About four months ago, I was interested in determining how various churches handled the "gay question." Some churches post it right on their website while others require a bit more investigating. I emailed a few pastors and got some interesting and different answers. You would probably be surprised at the variation I received within a single church but maybe not.
I also looked at the passages commonly used or referenced in relation to homosexuality in multiple translations of the Bible. There are only a few and what they say seems to vary based on the translation. Some translations have decided to use the word homosexual but is it justified in those locations? I don't think the specific passages really say anything specific about people who are in loving relationships with people of the same sex. They may say something about an actual sexual act. But what was meant by those words? I think that many of the passages are very specific to the time period and place they were written for and to compare it to today's definition of being gay is absurd. But it is all up for interpretation and every church and person aptly has their own. And mostly I am okay with that. Diversity is a beautiful thing and productive conversations are great. What I am not okay with is people that turn around and use their belief and/or interpretation to stop others who have a different belief and/or interpretation from their pursuit of happiness. What is the standard for an accepted belief? Is it majority wins?
I learned from my small and potentially expanding investigation that most churches that are actually welcome to having LGBTQQIAAP people fully participate in the church are the ones that post something on their websites. Those churches that say nothing. Or have vague statements of accepting everyone usually have a "Don't ask; Don't tell" policy when it comes to being LGBT because it won't be a big deal if nobody knows. (Cough .. Cough... HETERNORMATIVITY!!)
How can churches/denominations of Christianity prescribe to the same god, use the same book and end up with such differing views? And why are these hot button political issues such a big deal?
Personal Note: I posted something similar to this at the end of last week .... but I was not satisfied with its incompleteness and choose to edit it down for content. This is in no way a complete answer as I could go into specifics on the verses or how different denominations hold different beliefs on this issue. I choose not to include that because I don't want to get into a debate about specific things people interpret differently. I am not using this post to say anything specific about the churches I spoke with. Even if you ask, I won't tell you which churches or denominations I did speak with suffice it to say I spoke with multiple. The last questions are really meant to be rhetorical because I know the answers I just wanted to ask them.
9 comments:
I know you aren’t looking for a debate, and I will try to restrain myself from turning this into one, but I don’t think it’s possible to bring up this subject without being ready or willing to talk more about it; you’ve got to expect and be open to opposition. I also believe that when something is presented that is fundamentally contrary to what you believe, you should stand up for what you know to be true. I’m learning how to love people who are different than me, but there is a difference between loving and condoning.
This will be in response to both versions of your post seeing as I have had the weekend to ponder what you’ve said. As for comparing being gay to adultery, look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV):
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Or Galatians 5:19-21 (ESV)
“The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
To say that homosexuality is compared to adultery is correct, but misleading in the way you mentioned it because it is compared to more than just that. The two may have things in common, but the verse doesn’t say they are the same thing. What comes to my mind when reading this verse and the comparison of thieves to homosexuality is this: thieves are satisfied when they steal, but we haven’t made it legal to do so – you could say we are stopping their “pursuit of happiness.” Similarly, the Bible never says the word “porn” but we understand from these verses that it is not an acceptable act, an act of sinful nature as Galatians puts it.
Pt. 2
You took the term “loving committed relationship” and the argument about divorce out of your most recent edit of the post, but these really stuck out to me in the first version. What does that even mean? Love? Commitment? By whose terms? The world’s? The love we know by immersion in the world is perverse. Commitment is often driven by selfishness, relationships by lust. It is sad how high the divorce rates are – so much hurt that could potentially be avoided. However, the point of getting married isn’t about the odds of staying together; it’s about more than that. It’s about a covenant between God and two people who are to become one.
In response to the application of verses to modern times, I would again have to disagree. So much of the Bible is timeless; God is timeless. Yes, some of the laws in the old testament are no longer valid due to the sacrifice that Christ has made, but there is no doubt that verses are majorly still applicable. Why would we even be learning about them, and studying them, if they weren’t? That’d be left for history class not church.
pt. 3
I’m pretty sure that most rhetorical questions really aren’t rhetorical after all and are meant to be answered. How can churches/denominations of Christianity prescribe to the same god, use the same book and end up with such differing views? Enter sin, separation from God, and free will. I believe that Satan is at work in the congregation of believers around the world, distracting us and diverting our attention, preventing us all to be like-minded. Also, we cannot understand all of God, we cannot even come close, and are to be lead by the Spirit in our interpretations. Sometimes, however, the lines of communication are not crystal clear, and like in the game of telephone, the message gets diluted and/or distorted. Cultures have different methods and values, strongly influencing the way people think and act – that’s the diversity you said was good. God has granted us free will; the will to make choices on our own; the ability to be different from others. We don’t all think the same. What good would be a world of all engineers or botanists? We want to believe that we are good people and sometimes people change the context of scripture in order to justify their actions. Why are these hot button political issues such a big deal? Because they deal with people in the most tangible way – similar to topics of abortion. These are topics that we are not able to hide in our closets or behind our masks; the wounds are exposed and need to be dressed……or addressed in this case.
The decision to post on this topic was not taken lightly. I am certainly ready to talk about this subject seeing as I actually contacted several people and I “expected” and am “open” to opposition to my post and I am willing to stand up for what I believe to be right. I just don’t want to engage in a useless debate. And by that I mean that I know BOTH sides of the situation and I chose with my “free will” to believe what I believe and if that makes me “less Christian” or part of “the blind leading the blind” or means that I “stretch my freedom in faith too far” then so be it. You can post opposing statements and I welcome the conversation but I already know what you’re going to say and I don’t care to go there. I have read scripture. I have spoke with people. I have read differing people’s opinions on the matter. And I have after being lead by the Spirit come to a conclusion on what it all means.
I really wish you would have only responded to my current post as I edited it for a reason. I read it over the next day and decided to change things and took it down to switch it around. For awhile, I entertained the idea of expanding on what I wrote, but in the end, I cut most of it to get to the point of what I really wanted to say which was that I recently asked several churches if they are open to having LGBT members.
I took out the comparison of adultery to being gay for a reason. Your response although interesting does not really speak to what I initially stated which I didn’t like and deleted because it was more me being annoyed than anything else.
However, let’s talk about it shall we. The failure of your thief analogy is that it is not illegal to be gay. Originally, I didn’t like how I heard someone in the past compare being gay to adultery because I fail to see how loving someone is a bad thing or a sin. I understand how cheating on your boyfriend/girlfriend/fiancé/husband/wife is a bad thing. In fact, I have personal experience with how bad adultery can be. But I also have personal experience with how awesome love can be and I really don’t think the sex of the person matters that much. Isn’t Love just Love?
I also took out the “loving committed relationship” and divorce parts for almost the same reason. But I believe I did ask what constitutes commitment? Or how are relationships defined? Or something like that. I don’t know now as I deleted it. Mostly, I chose to use the phrase “loving committed relationship” instead of “being married” because marriage is not a right that everyone has the opportunity to partake in. Which is why I asked with such high rates of divorce it was even worth partaking in. But again I removed it because it was an entirely different topic.
I don’t believe I stated that all verses do not apply to modern times so your “why even study it” seems very extreme. I merely question the use of a modern word and idea to the old verses. I agree that “so much of the Bible is timeless” and easily crosses time’s bounds but the application of new words to replace old ideas bothers me as it tends to change its meaning sometimes where it is not always justified.
I’m pretty sure the definition of rhetorical questions are questions not meant to really be answered; I meant my questions as rhetorical questions because I was not looking for an answer. I understand very well the answers to the questions I posed although yours prove to be fascinating.
Why did you use Galatians? I fail to see the connection to homosexuality.
I am sorry you think love is perverse and commitment and relationships selfish and lustful. Yes, I am aware that marriage is about more than just staying together (I was being sarcastic before. Again, why I chose to cut it) but not everyone who gets married sees marriage the way you described it. I was not actually talking about “biblical marriage” when I mentioned it. I was speaking to marriage in general. Because of freedom of religion in our country I would never assume or think that everyone believes in the same god(s). So a definition of marriage rooted in a specific religion doesn’t seem suited to the situation. If you need a definition of love then how about “choosing the highest good for the other person.” That is not perverse, selfish or lustful.
Also, I would prefer you not assume you know which diversity I spoke to.
Oh wow. I just found your comment! I didn't click the box to be notified after further comments and saw the comments after checking out your latest posts. Sorry about that - I promise I wasn't trying to avoid it!
Here's the deal. I thought about whether or not to respond to your post all of last weekend, and in the end I felt like I needed to say something. However, I don't know that I will continue to do so because I don't think our thoughts/comments are able to cross the communication barrier, and things are poorly interpreted...on both ends. Maybe you don't feel the same way but I think that it will just cause unnecessary conflict - all posts have sounded relatively defensive.
I'm sorry for assuming what you meant by diversity, but I'd also appreciate if you didn't put me in a box and assume you "know" what I'm going to say on the subject. Also, I couldn't only reply to the more recent post because they both blended together in my head as I considered the topic, so just go ahead and disregard what you want.
That's all I'm going to respond to, and not because I don't have any more to say, but like I said before, I don't think this is beneficial for either of us to discuss the topic when we are not able to understand each other.
First off, I just wanted to say that there is a lot that could be discussed from what Jess originally said as well as what was discussed in the comments. I'll try to keep my comments relatively brief and I can expand or clarify if need be. I also think that this is an important conversation to have. We may not change anyone's opinion, but the important thing is that we try to better understand where each other is coming from.
The reason why there are so many different churches and beliefs is that there are a variety of ways to interpret the Bible. The Bible isn't a book written by God himself and passed down through all this time without an edit. The Bible is a set of writings written by man with their own personal and cultural biases that have been translated and edited by future transcribers with their own biases and errors in interpretation and translation. We do not have any of the original documents, just thousands upon thousands of copies that illustrate that there are also thousands upon thousands of errors between them. The Bible is also self-contradictory on a number of things and there is little way of knowing what God explicitly does or does not want from us. Is adultery just about the physical act, or is fantasy a sin? Is pre-marital kissing adultery? Is is greedy to not give all your money to the poor? Is drinking really so sinful if Jesus created wine for the wedding party? If it is true that “the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God,” then there are a lot of people, gay and straight, who will be spending eternity in hell. Because of the lack of explicit description, some Christians may take all of those sins seriously, others may pick some and not others, and some may reject that altogether and choose to believe that we all sin and there is no sin big enough to prevent one from getting into heaven.
It's a little simplistic to suggest that the reason for different Biblical interpretation is due to “separation from God,” “free will,” and the belief “that Satan is at work in the congregation of believers around the world, distracting us and diverting our attention, preventing us all to be like-minded.” This disregards the history of editing and translations that have shaped the Bible we read now. It's not like the Bible explicitly says don't do these things, do these things, and these are the answers to questions you may have in interpreting what I've stated. Many people study the Bible extensively and pray to God on how to best read it and they still come away with different interpretations.
I could talk about the fact that Jesus didn't discuss homosexuality or the fact that there is very little discussion of homosexuality in the Bible in comparison to other issues. I could also easily critique the many arguments of conservative Christians who see Biblical proof that homosexuality is wrong. But the Bible isn't black-and-white and we can use the Bible to support whatever belief system we might have. Both conservative and liberal Christians pick and choose what to believe and there are countless verses to support or oppose whatever viewpoint one might have.
(continued)
In terms of homosexuality, some Christians feel compelled to hate the sin and hate the sinner in order to shame gay people into changing their “lifestyle” for them to have a chance at heaven. Others follow the hate the sin, love the sinner model (“the difference between loving and condoning”). These people may not ex-communicate family and friends who are gay, but they won't put themselves in situations where tolerance or acceptance could be interpreted. Others may reject the notion of homosexuality as sin altogether. We could easily find Bible verses to support or oppose all of these positions.
While I disagree, I understand the belief of homosexuality as adultery or thievery. I grew up in fundamentalist Christianity so I remember being told that God has designed a significant other that is perfectly suited for us. By engaging in premarital sex or having a relationship with someone of the same sex, we would be cheating on/taking from the person God had designed for us. In this view, the “love” that is felt isn't the kind of love that God wrote for us and it won't be as fulfilling. But who are we to judge what relationships are or are not valid? It's not like God comes down to tell people what he approves of and what he doesn't. Liberal Christians and secularists would disagree that someone else is harmed by a same-sex couple.
I think there also needs to be an acceptance that marriage is a secular institution. Like it or not, Christians and non-Christians can marry. There is nothing that says one must be religious or enter into a relationship constructed on Christian patriarchy and complementarianism. Couples may choose to see marriage as a “covenant between God and two people who are to become one,” or they can have one based upon another religion or one that is entirely “worldly.” One may believe that these other types of relationships are “perverse,” but that doesn't mean that these couples will feel any less fulfilled by their relationships. What is true for one may not be true for another.
@Christy
First off, I didn't think you were avoiding it and I do appreciate your comments and thoughts.
Secondly, I was actually going to suggest that if we wanted to talk any more on this that we do it in person so that it is not misunderstood through writing and comments.
Third - I have definitely learned my lesson on posting things that I am not quite finished with and will wait longer between writing and posting to allow for changes. I think it was probably easy to misinterpret my first post because it was vague and chaotic. And I think I jumped around a lot without explaining much which I’m sure is why I sounded defensive in my response. I think I felt the need to defend what I wrote the first time because of its vague chaotic thoughts and because it could no longer defend its self (if that makes sense).
Finally, I didn’t mean anything personal by it; I just disagree with the point of view you are representing. I apologize for stating that I knew what you would say. But I do understand the other side of the topic and therefore understand the arguments that could be used. And you even said that what you believe is fundamentally contrary to the view that I posted. But that doesn't mean I will know what you will say so again I apologize.
Post a Comment