We Need to Talk -- About Homosexuality
It has been a week since news broke about the Facebook posting of the new mayor of Troy, that used a gay slur. I went on record calling for her apology and raising the issue of how we deal with the question of homosexuality in our society. That a conversation has begun is an understatement. Where it will lead, I do not know. It appears that those who oppose gay rights are mounting their stand. They will take solace from an anti-gay ad by GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry. But as I wrote in a column for the Lompoc Record several years ago after a young boy was murdered because he was gay, we need to talk. The text that follows was largely written for the Lompoc Record and has been revised for my next book -- Faith in the Public Square, (Energion, 2012). So, people of Troy and beyond, let has have a conversation about how a question that will not go away. "Don't ask, Don't tell" didn't work in the military and it won't work in our broader society.
**********************
We Need to Talk
Whenever someone says “We need to talk,” we
know the topic of conversation is going to be difficult. It’s natural to try to avoid conflict,
especially when we fear that tempers might flair and relationships will be broken. We say:
“Let sleeping dogs lie,” and “What they don’t know won’t hurt
them.” From an early age we learn what’s
appropriate for polite discussion and what isn’t.
It’s this sensibility
that lies behind the military’s “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy regarding
homosexuals serving in the military, which was finally reversed in 2011. The policy was enacted because homosexuality
is a controversial issue in our culture – and so if we don’t ask, we don’t have
to deal with the question of sexual orientation. Thus, if you’re gay or lesbian and serving
in the military, it’s best to stay in the closet.
What is official
military policy has become unofficial policy in much of our society, including
our religious communities. A Baptist
pastor friend of mine lost his job because of a pictorial directory. Although his church has been welcoming gays
and lesbians for years, a group in the church balked at the decision to put gay
and lesbian couples together in directory pictures – acknowledging their partnership. As long as people stay in the closet, we feel
comfortable with the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Our culture’s
discomfort with the question of sexual orientation is wrapped up with our equal
discomfort in talking about sexuality in general. This is true in spite of the fact that our
culture is saturated by it. Consider the
adage: “Sex sells.” If it weren’t true, ad agencies and TV
producers wouldn’t bother with it. Our
fears keep us from talking. When it
comes to sex education in our schools, many opponents say this should be a
family matter. But the truth is families
often aren’t up to the challenge. If we
have difficulties discussing sexuality in a frank and open way, it’s no
surprise that we find the topic of sexual orientation to be problematic.
The shooting death in 2006 of Lawrence King, a 15 year old
Oxnard junior high school student, at the hands of a fellow student served as a
wake up call to many of us living along the Central Coast of California. The victim had revealed to his peers that he
was gay, a revelation that led to taunts, teasing, and threats – does that
sound surprising? It appears that Larry
may have responded on occasion to these threats by flirting, which only made
the problem worse. One of those students
involved in this situation was Brandon McInearny, a bright young man who came
from a broken and violent home. Both
young men had issues they struggled with, and in the end this was a fatal
combination for both of them. We wonder
if this would have happened if our society was better equipped to handle
differences in sexual or gender orientation.
I don’t know all the details – including possible efforts by the school
to mediate the problem beforehand. But,
we as a society must recognize that our discomfort with the issue prevents our
young people from knowing how to properly deal with differences. In a society that still considers violence
to be a legitimate means of expression, when we’re unwilling to talk about
deeply divisive issues in our society, violence can and will happen. In this case, one teen is dead and the other
faces the possibility of life in prison.
Whatever the troubles of their past lives, now neither has a
future.
I understand why we
find it difficult to talk about the issue.
There are significant differences of understanding about homosexuality –
whether it’s a choice or not, and whether or not it’s a moral issue. I understand the question well, because
before my brother came out I believed homosexuality to be a choice and
immoral. Since that time, I’ve wrestled
with the question and have changed my mind.
But, knowing how divisive the question is, I’m still hesitant to raise
the issue in the church. In our church
we’re welcoming but we’re still not sure what that means. I think that’s true of much of our society at
this moment. But if we’re going to bring
an end to the violence against the Larry Kings and Matthew Shepherds of our
world, we need to start talking in earnest.
Comments
Would you like to try it? Offer some evidence, any evidence, that homosexuality is moral. Well?
If one is going to claim that homosexuality is moral, one should be prepared to prove it.
"Brian,
Would you like to try it?"
Um, Brian, I would ask for pictures before answering.
I masturbated before, is that gay?
Who will be the judge of whether homosexuality is moral or immoral? God will. He already has.
But it also points to Bob's original point that homosexuality is a hard topic for the Church to talk about. In hindsight, my post distracted us from the topic as much as did Gary's.
I believe that homosexuality is morally equal to heterosexuality. The quality of the relationship is what matters most.
I believe that a deeper study of scripture supports this(1), but more importantly (for me) is that I believe in my own heart & mind that it is right.
1. This is based on the belief that scripture is best understood as a historical/social document(s) rather than supernatural revelation.
From the Bible, prove that homosexuality is moral. If you can.
No one seems to want to accept my challenge to prove the homosexuality is moral. If you are right, it shouldn't be hard to do.
You have posted a reasonable challenge. I am pretty sure I have answered it in previous postings and I will search and respond sometime today.
But the more interesting aspect is the reluctance of others to respond to your challenge. I wonder if it is a knee-jerk reaction to any question from you, or whether the other participants in this blog are standing back in a shocked response to such a reasonable engagements by you on a subject which has proven so incendiary for you in the past...or maybe they are just concerned about the hostility of the response which they anticipate from you?
Anyway, Game On!
Let us begin with the basic questions: how does one define what is moral and immoral? And, in making such an assessment, should we be guided by first principles or by a specific set of requirements and prohibitions?
Also, I will anticipate and accept your claim that the The Bible is determinative, even though I think many would rightly disagree. In accepting this Scriptural baseline, I also acknowledge that your interpretation of Scripture and mine may and will differ.
Finding at a very young age that the male underwear section in the Sears catalog offered thrills rather than the female section-
That convinced me more than anything. I was all sweaty about the female section long before I had a clue about sex at all.
The attempt to "be normal". Wanting someone to understand they were just being themselves. Wouldn't be great if we ALL understood? Some of us are convince, either way, we learned it somehow.
I had one of the toughest and gruffest guys I ever encountered (a visiting German) hit on me one night (I worked in a hotel bar several years). When I explained he had me "pegged" wrong, the look of terror in his face was shocking.
Why would God put them in such a state? Why didn't Jesus address it clearly? Too hard to parablize?
Love your neighbor... Who is your neighbor... Consider the undesirable outcast who fails to live according to the religious law as we insiders know it and who is the object of scorn and derision... Is that person not your neighbor and thus deserves your love - just the way he is?
Isn't the Good Samaritan the applicable parable?"
I guess it would be, since we're all in a position to help.
Was it mistranslated from "Gay Samaritan"? Sorry.
I'm always quick with a poor joke.
A gay person in our society, that keeps the basic faith. Inspiring.
1. There are only a very small number of texts that deal with anything close to homosexuality. The most applicable is Romans 1, but there are important contextual questions to consider.
2. There are cultural issues that need to be considered -- one of which is Jewish understandings of Gentile behavior -- there was something akin to homosexuality in the conversation, but it might be better to see what is happening in Greco-Roman society as pederasty -- an older man with a younger boy.
3. There are similar culturally related perspectives that relate to women and slavery -- the latter few modern Christians support (though southern American Christians defended slavery on biblical grounds at least as late as 1865.
3. But, if we're looking for a text that might suggest a change of practice, might we not look at the Acts 10/11 passages dealing with Cornelius. Ultimately it was the endowment of the Spirit that convinced Peter that the Gentiles were clean. Could this not be said of gays and lesbians -- that a new understanding has been revealed as we witness the presence of God in our gay brothers and sisters?
Trying to go at this with chapter and verse in the end doesn't work. Thus, we must look at the text of Scripture, which I consider authoritative, in light of the interpretave lens of tradition (not all that helpful here), experience, and reason. The latter 2 are the keys. When it comes to applying scripture to gays and lesbians, perhaps the texts that are most applicable to them are the same ones that are applicable to heterosexuals -- fidelity, faithfulness, and love.
Before I respond to the challenge you have to guide the discussion:
Let us begin with the basic questions: how does one define what is moral and immoral? And, in making such an assessment, should we be guided by first principles or by a specific set of requirements and prohibitions?
God defines morality. The morality of homosexuality has been addressed in the Bible.
Not everyone communicates directly with God, some of us need to resort to Scripture for guidance. So your response is not helpful, but appears evasive.
Are we to be guided by principles or clearly stated requirements and prohibitions?
On the issue of homosexuality, the prohibitions are clearly stated in the Bible.
The above link leads to the best Bible-based approach to homosexuality I've seen. It is written by Walter Wink.
Yes, prohibitions are controlling. But it is prohibited by moral principles as well.
I will address requirements and prohibitions later today, but while were on moral principles, are you referring to moral principles outside of Scriptures? If you are referring to moral principles within Scriptures would identify them. I want to do this step by step so it doesn't become a shouting match.
Take the shortcut. Just prove that homosexuality is moral. What evidence do you have?
How can possibly show something is moral (a subjective determination) if we are not sharing the same moral standard. My hope is to employ Scripture to address this, but I need to be clear between us on just how you limit the use of Scripture.
I could just throw out a whole bunch of quotes, or I could cite you to other online resources which make arguments. My guess however is that neither of those approaches will be particularly persuasive (not that any approach will necessarily be persuasive) but at least if I can fashion my own approach, I can own it and you will know where I am coming from. If I do anything less, you will just throw back your own quotes and cite me to your own online resources. In which case we have just chased around in a big circle for nothing.
If that's what you want, then OK I cannot do better than to cite you to the Walter Wink cite listed above by Brian. But that doesn't really answer your challenge does it?
I don't think your going to keep Gary's attention long enough for what you're trying to do, but I'd still be interested in hearing where you're going with this.
Whether homosexuality is moral is not subjective. What is said about it in the Bible is definitive for me. Can you prove that what we now call homosexuality is moral from the Bible?
Morality is subjective.
There may be a lot of points of agreement between your moral code and mine but I think we can agree that there are distinct points of disagreement. As to those points of disagreement, for the most part one or the other of us is not objectively wrong, we just don't see things the same way. For example when, in your passion, you make unkind statements about your opponents, I would call that immoral behavior. I regard insults as immoral because they are hurtful and they place both the one insulted as well as the one doing the insulting in a poor light, and they are hurtful to the community at large. On the other hand, I assume that you believe that such behavior is not governed by morality so you believe you are free to say what you will.
To answer your last question, I think I can, but I need for us to agree on a common point of beginning, 'principles' or 'specific rules.' The risk is that we will keep switching back and forth and not remain tracked on the argument at hand. You are already signaling an intention to jump back and forth as the moment suits you.
You said specific rules should govern. So with that I can begin.
So many actions are identified as an abomination in the Old Testament which contemporary Christians take for granted that the term abomination really has no meaning. So the question has to be asked which prohibitions and which requirements from the Old Testament apply to Christians?
While the Old Testament offers little help on this, I suppose we could cite Isaiah 56:6-7 "6 And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant-- 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples."
Isaiah suggests that it comes down to whether one serves the Lord, keeps the Sabbath, and holds to the Covenant. God's requirements for non-Jews are very different from the purity code imposed on Jews.
Jeremiah31:31-34 says: "31 The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt--a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, "Know the LORD," for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.
Micah proclaims the requirements simply: "to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God."
The grand total of all of that is to say that 'loving kindness,' and 'looking into your heart' for the law of God which has written there, these are critical to keeping covenant with God. And keeping the Sabbath.
Highest and most important of the requirements is to love God and love your neighbor - whom God also loves. A grave sin then would be to behave in such a way as to demonstrate a lack of love for God or for one's neighbor.
Eating shellfish or marrying divorced person seems to be OK
It all boils down to the Golden Rule, with God included as a significant "other". I can live with that.
It appears to be a mistranslation from toevah. Interesting examples are here, I'll not cut and paste.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2826/does_the_bible_really_call_homosexuality_an_%E2%80%9Cabomination%E2%80%9D
"Morality is subjective." Said you.
If morality is subjective then why do we need to argue about whether homosexuality is moral? If there is no objective standard of morality that applies to everyone, then we are each free to do as we please and define morality for ourselves. Or not.
"Subjective" does not mean "not real." The question is whether homosexuality is illicit under the morality taught by Jesus. To understand the morality taught by Jesus we must talk a little about what the tradition he began from teaches about morality, and what constitutes a grave sin, as I assume you regard homosexuality.
Eventually we get to the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5: you have heard it said..., well I say...! Here Jesus rejects an objective standard as deficient and prone to literalism and instead calls us to a highly subjective standard, one that turns on the spirit of the law, and one that relies on compassion and a high regard for the "other". His standard is a genuine standard and he is serious in calling us to it.
See, now we've lost the nice narrow path we were following. We've fallen to quibbling about objective and subjective and let go of the core of the discussion.
What did Jesus think of homosexuality?
"There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him." Mark 7:15
I doubt Jesus spent much time thinking about homosexuality at all. However, my assumption is that he loved and continues to love homosexuals every bit as much as he loved and loves heterosexuals, and that his concern was exercised against those who would judge others for the gifts given to them instead worrying about their own salvation.
You don't know what Jesus thought about it?
"The question is whether homosexuality is illicit under the morality taught by Jesus."
Yes, that is the question, isn't it? So what is your answer, and how do you know you are correct?
Did you mean to suggest that homosexuality is a gift from God?
Human sexuality is a gift from God. It manifests itself in each of us a little differently, thus the gift is different for each of us, but it is still a gift.
The Bible does not quote Jesus speaking about homosexuality. Nevertheless, I know that Jesus loves me and I am just as certain that he loves you, and the same for the homosexual that lives around the block from you.
And I know how Jesus would react if he were confronted with the issue. I know that Jesus didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery even though her neighbors were outraged, and even though Jesus was well aware not only that she was guilty of this biblically proscribed behavior, but also that the prescribed penalty was death, the same penalty for someone found engaging in homosexual conduct. I can only assume that if you brought a homosexual before him he would respond to the homosexual the same way, "neither do I condemn you." And I think he would respond to you in the same way he would respond to the woman's accusers.
God also gave rules governing sexuality. According to the entire New Testament, including what Jesus taught, all sex outside of marriage is prohibited.
According to the New Testament, God allows marriage between people who are qualified to marry. What are the qualifications?
1. You must be unmarried. If you are already married, you may not marry again.
2. You must marry someone of the opposite sex. A marriage consists of the union of a husband, who must be a man, and a wife, who must be a woman.
So, according to the entire New Testament, including what Jesus taught, God made no provision whatsoever for homosexuality to be moral. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, are not permitted to engage in sex outside of marriage. And there is no such thing as same-sex marriage. The concept is nowhere to be found in the New Testament.
I haven't even mentioned the explicit condemnations of what we call homosexuality that are found in the New Testament.
The Bible does not limit marriage as between one man and one woman. The circumstance of multiple wives is commonly represented. Are you suggesting that the marriage parameters of the Old Testament should prevail in all times and in all cultures? Slavery was also normative in biblical times - no one would claim that it should be normative for today. Times change.
You are right that Jesus spoke against illicit sex. But he condemned their accusers far more harshly.
And the notion of preventing homosexuals from marrying and then accusing them of illicit unmarried sex is rather unfair and and morally disingenuous.
In the New Testament, marriage is one man and one woman.
Who do you think you are that you can complain that God is unfair to limit marriage to one man and one woman? Or that He must allow sex outside of marriage?
Actually, both Jesus and Paul seem to see marriage as a distraction from the greater task of discipleship. However, both permit marriage as a safe outlet for sexual passion. Seen in this way marriage then becomes a tool to protect the individual and society from the consequences of promiscuity. As such, why then not allow homosexuals a similar sanctuary, they are just as sexual as heterosexuals and we all can benefit from allowing them the same sanctuary.
Who am I to challenge what's fair and unfair? Iam am a man who believes that my God is just, and perfectly so. I am a man who believes that my God loves his creation deeply and who would always give his children bread and not stones to eat. So when I see unfairness I am called, like Job, to speak out and to contend with God, seeking for an explanation of why injustice should prevail.
God may not provide me with an explanation, but God will surely vindicate me for my certainty that God is compassionate and just and that God wills for a compassionate and just world, and that any injustice in the world is not of God. And God will chastise those who would tolerate injustice or worse, those who would believe that God wills that injustice should prevail or that compassion is precluded by blind adherence to warn out and outdated rules created for another time, place and purpose.
Jesus invites us into a different way of interpreting Scripture when he says "you have heard it said....but I say....". Try this: You have heard it said, 'be fruitful and multiply,' but I say 'let your fruit be compassion and share it without limit.'
God has spoken on the subject, and you have rejected what God has said.
The issue is whether we have heard.