Homosexuality

[Scott Peterson]

What are your thoughts on how a church community seeking to live out God's shalom should handle the issue of homosexuality?

[Scott Peterson]

Nate,

I would like to caution you on the tone of your posts. Your response to Barry was particularly disheartening. I think that it is important that all members posting on this thread remain respectful to those whom they disagree with.

I would also like to point out a few areas of your posts with which I disagree. First, this comment:
Our present-day common usage of the "casting stones" Scripture is what I would call "Lucadoized." And what I mean by that is; the overspiritualization of each passage of Scripture to make it immediately relevant in all situations at all times, especially in our present life.

It seems ironic that you would use this argument when it is the same argument that most supporters of homosexual practice use in their interpretation of scripture.

Second, this comment:
So to provide my attempt at an answer to your question; "Is there any textual evidence that anyone writing the Scriptures had in mind the prohibition of a faith, monogamous, same-sex relationship?" I would answer "Yes, because the Scriptures address the very practice of homosexuality period. There's no room even to develop a monogamous, covenantal interpretation that departs from it."

The Bible does not directly address the issue of homosexuality as we know it. There is not even a word resembling it in the Greek. The closest word is arsenokoitēs. To say that the authors of the scriptures had our current understanding of homosexual attraction in mind seems to be a bit of a stretch.

[Barry Mast]

Nate, I appreciate where you are coming from. I must admit, however, that you almost lost me when you said, "I believe the center of the Bible's message is obedience." I believe the center of the Bible's message is to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Admittedly, in my understanding obedience is in the service of love rather than love being in the service of obedience. When I say love, I am also not talking about some fuzzy mushy everything goes sort of love but the strong deep love of acceptance, mutual accountability, mutual confrontation and correction. This may partly explain why my attitude toward gays or lesbians is primarily one of embrace rather than reproach. I would much rather enter into a relationship with someone where God is present and we work on our "issues" together than "stoning" an issue and someone getting caught in the crossfire.

[Nate Myers]

Hello again to all...I thought I would give this conversation a rest for a bit to re-gather my thoughts before engaging again.

Scott,

I appreciate you seeking to be aware of the tone of my posts, and I commit to pay close attention to the ways in which I talk. I do find it a bit disingenuous, though, that you went out of your way to address my tone when Barry used the term "glaring irony" in a sarcastic (or at least not directly respectful) manner in response to some of my initial thoughts. I heartily endorse your awareness of tone. I'd like to see you be more even-handed in your awareness. In response to your observation, I looked at my post again several times, and I would agree that on some point I used irony and sarcasm to make points, and that it may have verged on going too far. But disheartening? disrespectful? I don't see it.

As far as the issues you highlighted on which we disagree, I'm not sure I get where I "Lucadoize" the Scriptures in this case. Sometimes the meaning of a Scripture is very clear in its original context, and maintains meaning over the long haul that doesn't change because of its continuing value. Misquoting "casting stones" is not one that should have continuing value in its modern (and postmodern) interpretation. Scriptures on homosexuality remain consistent and forthright in their context in advocating against homosexual practice, from Old Testament to New. So no, I don't think I'm falling into the Lucadoizing trap with these Scriptures.

In response to your second thought, I'm not sure what hoops you're jumping through to suggest the Bible doesn't directly address the issue of homosexuality. If you're talking about the word "homosexuality," then no, of course, it doesn't have that word since it's English and only really developed in the last 500 years or so. But if you're talking about a condemnation of same-sex attraction and practice, the Scriptures are clear. And to extend what the Scriptures address, if the practice itself is sinful, then the attractions that lead to such practice (whether covenantal or non) then must be treated as such. Certainly not on the same level, because there is a difference between thoughts and actions. But attractions focused on and fed will become practices.

As far as the authors of the Scriptures vs. our current understanding, I'd suggest they're much more wise in the power of healthy and unhealthy sexuality than our very sick culture. So I'm going to err on the side of trusting them more than shifting cultural mores.

Barry,

Fair enough. Jesus says the heart of the law is to "love the Lord your God" and "love your neighbor." Maybe I went a bit far to push the obedience card over the love card...but there is an interesting interplay between the two in the Bible. Most notably, Adam and Eve weren't commanded to love God, but commanded to obey God. And in that obedience they would see the character of their Creator and love Him. Abram was called to obey, as Noah was. Maybe the law made more explicit the call to love God; a deep response of valuing the voice and relationship with God above all other voices and relationships. But the call to total obedience is always there with love; because we love God we obey God. I would agree with you, though, that obedience is in the service of love. It's just that the difference between the two is almost indistinguishable Biblically, and in fact obedience may be more prominent.

The embrace vs. reproach attitude is decidedly more complex for me, I think, than you, Barry. I find your approach lacking in that it doesn't take the "mutual confrontation and correction" piece seriously enough, in my view. As you stated before, your position is officially "inclusive, accepting, and affirming." That's making a moral judgment from the very beginning that assumes covenantal homosexual practice is healthy and to be affirmed.

I appreciate the beauty of your statement "I would much rather enter into a relationship with someone where God is present and we work on our "issues" together rather than "stoning" an issue and someone getting caught in the crossfire." You could have used a different word than "stoning," but that's something I won't dredge up again.

I would like to make very clear to you and all involved in this conversation the difference between what we're doing here and how I would approach gay and lesbians. We're talking about homosexual attraction and practice in its essence in this conversation, not carrying on a trusting, growing relationship between individuals of different sexual practice. I have regular interaction with several lesbians in a place I frequent in my local area, and I would never enter with both guns blazing with my full position on the issue. That would be unloving and sinful. In fact, knowing one of these lesbians more deeply, she's not a Christian and isn't interested in the least about what God would have to say about her practice. So for me to go out of my way to let her know my position would be irrelevant at this point.

Where the difference happens for me is when a gay or lesbian begins to worship with our church family or wants to covenant their lives in service and obedience to Jesus. In the regular worship life of our family, sexual practices should come up at some point, and I would not shy away from including homosexuality in the lineup (though I would not isolate it from other sexual vices like fornication, lust, etc). Whoever would worship with us should know this is a stance we take and it therefore should be respected, as long as it is not communicated vindictively. If a gay or lesbian wants to make an initial commitment to Jesus or comes from another Christian community and wants to link up with us, then in the course of our discussions sexuality would come up. These are two main situations where I might diverge from a respect for the natural deepening course of relationships when proclamation of another way would be appropriate. This is why I find "welcoming but not affirming" so powerful as a practice; the practice is primarily one of "embrace rather than reproach."

Nate

[Scott Peterson]

Nate,

Thank you for responding so openly and respectfully regarding my previous cautions. I agree with your comments about a more even-handed awareness. However, the situation is actually more even-handed than you know. Barry happens to be auditing a class at Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary where I am working on my MDiv. The same day I posted my cautions Barry told me in person that he felt his post was also a bit harsh. After I reread his post I agreed and simply didn't think to post a follow up. That was my mistake.

I will respond to the rest of your post soon.

[Amravin]

I would like to inform you of the recent opening ay the New York Museum of Modern Art, presenting a retrospective of artist León Ferrari. Since most of the articles I have been reading about him are in Spanish (for some reason the English media does not show much of him, although he won the first prize in the Biennial of Venice with his airplane with the Christ on it), I have translated some information of his current and past works into my blog. Ferrari's work was vandalized by religious fanatics in Buenos Aires in 2004 (they entered the art show and destroyed all they found, screaming, "Jesus is King...!"). Recently the Supreme Court granted Ferrari funds for reparations, which he kindly donated to the Gay and Lesbian Association in Buenos Aires. Ferrari is straight, and has a wife. One of Ferrari's sons was "desaparecido" during the Argentine's regime...

http://amravin-meditations.blogspot.com/

Peace,

-Mia

[Nate Myers]

Amravin,

I'm not sure how relevant your comment is for this discussion, other than an example of Christians with out of control responses to art. From looking at your blog, Ferrari's work was assailed by these people primarily because of the one famous piece of his with Jesus on a fighter jet.

The question is; "What are your thoughts on how a church community seeking to live out God's shalom should handle the issue of homosexuality?"

Nate

[Amravin]

Nate, I can only build and live according to my own conscience. I am not there to pretend to be a judge, unless the people are acting in violation of real laws, which is then crime and has to do with the law. But, if you ask me if I am homophobic and hate or dislike gays, I can only tell you that I don't think that whatever people are doing with their intimacy is an issue of public discussion. If something goes too overtly decadent, then send it to Holland... LOL. -- says the little dictator inside my skull.... But: Gay or straight, what happens between two is a sacred privacy of two. I have no way to become my brother's guardian on that matter, because I myself watch and pray to forgive and be forgiven for my own acts.

I admire what Ferrari does, because he donates a good income to a cause that is not his own. He is straight, and he could have gone and spent the money doing something different. But, he chose to give it to a group that suffers a form of persecution disregarding his own affinities or differences. That act, of detaching from the fruits of his work, is something that impresses me much. How many people can do that? How much free can one be and work hard to put conviction, energy and purpose in a work that eventually goes away into something that does not touch the ego? In short, I think that Ferrari's act silently admits the words of the Christ, as he said, "he who is free of sin... may cast the first stone."

Nate Myers said:

Amravin,
I'm not sure how relevant your comment is for this discussion, other than an example of Christians with out of control responses to art. From looking at your blog, Ferrari's work was assailed by these people primarily because of the one famous piece of his with Jesus on a fighter jet. The question is; "What are your thoughts on how a church community seeking to live out God's shalom should handle the issue of homosexuality?" Nate

[Nate Myers]

Amravin,

Your response proves that you haven't read how our conversation has progressed thus far. I'd encourage you to read it and then ask, "How might I pay attention to the question and join the communal flow of the conversation with my unique voice?"

Nate

[Amravin]

It seems like a titanic expectation. I would have to update in conversations that were before the conversations and before the time of the time of the time. But, communication happens in the present, it is actually a present. One cannot really unravel the past. All we have to give to one another is a present. I give you an artwork...

Little Jesus, Lithography, David Alfaro Siqueiros

Nate Myers said:

Amravin,
Your response proves that you haven't read how our conversation has progressed thus far. I'd encourage you to read it and then ask, "How might I pay attention to the question and join the communal flow of the conversation with my unique voice?" Nate

[Kari Risher]

Wow. This discussion is really on fire! It's definitely a hot-button issue. I think about homosexuality in terms of humanity's relationship among its members in general. I believe (as Jesus said) that in a state of shalom, marriage does not exist. Monogamous partnerships do not exist. But I think the reason that we engage in these partnerships in our present world is that the world we live in is still fallen. Marriage is an opportunity to strive for a small piece of the completely trusting and committed relationships we all theoretically would feel with one another (male and female) in heaven.

It makes sense that we are all attracted to multiple people, male and female, in different ways, and in different degrees. How or if we express those attractions and the intensity of connection within those relationships is what we're really talking about when we talk about homosexuality. I just wish that we could look at it more as a spectrum. Where do I draw the line when expressing my love for my best (girl)friend? At hugging, kissing on the cheek, cuddling? The point is perhaps there is no line, but it is all just a spectrum of the expression of affection.

That said, the definition of "sin" is "to miss the mark" of God's perfect standard, and I think one major issue that (I think) hasn't been brought up here yet is the complementarity of male and female aspects of human spirit. Yin and yang are attracted to each other for a reason, like magnets, and function well together - indeed, they function best together. I beleive that men and women are imbued with both male and female energy, but of course in different doses. And it makes sense to me, from a purely intellectual standpoint, that the body reflects the dominant side of that energy (just as the body reflects so many other aspects of our spirit ie physiognomy). A woman who may have more "maleness" in her than average may fit better with a man who has more "femaleness" in him than average. Sounds simplistic, but it makes sense to this scientifically-trained-but-creatively-open mind. Just as with any other sin issue, we are taking something away from ourselves when we choose to live a life that doesn't embrace all the gifts God has for us, just as He has them.

Let me make myself clear: Technically, I believe that homosexuality is a sin in that it misses God's perfect standard for a male-female balanced partnership which can engage with the world with the potential to fully shed a heavenly light as it does. But it doesn't surprise me that it's an issue for so many people since we are all attracted to one another in some way, and I think it's a bit ridiculous how we as a society assign hard and fast rules for how we engage in relationship with others. As with almost any sin issue, the real bottom line is how much our hearts are truly turned towards God's light and letting it transform and guide us in our behavior.

[Andrew Cornelius]

Where did Jesus say that? Insofar as I'm aware, the passage you're citing has to do with the resurrection, not with our lives in the here and now.

[Kari Risher]

Andrew Cornelius said:

Where did Jesus say that? Insofar as I'm aware, the passage you're citing has to do with the resurrection, not with our lives in the here and now.

Andrew, He says in Matthew 22:30 that

“At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven”. I believe that Christianity is about the Kingdom of Heaven coming in the here and now - that we as Christians allow God's spirit to work in us, functioning as if the Kingdom is here and we are living (in the here and now) within that realm of reality. As we pray in the Lord's prayer "Your Kingdom come, Your will be done, on Earth as it is in heaven." Perhaps you choose to believe that heaven is a place that will only exist after the "end of the world" in a time-sense. I don't believe that. I believe it is the realm of perfection (outside of time) where God dwells, and that by abandoning ourselves to His Spirit, we are allowing that realm or parallel reality to bleed into our surroundings, shedding pinpricks of light into the darkness. Hopefully that clears up my assumptions for you.