Where does this issue really belong: On the periphery, at distance from the core issues of our faith, or smack-dab in the middle as an issue where accurate theology and ecclesiology is essential for salvation?
I am particularly reminded of 1st Corinthians 6:9-11, where homosexuality is but one item on a list of nouns that we all have struggled with at one point or another:
1Cor. 6:9-11 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.(TNIV)
It seems that heterosexuals make an easy target out of homosexuality because it is the ONE noun on this list that we do not struggle with, or cannot admit to if we do. After all, how much noise are we really willing to make about things that WE do on a regular basis (like being greedy etc.)? It's easier (and a nice spotlight shift) to rail against that which we are not. But this doesn't make us better, just less honest and less Christlike. But if we look closely at this text in 1 Corinthians, we see that God's redemptive plan includes every type of person on this list. The original audience is now included as part of the people of God.
I also came across the issue of homosexuality in a recent study on supporting one's "Family of Origin." Regarding homosexuality, the central issues here are:
1) how to reconcile disenfranchised, homosexual family members with the rest of their family, especially during times of duress and terminal illnesses.
And 2) How can legitimate evangelization efforts be made with people (not just homosexuals) who already feel totally condemned and hated by the church and her Christians?
I think this is an issue that will continue to be at the forefront of our churches and our secular culture. How DO we reconcile here? Condemnation of homosexuals/ homosexuality is not going to make people who identify with this label want to attend local church services. But at the same time, the church cannot pretend that the Bible is silent on the issue and that it does not need to be addressed at all. I do not have the answers here, but this is something that we need to seek God's input on. The issue, even if a peripheral one, is not going away any time soon.
This is an open invitation to dialogue about this issue. Thus far, one of the key works I have read on it is: Slaves, Women and Homosexuals by William Webb from IVP This book is well worth the read.
Regarding homosexuality. I believe some people are born with an attraction to the same sex. They don't choose it, just like I don't choose being attracted to women. So why would God create some people to be born with a propensity to a certain behavior that He does not approve of?
Anonymous, This is an extremely valid question. Thank you for adding to the discussion. My most honest, gut reaction to your question is that “I don’t know.” I have wondered about this myself, but I don’t have any nice and tidy answers.
However, from a religious perspective, I think that this question has an implicit assumption that whatever characteristics and issues we have at birth are perfect and exactly what God intended. I fundamentally disagree with that assumption. (Sorry for using the word “fundamental” on a blog whose administrator is a Christian. It’s somewhat of a pejorative word, but maybe we can put the “fun” back in “fundamentalism,” yes?).
Um, anyway. I am not even talking about doctrines of “original sin” here or how that has often been misunderstood. That in itself is a worthy side conversation to have, but I’ll save it for another day. What I mean is that I’m not sure if there is any such thing as a “perfectly healthy or normal” baby. This can be related to moral issues, but it can also be totally independent of them. For example, I was born with serious asthma and allergies. I was allergic to everything, from air, to dairy products, fur, and grass, let alone mold and dust. My ankles are weak; my feet have bad arches and I have always been exceptionally scrawny. And those are just the physical things I was born with. Mentally and personality speaking, I am pretty average. But I’ve got my issues, and some of these I have little doubt are either caused by or exacerbated by my genetic birth-code. That is not to plead for any irresponsibility concerning my actions. My will is still involved after all, but this is a balance between nature and nurture.
So what I am saying is, whether it’s a mental, physical, behavioral or moral issue, whatever any of us has at birth is not necessarily good and perfect as we were originally intended to be. The fact is that death and corruption (physical and moral) seem to have free reign here on earth, and children are born with issues, some worse than others. Just because we were born a certain way does not mean that everything about it and us is “good.” My being born with serious health issues was definitely NOT good.
Now, lest I make enemies of my homosexual friends, I have to be quick to point out that I am NOT saying that having a latent homosexual preference at birth is similar to being born with a terrible disease or handicap. Ack! Please don’t hear me say that. What I AM saying is that just because we are born with certain predispositions does not AUTOMATICALLY make ALL of them “good.” However, since we are discussing “nature” (not nurture) here, we should also be quick to note that whether or not what we are born with is “good” or “bad,” babies are not “responsible” for their condition, whatever it may be. I hope we can universally agree on that.
In most Protestant circles, this is why we understand that no babies (and younger children) “go to hell” even if they die before baptism and choosing to follow Jesus of their own volition. I suspect that many of our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (as well as Lutheran and Episcopal) brothers and sisters are moving in the same direction theologically, even if not in their traditional infant-baptism practices.
So if babies are not responsible for their natural condition and predisposed preferences at birth, one of the most important questions we can ask about homosexuality is whether or not a person who identifies with that label has chosen that or has always been that way. As you pointed out, “Anonymous,” YOU didn’t choose to be heterosexual, so why not apply the same schemata for homosexuals? This is a fair move to make, but we should not absolutize it.
What I mean is that just because many people do not choose their sexual preference, we should not assume that nobody does. For example, I have met a person who told me point blank that he chose to be a homosexual. He is by far and away the minority among the other individuals I have known who identify with that label, but at the same time, I don’t ask people about their sexual preference, and I certainly don’t ask them if they chose it or were born that way. It’s just not my business. Once again: Ack.
I guess what it comes down to is: to ask about hetero- or homo-sexuality really misses the point that Jesus came to make. His point, I am fairly sure, is that we are all jacked-up and in need of his grace, peace and love, and this is completely irrespective of sexuality. For us to then make sexual preference THE defining feature of who is IN or OUT is to commit a grave theological and relational error. I mean, are we really getting things right to say that “you can be saved and go to heaven if you’re a heterosexual but if you’re not, then I’m sorry; Jesus doesn’t like you or love you”? It’s hard for me to imagine such an ignorant, hateful and embarrassing position. Yet this is EXACTLY how some Christians have behaved and believed. In fact, I had previously adopted a position very similar to this when I was a teenager. If we ever hope to get past such embarrassments to Christ, we should openly confess our previous (sinful) thoughts, actions and indeed, tyranny against homosexuals.
But just as I have discovered through befriending illegal immigrants, Muslims and yes, even other Christians, we can’t relate or understand anything about a person who we don’t know. It’s easy for us to hate, demonize and dehumanize people that we don’t know and don’t like. Once we have the privilege of making friends with those who are different than us, it becomes a lot harder to judge them and/or to elevate ourselves as their “superiors.” Again, we need to repent of this behavior, publicly, and start honoring the greatest two commandments: Love God and love your neighbor. Notice that Jesus doesn’t even hint at including anything about “sexual preferences” in his “commandment” regarding our neighbors. Neither should we.
Where does this issue really belong: On the periphery, at distance from the core issues of our faith, or smack-dab in the middle as an issue where accurate theology and ecclesiology is essential for salvation?
ReplyDeleteI am particularly reminded of 1st Corinthians 6:9-11, where homosexuality is but one item on a list of nouns that we all have struggled with at one point or another:
1Cor. 6:9-11 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (TNIV)
It seems that heterosexuals make an easy target out of homosexuality because it is the ONE noun on this list that we do not struggle with, or cannot admit to if we do. After all, how much noise are we really willing to make about things that WE do on a regular basis (like being greedy etc.)? It's easier (and a nice spotlight shift) to rail against that which we are not. But this doesn't make us better, just less honest and less Christlike. But if we look closely at this text in 1 Corinthians, we see that God's redemptive plan includes every type of person on this list. The original audience is now included as part of the people of God.
I also came across the issue of homosexuality in a recent study on supporting one's "Family of Origin." Regarding homosexuality, the central issues here are:
1) how to reconcile disenfranchised, homosexual family members with the rest of their family, especially during times of duress and terminal illnesses.
And 2) How can legitimate evangelization efforts be made with people (not just homosexuals) who already feel totally condemned and hated by the church and her Christians?
I think this is an issue that will continue to be at the forefront of our churches and our secular culture. How DO we reconcile here? Condemnation of homosexuals/ homosexuality is not going to make people who identify with this label want to attend local church services. But at the same time, the church cannot pretend that the Bible is silent on the issue and that it does not need to be addressed at all. I do not have the answers here, but this is something that we need to seek God's input on. The issue, even if a peripheral one, is not going away any time soon.
This is an open invitation to dialogue about this issue.
Thus far, one of the key works I have read on it is:
Slaves, Women and Homosexuals by William Webb from IVP
This book is well worth the read.
-Corbin Lambeth
Regarding homosexuality. I believe some people are born with an attraction to the same sex. They don't choose it, just like I don't choose being attracted to women. So why would God create some people to be born with a propensity to a certain behavior that He does not approve of?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteThis is an extremely valid question. Thank you for adding to the discussion. My most honest, gut reaction to your question is that “I don’t know.” I have wondered about this myself, but I don’t have any nice and tidy answers.
However, from a religious perspective, I think that this question has an implicit assumption that whatever characteristics and issues we have at birth are perfect and exactly what God intended. I fundamentally disagree with that assumption. (Sorry for using the word “fundamental” on a blog whose administrator is a Christian. It’s somewhat of a pejorative word, but maybe we can put the “fun” back in “fundamentalism,” yes?).
Um, anyway. I am not even talking about doctrines of “original sin” here or how that has often been misunderstood. That in itself is a worthy side conversation to have, but I’ll save it for another day. What I mean is that I’m not sure if there is any such thing as a “perfectly healthy or normal” baby. This can be related to moral issues, but it can also be totally independent of them. For example, I was born with serious asthma and allergies. I was allergic to everything, from air, to dairy products, fur, and grass, let alone mold and dust. My ankles are weak; my feet have bad arches and I have always been exceptionally scrawny. And those are just the physical things I was born with. Mentally and personality speaking, I am pretty average. But I’ve got my issues, and some of these I have little doubt are either caused by or exacerbated by my genetic birth-code. That is not to plead for any irresponsibility concerning my actions. My will is still involved after all, but this is a balance between nature and nurture.
So what I am saying is, whether it’s a mental, physical, behavioral or moral issue, whatever any of us has at birth is not necessarily good and perfect as we were originally intended to be. The fact is that death and corruption (physical and moral) seem to have free reign here on earth, and children are born with issues, some worse than others. Just because we were born a certain way does not mean that everything about it and us is “good.” My being born with serious health issues was definitely NOT good.
Now, lest I make enemies of my homosexual friends, I have to be quick to point out that I am NOT saying that having a latent homosexual preference at birth is similar to being born with a terrible disease or handicap. Ack! Please don’t hear me say that. What I AM saying is that just because we are born with certain predispositions does not AUTOMATICALLY make ALL of them “good.” However, since we are discussing “nature” (not nurture) here, we should also be quick to note that whether or not what we are born with is “good” or “bad,” babies are not “responsible” for their condition, whatever it may be. I hope we can universally agree on that.
In most Protestant circles, this is why we understand that no babies (and younger children) “go to hell” even if they die before baptism and choosing to follow Jesus of their own volition. I suspect that many of our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (as well as Lutheran and Episcopal) brothers and sisters are moving in the same direction theologically, even if not in their traditional infant-baptism practices.
So if babies are not responsible for their natural condition and predisposed preferences at birth, one of the most important questions we can ask about homosexuality is whether or not a person who identifies with that label has chosen that or has always been that way. As you pointed out, “Anonymous,” YOU didn’t choose to be heterosexual, so why not apply the same schemata for homosexuals? This is a fair move to make, but we should not absolutize it.
What I mean is that just because many people do not choose their sexual preference, we should not assume that nobody does. For example, I have met a person who told me point blank that he chose to be a homosexual. He is by far and away the minority among the other individuals I have known who identify with that label, but at the same time, I don’t ask people about their sexual preference, and I certainly don’t ask them if they chose it or were born that way. It’s just not my business. Once again: Ack.
I guess what it comes down to is: to ask about hetero- or homo-sexuality really misses the point that Jesus came to make. His point, I am fairly sure, is that we are all jacked-up and in need of his grace, peace and love, and this is completely irrespective of sexuality. For us to then make sexual preference THE defining feature of who is IN or OUT is to commit a grave theological and relational error. I mean, are we really getting things right to say that “you can be saved and go to heaven if you’re a heterosexual but if you’re not, then I’m sorry; Jesus doesn’t like you or love you”? It’s hard for me to imagine such an ignorant, hateful and embarrassing position. Yet this is EXACTLY how some Christians have behaved and believed. In fact, I had previously adopted a position very similar to this when I was a teenager. If we ever hope to get past such embarrassments to Christ, we should openly confess our previous (sinful) thoughts, actions and indeed, tyranny against homosexuals.
But just as I have discovered through befriending illegal immigrants, Muslims and yes, even other Christians, we can’t relate or understand anything about a person who we don’t know. It’s easy for us to hate, demonize and dehumanize people that we don’t know and don’t like. Once we have the privilege of making friends with those who are different than us, it becomes a lot harder to judge them and/or to elevate ourselves as their “superiors.” Again, we need to repent of this behavior, publicly, and start honoring the greatest two commandments: Love God and love your neighbor. Notice that Jesus doesn’t even hint at including anything about “sexual preferences” in his “commandment” regarding our neighbors. Neither should we.
Thanks for reading me,
-C. Lambeth