 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 568 posts Location: Abbotsford |
 Homosexuality and the church |
Posted Jun 16, 2010; 8:57 am |
|
I would like to explore with my fellow forum participants some aspects of this theme of the current issue of the Herald. I agree with the suggestion made in the thread about psychopathy, that some of the questions being raised there could apply to this topic as well. I am well aware that this could be a topic fraught with all kinds of opportunity for misunderstanding and I want to say right off that I am NOT equating homosexuality with psychopathy. And I am not any kind of expert on either topic.
Also, right off the bat, I'd like to say that my interest in this topic is not so much homosexuality as how we as individuals deal with our own unscriptural inclinations and how we as sisters and brothers in Christ deal with each other in relation to our struggles, and how we deal with those outside the church.
Some things I would like to explore:
- How to love a person and demonstrate love without accepting, condoning or celebrating all that they are inclined towards or have chosen to act upon.
- What inclinations are persons born with and which are acquired, and what difference does that make anyway?
- To what extent, if any, is personhood defined by sexual attractions? e.g. What does it mean to say "I am gay?"
- Does gender attraction ever change? If so, is that voluntary or involuntary?
- What is the difference, if any, between sex, gender, and sexual orientation?
- If the individual has no choice about a desire, is it just for God (or his people) to condemn it?
- What are the distinctions (if any) among, inclination, desire, orientation, choice, isolated action, habitual actions, lifestyle, etc.
And now for some confessions to get the topic moving in the real world. I am 67 now and my sexual inclinations are different that they were 50 years ago. When I was 17, my underdeveloped brain was awash in floods of newly discovered testosterone. At that point, quite frankly, I was visually sexually stimulated by anything and anyone, animate or inanimate, with an appropriate orifice. Thankfully, I was sufficiently mentally and morally developed that I did not act upon most of my very strong impulses. I am also thankful that 50 years ago, children and youth were not being urged to define their sexual orientation in the midst of that tumultuous stage, nor to act upon their impulses, nor to go public.
I still have sinful urges of many kinds, including sexually. I find most women sexually attractive. I have never had sexual intercourse with any person but my wife, but that is by choice, not by orientation. That is not to say I have always been 100% faithful. Early in our marriage, we were not living for the Lord and went to parties where we imbibed alcohol knowing full well it would lower inhibitions. In that setting I danced too closely with other women (most of whom were married), letting myself feel the feelings, and even kissed a number of them.
Am I gay because other boys and I touched each other in a sexual way? Am I bi because I also touched women in a sexual way? Am I now straight because I am only attracted to women? Am I polyamorous because I am attracted to more than one woman in some way? Or am I just another sojourner, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, groaning along with all creation and longing to be released from the my current earthly state of being subject to temptations and sin? |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 568 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| Part 2 |
Posted Jun 17, 2010; 8:34 am |
|
Ok, so far 20 lookers and no responders to my first post on this thread.
Often when exploring what the Bible has to say about this topic, reference is made to Leviticus 18 & 20 and to Romans 1, but this morning another passage came to mind . It is 1 Cor 6:9-11
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Some of the things I find in this passage are:
- homosexual relations are unrighteous and to continue in them is kingdom-excluding. From this it would seem that the church should not accept this behaviour, let alone celebrate it, call it God-given or bless the participants' relationships as "marriage."
- those who have practiced homosexuality can and should be changed ("washed" , "sanctified")
- that there will be an inclination to be deceived and think that anyone doing the things in this list is OK with God; hence the warning not to be deceived about that. |
|
|
|
| thursday Member Joined May 6, 2009 94 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 17, 2010; 9:44 am |
|
only have time for a quick reply but I think the place to start is here:
| Quote: |
- What is the difference, if any, between sex, gender, and sexual orientation? |
Answering these questions helps parse out various issues at stake rather than keeping them lumped together in an ambiguous mess...
Here's how I see it:
Sex: is a biological distinction. As in Male/Female. It says nothing about how one should act but is rather a physical distinction. Xy and XX for example.
Gender: refers to the socially acceptable practices that pertain to a given sex (male or female). Traits that are seen as acceptable practices for males are called masculine and practices for females feminine. These traits are socially constructed and so are not necessarily tied to one's sex. Gender construction is built on what is perceived to be generally true of a particular sex. Often there are adequate grounds on which gender is based--for example Dr. Leonard Sax points out that males are hardwired to prefer the colours like blue over pink--it is therefore reasonable to dub blue a masculine colour.
Sexual Orientation: Sexual orientation is used to denote the sex that one is attracted to. I place the three categories in this way because I believe that this is the order in which they "develop" chronologically. Also while the second two are more fluid the former is 'concrete'--even operations cannot change one's chromosomes... |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 320 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 18, 2010; 12:27 pm |
|
Hello Lorne,
This is such a difficult topic that has produced much tension within the Christian churches to date. While personal experiences are valuable as a place from which to begin, this matter needs to be approached carefully and deliberately. Since individuals will have a real diversity of personal experiences related to matters of human sexuality, it is important to listen to one another. It will also be important to take each individual's concerns seriously, with respect. This discussion will need to be more than a collection of experiences where the norm becomes the standard.
I believe that taking scripture as an authoritative guide for life and practice is an essential beginning for the Christian church. However, many of the ideas about human sexuality, as communicated in scripture, were written within particular historical, social and cultural environments. Good biblical exegesis is necessary to have a fuller understanding of these contexts. In our particular historical, social and cultural environment, there are relevant materials based on the careful study of human sexuality that can also be taken seriously. Likely a thoughtful discussion of the matter of human sexuality will have to include some reference to both scripture and these current studies.
In response to the verses highlighted from I Cor. 6:9-11, I find a number of references to unrighteousness in this text that need to be taken as seriously as an injunction regarding sexual acts. Does the Christian church practice a healthy prohibition against some of these other matters? The list is inclusive of many behaviours that are not readily discussed in the churches today.
Four of the acts listed are sexual in nature. Six are not sexual but can lead to sexual impropriety, as you noted regarding drunkenness. At times an unnecessarily strong stance against individuals who practice sexual immorality can lead to other acts of unrighteousness. This is evidenced in the matter of the woman caught in adultery as told in the Gospels. "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone."
For example, there can be a tendency toward idolatry: the worship of a cult image, idea or object with religious zeal (i.e. the religious need for a Jewish rabbi to marry which the apostle Paul addressed).
There is always the temptation to revile (speak ill about) those who hold opinions that we think are wrong. Reviling is abuse that involves the use of language. There has been plenty of verbal abuse related to the matter of human sexuality.
As you indicated:
| Quote: | | here will be an inclination to be deceived and think that anyone doing the things in this list is OK with God; hence the warning not to be deceived about that. |
. When we discuss this sensitive matter, it is necessary to take the biblical warning seriously and not isolate the sexual acts as more unrighteous than the other acts listed. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2916 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 18, 2010; 7:46 pm |
|
lornewel - | Quote: | | Or am I just another sojourner, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, groaning along with all creation and longing to be released from the my current earthly state of being subject to temptations and sin? |
roadrunning - | Quote: | | When we discuss this sensitive matter, it is necessary to take the biblical warning seriously and not isolate the sexual acts as more unrighteous than the other acts listed. |
IMO, yes, we are all sinners in the sense that we believers fall short of bringing God glory and we need to confess our sins on-going and keep turning from sin as the Spirit works in us. But I do think we are more or less tolerant of certain sins than others as we lean often on our own understandings that have not yet been changed by the transforming of our minds to how God thinks about sin. And God always makes a way of escape for every temptation. One main tool Jesus used and we should also is to refer to scriptures to fight temptation.
In what ways do we sin if sin is anything that falls short of the glory of God ? We don't need to look at what others are doing as we probably all have our plates full if we are allowing the Holy Spirit to point out what in our lives does not bring God glory. And we now have a power over habitual sinning (i.e. lying, stealing, gossip,ext, etc) that we did not have before we were saved. Yet we can struggle to allow this power to be overcoming power and give way to fleshly desires.
As far as trying to keep the church 'spotless', I think what Jesus said about casting the first stone is a great reminder and caution about how we respond to the more obvious sins. We need to love, encourage and pray for one another and trust the Holy Spirit to work and convict us all of our sins. I'm so glad that the blood of Jesus goes on cleansing us as we confess our sins and we will be presented someday as a church without spot or wrinkle. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 568 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Jun 20, 2010; 9:52 am |
|
Thank you, thursday, for your delineation of "sex", "gender" and "sexual orientation." I don't know if they are some kind of "standard" definitions because, as I have said, I am no expert in this matter. But whether they are or not, it would seem that using "same gender attraction" as equivalent to "same sex attraction" as was done the editorial in the current issue of MB Herald would be confusing.
I would like some feedback from somebody on this question which seems to be a big part of the secular approach to same-sex relationships, namely: Does the fact that someone has a strong, enduring inclination or attraction to do something make it right? Does that fact that someone seems bent a certain way from birth make it right? |
|
|
|
| thursday Member Joined May 6, 2009 94 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 20, 2010; 8:46 pm |
|
lornewell the distinctions I drew between sex, gender, and orientation are standard definitions as far as I can tell. You are right in saying that same-gender attraction would be a confusion of categories. It is somewhat of a pet-peeve of mine when gender and sex are used interchangeably--IMO this makes issues more confusing than they need to be...
Your questions here are also quite important:
| Quote: | | Does the fact that someone has a strong, enduring inclination or attraction to do something make it right? Does that fact that someone seems bent a certain way from birth make it right? |
According to the logic of many the fact that someone has certain inclinations from birth makes it right. In the world of ethics this logic is called "natural law". Natural Law can be boiled down to say that what is natural is right. I would not however limit this type of logic to a "secular" approach. Natural Law was adopted by Christians from the time of the church fathers and continues to be used both explicitly and implicitly by many today. It is for this reason that the issue of whether or not people can be born with a homosexual orientation is so fiercely debated. Christians who accept some form of natural law would be resistant to accepting that someone could be born with such inclinations because they are 'unnatural'...
I hope this helps a little bit....
PS-I give full marks to you for sharing a bit of your life experience in regards to this issue. That took courage. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Jun 20, 2010; 10:19 pm |
|
Lorne asked
| Quote: | | Does the fact that someone has a strong, enduring inclination or attraction to do something make it right? Does that fact that someone seems bent a certain way from birth make it right? |
ALthough I haven't done any research into the matter, my guess is that the secular perspective would say that same sex attraction is harmless. So it’s a natural inclination which does no harm as opposed to say a psychopath (see the other psychopath thread). The rest of society therefore should just adapt and grow up from outdated morals.
I appreciate Thursday's post and fully agree with the comment about Lorne's 1st post. |
|
|
|
| rudyhiebert Member Joined Oct 2, 2003 488 posts Location: Abbotsford BC |
| A Sunday Sermon |
Posted Jun 21, 2010; 9:08 am |
|
This topic would hardly be a Sunday Sermon but one of our pastors used Colossians 3:5-17 and the general topic of sexuality was a small part of his sermon. I agree with him in that he highlighted how important it was for the Youth Pastor include it in his repertoire and gave him an atta boy for doing so.
Not being an expert on it, I can read scriptures and see that churches need to address taboo topics ie. marriage, relationships and finances & stewardship. Is it any wonder that we see problems in these areas because we hear little on practical teaching and discipline in such themes? Sure we can go to marriage retreat, etc. We can even use the "Divorce Care" groups, but that's a topic that has it's issues. See the references below and see if they make a contribution to this thread.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 & 1 Timothy 1:9-11 ("abusers of themselves with mankind" = homosexuals -- see newer translations); Romans 1:26-32; Genesis 19:1-11; 2 Peter 2:6-8; Leviticus 18:22,23; 20:13,15,16
One could quickly say "that's the responsibility of the family". Well, yes, but what if the family is ineffective or non-existent in this regard. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 568 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| Historical/cultural context |
Posted Jun 23, 2010; 8:31 am |
|
Roadrunning wrote:
| Quote: | | I believe that taking scripture as an authoritative guide for life and practice is an essential beginning for the Christian church. However, many of the ideas about human sexuality, as communicated in scripture, were written within particular historical, social and cultural environments. Good biblical exegesis is necessary to have a fuller understanding of these contexts. In our particular historical, social and cultural environment, there are relevant materials based on the careful study of human sexuality that can also be taken seriously. Likely a thoughtful discussion of the matter of human sexuality will have to include some reference to both scripture and these current studies. |
The references in both OT and NT to homosexual relations as prohibited by God, abominable, unnatural, wicked and unrighteous which , along with other sins, bar a person from the kingdom of God, seem to me to remain applicable in every culture and period of history.
In both 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11 homosexual actions are listed within a list of sins, none of which, I would argue, God has ever changed his mind about nor ever will. So for all of us who take "scripture as an authoritative guide for life and practice," looking at "current studies" may be interesting but unless their authors also view scripture as the ultimate authority, then we should not be accepting their contrary conclusions. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 568 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| A gospel of redemption |
Posted Jun 23, 2010; 8:31 am |
|
In my earlier post today I referred to 1 Timothy 1:9-11, but reading further in the chapter afterwards I found this:
Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
15Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life. 17Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
This reminds me that for those who will hear and obey, repent and believe, God will save, cleanse, change, transform and sanctify anyone. Hallelujah!
But if we insist that what God calls evil is actually good and to be celebrated both without and within the church and to be the foundation of a holy and lifelong conjugal relationship, then we are deceived and without hope, given over to a depraved mind. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2916 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 23, 2010; 2:32 pm |
|
Sounds to me lornewel that you have a 'biblical view' but not a 'biblical worldview' (however, I'm not sure about this term yet). I agree that the practise of homosexual activity is as sinful as other sins listed according to scriptures. I believe we should encourage those with same sex attractions to keep control over these passions just as we should encourage others who tend to gossip, not to give way to gossip. And if anyone fails and sins in any area, we need to think about those areas that we ourselves struggle with and sometimes fall. But I don't think we need to 'tip toe' around any sins listed in scripture. We just need to be loving and patient with one another as Christ is so longsuffering with us.
I find it interesting how some want to give some pretty stretched interpretations on some subjects like homosexual relationships and marriage and yet other subjects like reincarnation or universal salvation is out of the picture. This specific topic is pretty black and white to me from a biblical view. |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 320 posts |
| human sexuality |
Posted Jun 23, 2010; 5:38 pm |
|
Hello Lorne,
In response to an earlier comment of mine regarding the study of human sexuality, you wrote: | Quote: | | The references in both OT and NT to homosexual relations as prohibited by God, abominable, unnatural, wicked and unrighteous which , along with other sins, bar a person from the kingdom of God, seem to me to remain applicable in every culture and period of history. |
I just wanted to clarify that I was not isolating homosexuality as a unique part of the study of human sexuality, but rather including it as part of an overall perspective on the topic. I thought I would provide a bit of background in terms of what I was referring to.
A quick definition of human sexuality: Human sexuality is the way in which we experience and express ourselves as sexual being. (A.R.N, Rathus, et al, 1993).n
Next to sleeping and eating, the sex drive is one of the most important human drives. It is more involved and complex than an animal's drive that works more simply as a reproductive "force".
There are at least three perspectives to human sexuality that make this human experience more complex. These are:
1. The biological perspective that is driven by hormones. Both male and female have the androgens, estrogens and progestins, but a different concentrations. Androgens are responsible for sexual differentiation before birth and for sexual maturation of boys at puberty.
Estrogens and progestins are necessary for female maturation that allows for reproduction.
2. The cognitive perspective highlights the individual human response to stimuli and the process of sexual arousal.
3. The learning perspective focuses on social learning theory where values and attitudes can be shaped to some degree through reinforcement.
A closer look at human sexuality considers all three of these perspectives and how they work in concert with one another.
I stated that I thought that the study of human sexuality in the church would need to include both research and a careful exegetical study of scripture. Research methods alone will not necessarily provide us with values, moral principles or biblical attitudes. Common research methods in human sexuality include surveys, observation, experimental testing, correlation between variables of interest and the case study method.
Therefore, as you indicated, I wrote: | Quote: | | I believe that taking scripture as an authoritative guide for life and practice is an essential beginning for the Christian church. However, many of the ideas about human sexuality, as communicated in scripture, were written within particular historical, social and cultural environments. Good biblical exegesis is necessary to have a fuller understanding of these contexts. In our particular historical, social and cultural environment, there are relevant materials based on the careful study of human sexuality that can also be taken seriously. Likely a thoughtful discussion of the matter of human sexuality will have to include some reference to both scripture and these current studies. |
|
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 409 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 23, 2010; 9:48 pm |
|
Sudsy, I don’t think we should or are applying any different standards to the discussion of homosexuality than re-incarnation. If you see a different standard being applied- I would agree with you that this is wrong. I don't see it though.
Lorne, I completely agree that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is immoral. I also agree that trying to sanctify homosexual relationships by redefining marriage makes no Biblical sense and is in fact a perversion of a Biblical institution.
However, I do resist making homosexuality a sin separate from other sexual sins. This is especially important in our culture which is a culture overwhelmed by pornography. This is a real evil that reaches far into our churches. It is particularly pernicious because of its accessibility. I think this topic is in desperate need of being addressed- and the silence is deafening.
IMO when we isolate homosexual behavior as sin separated from heterosexual sins such as pornography it sends the wrong message to those involved in the latter who, statistics tell us, are sitting next to us every Sunday.
My take on it is- sexual sin is sexual sin and the brand doesn’t matter.
Roadrunning, I appreciate your research into human sexuality but I’m not sure how it changes a Biblical perspective. I’m not sure which of the 3 perspectives would not have been understood and even argued for in Biblical times. The way your information has been presented it appears to me to imply that if it is proven that an impulse is hard wired into us- the resulting behaviour may not be sinful. Maybe I missed something. |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 320 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 23, 2010; 11:10 pm |
|
Hello James,
As has been already noted by Thursday, | Quote: | According to the logic of many the fact that someone has certain inclinations from birth makes it right. In the world of ethics this logic is called "natural law". Natural Law can be boiled down to say that what is natural is right. I would not however limit this type of logic to a "secular" approach. Natural Law was adopted by Christians from the time of the church fathers and continues to be used both explicitly and implicitly by many today. It is for this reason that the issue of whether or not people can be born with a homosexual orientation is so fiercely debated. Christians who accept some form of natural law would be resistant to accepting that someone could be born with such inclinations because they are 'unnatural'...
|
The debate about what is 'natural' or 'unnatural' in terms of human sexuality continues.
I think some of those who are conducting research into human sexuality might concur with what you wrote: | Quote: | | ... if it is proven that an impulse is hard wired into us- the resulting behaviour may not be sinful. |
The fact that I believe we need to take the biblical texts seriously, as well as current research, raises the bar on the question of sinful behaviour. The topic of "sin" is probably not a research variable but the experience of guilt, shame, social conformity, religious education, and home environment can be. It is the responsibility of the church to determine from scripture what is sinful behaviour and to apply the appropriate biblical measures accordingly.
Historically, the matter of what is 'sinful' in terms of human behaviour has shifted in some areas. Punitive measures have also been applied to those who are in error. These measures have also shifted within historical time. For example, the rape laws and the death penalty for sexual misconduct as outlined in portions of the Old Testament are not applied as status quo today. Some biblical texts seem to be culturally or historically applicable for another time. For example Leviticus 15
Other texts continue to be vitally important. See Leviticus 18:1-23
Good biblical exegesis will be necessary to discern how to apply these texts in a faithful manner. |
|
|
|
|
|
