to worship God with that person. In Genesis, God made Adam and Eve… he took a rib from Adam to make Eve, she was truly flesh of his flesh, his equal and his partner. That is what I am looking for. A man or a woman who completes me, who helps me be a better me, who helps me get closer to God.
I am sorry if this got rambly.
Phelix
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Jennifer,
It’s not really about sexuality, it’s about love. Love defines us. I believe that to deny love is to deny what makes us human. Embracing celibacy is denying an experience of love and thus in my opinon it is not optimal human functioning. True, there are people who have extremely low sex drives and thus celibacy fits them but that is a deviation from normal human functioning.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Tracy,
Probably for the same reason Blacks in the 1950’s weren’t crazy about the policy of being welcome to eat at the diner, as long as they used the service entrance and had their meal in the kitchen.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Jennifer - I’m not objecting to a Christian homosexual choosing celibacy at all. They could choose celibacy for the same reasons a heterosexual could choose it - because they find themselves unable to control their desires, they don’t like who they are when they are sexually active, they want to live celibate for a time to concentrate on other things (I’m am just making these reasons up, I’m sure there are others).
What I object to in the situation where a homosexual “puts their desire aside because of their religious belief”, is that their religious belief tells them that homosexual acts are in and of themselves sins. That’s all.
I guess it’s possible that if a gay person grew up on a desert island free from any outside religious influences, that they would somehow come to the conclusion by themselves that homosexuality was immoral. But, I highly doubt it.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Justin, I don’t think I follow and yes I am Black. Here is why, if I am invited to someone’s home and I have to respect their property or/and home. For example, they may want me to remove my shoes before I entering into their home and I do. Out of respect. Note the word: respect.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Tracy:
Try to think of it like a parent/child relationship. The church is the mother, the gay/queer person is the child. Say the child has gone off and done something like pierced their eyebrow, or dyed their hair, or had a quickie marriage in Vegas. The mother could say “I welcome you home, I love you, I still want you here, but I reject the choice you’ve made.”
That mother is expressing her disapproval at the child’s choice, she’s trying to lean on the child to change the choice into something the mother would approve.
Say, that child came home pregnant, or with a living, kicking baby, that child was herself a mother. That’s something about who she is, something deeper than a piercing or hair color. “I welcome you home, but I reject your choice to have this baby.”
It’s much the same with the Church and queerness. “We welcome you into God’s home, but we reject your choice to love those whom you are attracted to.”
“We welcome you to worship God with us, but reject a core part of who you are.”
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Clarity,
I understand that you would not want to choose celibacy for yourself. I have no problem with that.
I do really disagree with your idea that to embrace celibacy is to deny love, and not function as fully human. I know people who have embraced celibacy and are beautiful human beings that live lives full of much love.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
This discussion is difficult in part because it’s not clear what Pastor Cho’s attitudes actually are. Perhaps this is unreasonable, but I’m going to take a guess:
Homosexual sex is inherently sinful. But Jesus tells us we are all sinners, and the best we can do is sin as little as we can, and do as much good as we can. He further tells us to love our fellow people, sinner or no. So how are we to deal with people whose only attraction is to the same sex?
(I should say, though it will probably be obvious, that I don’t agree with this.)
Is this belief compatible with a loving God? Well, it seems to me it presents no new problems. In this view, gay people must remain celibate to avoid sin, who can never have a sexual relationship if they are to be good Christians. This is cruel. But God *is* cruel - from the digger wasp, that paralyzes its prey so that its larvae can eat the prey alive from the inside out, to people struck by illnesses and accidents that leave them unable to have sex, God is that cruel any way you cut it. There are various explanations for this - it’s a test, God is mysterious, whatever, but making homosexuals for a life of suffering is not particularly exceptional.
Even a secular point of view accepts that there are some people whose desire is sinful and who can never indulge it. It seems clear that some pedophiles are as immovably fixed on children as some gay people are on people of the same sex. We accept that adults having sex with children cannot be permitted, and in doing so we accept that these people can never have their desires satisfied. Some countries provide chemical castration in an effort to extinguish these people’s desires.
It seems to me that it’s a perfectly consistent point of view - that some people simply need to resist their desires, no matter how immovable they are. It’s even a view that I share, in that generality.
There is a key difference: I accept that pedophiles must suppress their desires because it does harm. I can see it in the lives of people who were molested as children, and it is heartbreaking. That desire is not okay. But I do not see that homosexuality is such a problem. I don’t see how homosexual sex, in and of itself, harms anyone.
The whole problem arises, as far as I can see, from the idea that homosexual sex is wrong. This is stated unequivocally several places in the Bible, so I can understand that it is difficult for Christians to avoid accepting it. It is possible to weasel out of it by arguing about translations and cultural interpretations, but this is, frankly, disingenuous. The meaning is clear. This, it seems to me, is the problem facing kind compassionate Christians.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Tracy,
I certainly can understand that, but the idea that a person is welcome but not affirmed leaves me with the sense that I’m being invited by someone polite enough to not want to let me know they find me offensive, but still believes that I’m less than and immoral. It’s much like the hate the sin but love the sinner arguement that is often made. I grew up in the bible belt going to Baptist churches. I was taught that meant that we were all sinners and the highest good was loving each other. If you start with the idea you’re welcome, but your less than and will have to change what’s objectional before you can even be on an equal footing and deserving of the same respect given to a straight person, well that doesn’t seem all that welcoming much less anything else.
It may be at least partly a question of semantics, something we queens tend to be a bit sensitive about. And I certainly try to remember that Christians are people, trying the best they can and that the most vocal and hateful certainly aren’t the whole picture. They just tend to make the most noise.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Tracy… for me, the reason why I can’t accept the “welcoming but not affirming” view is that I want to know why. Why do you not affirm? And, every single time I have asked that question (and about a hundred more why’s after that - I’m like a 2 year old that way), I have not been satisfied with the reasons. I generally find them to be untrue, contradictory, or illogical.
I should mention, if I haven’t already, that I am not gay. I just am really interested in the topic of why people believe the things they do, how do they come to believe what is right and wrong, etc. And “not affirming” stances in the modern era totally baffle me.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
While I don’t have much to add to the conversation, as you are all more than aptly eloquent and each time I had a response to a post, someone else responded to said post with what I was thinking, I still want to say that this whole thread makes me SO HAPPY. Even when I was almost to the bottom of the comments and was simply going to say “Everyone needs to read this!” WaynePark had it covered. Not that it really matters here, since I’m not adding to the discussion, but for the record I stand with Dan and Fnarf and the others in my beliefs about the social injustices the glbt communities face every day. I just want to thank all of you for engaging in one of -if not THE - most eloquent and intelligent discussions on this matter that I’ve ever borne witness to. This gives me hope.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Anne:
It is not unequivocally stated in the Bible. those verses are constantly debated and reinterpreted. Their meanings are hazy at best. The word “homosexuality”, even the concept of an orientation other than men lusting after women and vice versa, is very new. It simply wasn’t around when the Bible was first put to paper.
The link I put below looks at all of the instances in the Bible used to argue either for or against homosexuality. It lays out both the Conservative and the Liberal views, but does not reach a conclusion. The site’s goal is not to convert people to one belief or another, rather to inform people.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Jennifer, what sane straight person would marry a gay person? (or vice versa?) They are totally mismatched. You’re essentially setting up a lifelong hurdle for everyone involved in that marriage.
I work with a woman who was urged by her pastor to marry a struggling gay man. The marriage lasted roughly five years before they divorced. Except now there are two kids and a struggling bitter single mom and a gay man who is bitter towards the church.
What foolishness….
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Jennifer
The problem with choosing celibacy, in the catholic church anyway, is it isn’t a choice. It is an either or. The option isn’t be celibate or don’t be celibate it’s either you’re in or you’re out. There isn’t a be openly homosexual having a commited homosexual relationship and be catholic.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
To tag on the house metaphor, I wouldn’t use the Mother and Child example. It’s child and child. The Church is called to be the Bride of Christ. Christians are sinners just like everyone else. They’re not perfect. They are called to be stewards. So, they are not the ones to create the rules of the House.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
I’m all for gay men or lesbians freely choosing celibacy. Heck, Paul encourages us all to choose celibacy. But he recognizes that it is not for everyone.
The church offers straight people the choice of celibacy vs. marriage. Overwhelmingly, most churches give gay people the choice of celibacy or dis-fellowship. And religious folks battle against most secular options that gays could make that would help them/us make positive healthy choices (monogamous marriages/civil unions/domestic partnerships/whatever; parenting options; church fellowship; non-secretive service to country through the military).
And then they point out the dysfunction (promiscuity, drug use, STDs, depression, isolation, etc.) and cite those as justifications for denying the gay community those other stabilizing infulence.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Julie-
Likewise as a Christian I can argue the same logo as you just gave me, using reasons I believe are true, reconcilable, and logical.
Justin-
I understand you and hear you. I can’t speak for all Christians, Justin, however we are trying to just live out a beautiful faith in God. This generation of Christians are more sensitive and open to the social issues of world than we have ever been. It is not our intentions to hurt with our religious rhetoric.
The gay community as well is responsible to respecting the Christian views. They may not make sense or seem reasonable but they are “some” Christian’s point of views.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
I believe I may have stumbled into the wrong place.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Julie,
The conversation is going to get to a gridlock. From a human level, of course, everyone wants to affirm. Aren’t there things or choices that people make that you don’t affirm?
I’m simply making a point here so don’t jump on me. In this conversation, many make the argument that to exclude is bigotry and hatred. Would you affirm incest? Would you affirm polygamy?
If not, why not? If you say you wouldn’t, where does your sense of “right and wrong” come from?
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Goodness, check out Mrs. T. D. Gaines’ blog. You’re welcome here. We’re welcoming but not affirming. :)
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Fnarf, So, I understand what you’re saying but if I believe - through study and prayer - that God is not pleased with homosexual relationships, isn’t it fair for a Christian to honor that conviction?
Now, I agree that the Church is hypocritical and that they’ve been MEAN but if that’s what they believe, isn’t the best posture for them to be “welcoming but not affirming.”
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Tracy Says: “I have question: why can’t the christian view of “welcoming but not affirming” be respected by some in the gay community?”
I’m not a member of the gay community and I don’t respect it. It’s passive-aggressive disapproval. People have a right to their opinions; they do not have the right to expect those opinions to receive respect.
The bible has been used to justify a plethora of hate and bigotry. Against Jews, against blacks, against Indians and against gays.
People go to church for community. To bring their families together with other families. To celebrate births, to mourn deaths, to affirm commitments. Where does that leave those who are welcomed but not affirmed? Where does that leave a lesbian family who just gave birth to their first child? Where does that leave a gay man mourning his life partner? Where does that leave a gay couple going through a rough patch in their relationship? Where does that leave the child of gay parents when one parent is ill?
What does the church offer them?
Welcome but not affirmed.
Affirmation is a form of respect. You want gay Christians to respect disrespect. That borders on cruel.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Wow… lots of dialog in the past few hours. I’ll have to catch-up over the weekend.
FNARF: My apologies for the assumption of getting “slammed.” I wasn’t referring to your words at all, just elements of this discussion in general. Again, my apologies. I want to step as far away from victim-hood as possible. Frankly this is the most intense discussion I’ve ever participated in on this particular delicate topic so my senses are not as “tempered” as I’d like them to be–hence the perceived “slamming” that truly wasn’t occurring. I wish we could discuss this in person because I believe there is a lot I could learn from you, though I fear your intellect would dominate my own. ;-)
Everyone here has helped me open my eyes to the lgbt community’s reality and have helped me to better understand the pain that my own lesbian aunt has experienced. Thank you all so very much. I mean this in the most respectful, humble, sincere way possible. If my verbal fumblings have cause offense, please forgive me.
Enjoy your weekend everyone.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
Hey folks,
Thanks for your honesty and vulnerability…
I get it. I understand that “welcome but not affirmed” can be cruel, I don’t know of other words to somehow capture my thoughts. The motivation isn’t cruelty.
The church has much to answer to. We have been mean, cruel, oppressive and such. But the church has also been responsible for much good as well. My desire is not to put the church on trial because we know it’s guilty already.
As I LISTEN to this dialogue here and the numerous emails that have come to me, I want people to somehow know that I don’t revel in my conviction. I’m not gloating in my position. But while I seek to be culturally relevant and senstive to HUMAN observation, I am ultimately, as a follower of Jesus, seeking to be guided by Jesus.
I know what Jesus would do…He would love, welcome, receive, dine, drink, etc. But I also believe he died on the cross for the sins of the world which include my own.
I’m listening and learning…
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
I’ll start by stating that I’m gay.
“Welcoming but not affirming” is a polite way to say “I’ll be nice to you even though I loath a core component of your being”. Or “I’ll be nice to you because God says so, but inside you disgust me”.
I suppose it is less hateful than some of the bile that has dripped out of the mouths of Ted Haggard or Jerry Falwell, but you can’t really expect me to get too enthused about that, can you?
I can respect that you’ve been taught that, and have not learned to think otherwise. I can respect that we may never agree on some theological issues. That is totally fine, as long as you don’t try to shove your Christian beliefs down my throat.
But that is exactly what many Christians (not necessarily Quest or Pastor Cho) do all the time. I have lived with my boyfriend for over 20 years. By denying me the right to civil marriage, you deny me over 1000 civil rights, every day of my life. It is not atheists who are denying my partner and I these rights, it is people who call themselves Christians.
So excuse me if I’m a little intolerant of that viewpoint.
Friday, June 29, 2007 at
I wish I had more time to make a better contribution to this discussion, but here’s a small note for now:
Re: “In God’s perfect creation, before the Fall of humanity, is homosexuality what God intended?”
If it wasn’t, how do you explain the widespread, documented evidence of homosexual relations among the animal kingdom? Doesn’t that seem to suggest that homosexuality is an inherent part of creation? (Note, please, that I am not trying to imply in any way that homosexual sex is somehow more bestial than heterosexual sex. Animals engage in both. Humans engage in both. I’m trying to argue that they are both natural aspects of God’s creation.)
And if you do try to argue that homosexuality is not a part of “God’s perfect creation,” where does that leave you on gays, if you honestly believe that homosexuality is not a choice? Either you stand by the tenet that all human beings are created in the image of God, and all equally reflect an image of the divine, or you’re saying that some human beings were created sinful. Why would God do that? Why would God create a subclass of human beings that were somehow less holy than the rest?
I’ve seen the argument, in response to the above, that homosexuality is simply a manifestation of the tendency to sin–that it is a stronger-than-normal inclination towards evil in certain individuals. But as Fnarf has so eloquently argued, homosexuality is not an inclination so much as a profound element of one’s identity. Moreover, if you do view homosexuality as a tendency towards sin, I can’t see that you