My critique of the Living Church of God's assertion that homosexual and transgender folks are waging a war against normalcy has succeeded in uniting the ministry of the Church of God International! After bickering over Anglo-Israelism, Covid, headline theology, and messaging for years, the ministry has found their common ground - they have united in their opposition to homosexuality and gender dysphoria. CGI's Mike James and Vance Stinson both delivered sermons this past Sabbath that completely and unabashedly embraced Bill Watson's stance on this issue (Indeed, Bill congratulated Mike James on the sermon which he delivered to his Medina congregation). I guess nothing unites good Christian folk like gay bashing!
For his part, Vance Stinson claimed that he was appealing to the "natural order" and "God's standard" in his condemnation of anything outside of heterosexual behavior and birth gender. His foundational text was one of those favorite "clobber passages," the second half of the first chapter of Paul's epistle to the Romans. Of course, Mr. Stinson completely ignored homosexual behavior in the animal world when he quoted Paul's instructions about studying the creation to learn about God and His will. He also conveniently ignored the fact that heterosexual attraction is NOT natural to homosexuals (most of us simply aren't attracted sexually to the other gender)! Sure, it's completely natural for heterosexuals to be attracted to the other gender, and it's unnatural for them to experience same sex attraction!
According to Mr. Stinson, you cannot have too much sameness - he says that "oppositeness" is essential. I guess that's why there is so much peace and harmony within heterosexual relationships! All of that "oppositeness" makes things go so much smoother! He claims that the "clobber passage" found in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus can only be interpreted according to his understanding of it - that the passage condemns ALL homosexual behavior (not just temple prostitution or the humiliating and misogynistic way that males treated women in ancient times). According to Mr. Stinson, homosexuals are "serving their own bellies." In other words, their interpretations of these scriptures are self-serving. I wish that he would please explain to me how that applies to me - especially in light of the fact that I am living my life according to the standard which HE espouses (NOT the one I advocate). Moreover, sensing his own vulnerability on this topic, Mr. Stinson dared anyone to accuse CGI of picking and choosing which laws they want to observe out of the Torah. Heaven forbid!
No, Mr. Stinson, I'm interested in God's standard. What is God's standard for Christians operating under the New Covenant? To repent of our sins and accept the work of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on our behalf. Moreover, Christ instructed his followers to live their lives going forward according to two principles: love for God and love for each other. The chief expression of that love for each other as outlined in the Ten Commandments was fidelity or faithfulness to one's spouse. According to Paul, fulfilling the requirement to love entails being patient, kind, and respectful to your spouse - not exhibiting jealousy, pridefulness, and irritability. Paul said that a person shouldn't keep a record of the wrongs that the other person has done to them, and that he/she should never give up on the other person or their relationship. How many heterosexuals do you know who practice all of those habits in their relationships with their spouses? Is it possible for a homosexual to treat their partner that way?
Unfortunately, traditionalists like Mr. Stinson and Mr. James invariably reference things like bestiality and pedophilia in their attacks on homosexuality. Those deviant behaviors, however, fail the love standard just referenced. How can sexual intercourse be consensual when the two parties are so uneven in intellect and power? How can that kind of sex ever be considered loving when the potential for both emotional and physical harm is virtually assured by the act?
Mike James came at the issue from the perspective of modern moral/sexual behaviors amounting to a return to mankind's devotion to the pagan/demonic gods of old. For Mike, homosexuality and transgenderism are merely symptoms of the larger trend toward societal moral decadence. For him, God has given different roles for men and women to fulfill, and it is sinful for folks to get out of their lane. According to Mike, God has assigned our gender and our respective role(s) based on the gender we are born with - we can only decide to accept/reject our gender and its God-ordained role(s). Does that mean that a woman can never be a leader? Does that mean that a woman can never be a teacher within God's Church? Does that mean that a gay man has suppressed his God-given attraction for women? How can a gender or sexual orientation be wrong or sinful if it is how the person feels/thinks?
Mr. James went on to decry the fact that these things might eventually become normalized or made acceptable to society as a whole. God forbid that people would treat other people the way that they would like to be treated themselves! God forbid that love would someday be the only standard by which any relationship is measured! No, let's go on pretending that human sexual intercourse is all about reproduction and has little or nothing to do with expressing love and commitment to another person! Let's go on pretending that heterosexual sex is "normal" and "natural" for everyone! Let's go on pretending that homosexuals are incapable of being faithful to one person and/or raising children to be good and moral people! Let's go on pretending that same sex attraction is sinful and opposite sex attraction is good! Let's go on pretending that people make a conscious decision to prefer pecs to breasts! Yes, let's all just bury our heads in the sand and pretend that God isn't watching all of it!
You have misrepresented my message. When I referred to the "order of creation," I was referring to the creation narrative itself (God's revealed Word, not my own feelings about what seems right), which is exactly what Paul was referring to in Romans 1. We know this because Romans 1 echoes the creation narrative (as I explained); Paul is showing that the creation order had been reversed. I also made it clear that we can't go by what seems natural to us, because the image of God each of us bears has been corrupted, and our consciences must be reformed by the Word of God itself. So, no, I did not "ignore" the fact that heterosexuality seems unnatural to homosexuals. While I did not mention it, I am completely aware that being same-sex attracted (which is almost never a choice) is not a sin, but having sexual with someone of one's own sex is. I have baptized people who were same-sex attracted. One such person thought he was doomed to the lake of fire for simply having that orientation (though he was celibate and refrained from lustful thoughts). I assured him that he was as much a child of God as anyone, and that his sexual orientation (which he didn't ask for and didn't want) would not keep him out of the Kingdom of God. I have talked with a few such persons over the years, and I don't think any of them would disagree with my exegesis of the passages I used in the message. I did NOT use them as "clobber passages."
ReplyDeleteI think you may have misunderstood the point that I was attempting to make about your interpretation of the creation narrative. I believe that the creation narrative in Genesis does NOT support your contention that heterosexual sex is the only normal/natural/moral manifestation of human sexuality.
DeleteYes, God created males and females for purposes of reproduction (He also designed a number of other systems for that purpose). Moreover, in humans, Genesis makes plain that God divided to humankind different aspects of his own character/personality. Finally, I believe that Genesis also makes clear that humans were designed to have a unique relationship with each other - a role that animals cannot fulfill.
As you know, Paul placed a great deal of emphasis on what is natural to humankind (part of our nature). Hence, if something is unnatural to someone, making that individual behave in a way that is contrary to their nature is NOT "normal" or "natural." If it is not good for a human to be alone, how can you make it good for a gay person to be alone? Moreover, how would it be fair or good for that person or their spouse to be forced to be in a heterosexual relationship?
As for the passages which you employed in your message, I don't believe that I have misrepresented your interpretation of them. Am I wrong in stating that you employed them as proof that God prohibits ALL homosexual behavior? Aren't you suggesting that anything beyond same sex attraction is sin? If this isn't your position, please clarify.
Finally, while I end up posting 99% of the commentary offered here (including those who vociferously disagree with me), all comments are subject to moderation by me. This is fairly standard practice among the majority of blogs who accept comments. As you are probably aware from your experiences with church websites, some folks occasionally say things that are very inappropriate (language, sexual content, violence, etc.) Moderation is the only way to prevent this.
Hi Lonnie, Mike James here. Looks like you are asking me for some answers to your questions on my recent sermon. Please see my responses: Does that mean that a woman can never be a leader? I said in the sermon women can be leaders. Working in government for 33+ years I had some women managers who were better than some of my men managers. Does that mean that a woman can never be a teacher within God's Church? I have no problems with expanding the roles of women in the Church to include being interviewed on programs or giving responses in bible study. I would not have a problem with a woman teaching on youtube, just not from the pulpit. Does that mean that a gay man has suppressed his God-given attraction for women? No, there are a number of reasons why people become homosexual. But in my experience in reading material on this subject and talking to people who were or are homosexual - I believe this can be overcome or managed like lust. How can a gender or sexual orientation be wrong or sinful if it is how the person feels/thinks? What we think and feel can be sinful. Jesus tells us not to lust after a woman if I'm a man. It seems to me like lust is natural or should I say carnal. But because God's word tells me I should not, I follow what He says and fight against it.
ReplyDeleteAbout homosexual activity in the animal world think about this for a minute - are they not animals? I think there is a distinction between animals and humans in the Bible. Humans are in the likeness and image of God animals are not. Animals do not have mind/consciousness/spiritual element like men do. For example, when a dog jumps on someone's leg and begins to simulate the procreative act does that mean the dog is into beastiality? Of course not, the dog is just going with what feels good or natural to him - it is an animal. You are comparing apples and oranges with this point. The Bible was not written to explain what animals need to know it was written for what mankind needs to know.
Mike,
DeleteThank you for responding. Paul's remarks about women speaking in Church reflect the cultural perspective of a First Century Jew. I don't believe it reflects a God or eternal spiritual principle for all peoples in all times. Paul also wrote that there aren't any males or females within the Church. Moreover, his instruction about women teaching does not mesh with his own experiences with Priscilla or what he said about Timothy's mother and grandmother. We sometimes forget that Paul wrote these letters to First Century congregations which he was active in and who were experiencing problems and situations unique to them. Yes, he was inspired, but that did not make him immune to the influence of his own times and culture.
As for lust, I think that you are making the same mistake that many Christians have made about Christ's remarks in the fifth chapter of Matthew. Jesus was expanding on the intent and application of Torah law. The context of his remarks about lust and committing adultery in one's heart were obviously made within the context of marriage. If young men didn't lust after young ladies, there wouldn't be ANY marriages! Sexual attraction is a normal and healthy component of how our Creator designed us to function.
As for the role of feelings in all of this, it is Paul who makes a big deal about the role of nature and conscience in these matters - it is central to his theology. In other words, if we believe something to be wrong, it is wrong for us. We must someday each answer for ourselves before God. I'm responsible for what I know, not for what you think you know and vice versa. Paul had some things to say about long hair, ministerial marriages, vegetarianism, etc. As you know, both ministers and lay people have interpreted his comments on these topics very differently (my own father was on wife number three when he died, and he was a credentialed minister of CGI). What do you think about the different perspectives on Paul's teachings on these topics?
I believe Paul's comments about males and females was looking toward the ultimate Kingdom reign of Christ on earth. If not why does the Bible tell slaves in the N.T. to work as if you are working for God. It also tells the Christian slave master to treat the slave right. Remember that bond and free are mentioned with male and female and Jew and Greek. Paul didn't say anything about women taking over the male role in Church. It's not just Paul I'm thinking about, but the O.T. too and the priesthood etc.
DeleteI'm not in agreement that Paul is making the statement about lust only in relation to marriage. Again, I am looking at the O.T. too in regard to this. If a man had sex he better marry that girl. So don't get too carried away by what you see. Of course it relates to marriage, but lust in general takes a focus off what marriage is really about. It's not just about attraction to the opposite sex. Of course God allowed for the attraction, but like a lot of other things we have to control that.
Yes, Paul had some opinions in his N.T. writings...I would agree with long hair being his opinion. Long hair is not a sin. I get your point on conscience, but again I disagree with you on how you and I see the law. I believe Paul would see God's law is different from some matters dealing with conscience. The established order of male leadership goes back to Genesis. Paul reiterates that in Ephesians when discussing marriage.
Mike,
DeleteThanks for a polite dialogue on this topic. I think Paul's statement to the Galatians was both current and forward looking. The sense is that Christ has already made us children of God, and that those who then belonged to him were no longer subject to those distinctions (servitude, ethnicity, gender) in God's sight. Also, in the Kingdom, obviously, there will be no genders or marriage. I believe patriarchy and misogyny are human inventions and are, consequently, cultural artifacts (no matter how far back they may stretch into antiquity). Finally, that was Christ's statement about lust (not Paul's), and it is very clear to me that he was talking about the inappropriateness/wrongness/sinfulness of a married person indulging in lustful thoughts about someone other than his/her spouse. Bottom line, we just see this differently.
Yes, we see some things differently. But I do agree that Paul's statement to the Galatians had a current and forward looking sense to it. Just like the idea of the Kingdom having a sense of here and now (we have God's Spirit now and should be using it...Kingdom now), but the fuller and complete sense comes when Christ returns.
DeleteNo, you were very clear. You thought I was appealing to nature (see your references to animals and what is not "natural" to homosexuals). I was appealing to Paul's commentary on Genesis 2. He clearly sees sexual relationships between people of the same sex as sinful, and he refers to the creation account (by way of inter-textual echo) to show what the will of God had always been in this regard. As you know, several LGBT apologists have said that Paul's views were influenced by the culture that shaped him, that he didn't have the science we have today, etc., etc. Many of them agree that both Paul and Jesus did in fact believe that same-sex sexual relationships were sinful. So they agree with my exegesis of Romans 1, but do not agree with my high view of divine inspiration. In other words, this was Paul's opinion, and he did not know what we know about human sexuality, etc. I'm not sure where you are regarding inspiration.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are circumstances in which it is good to be alone. The Christian who is same-sex attracted is a case in point. This is the burden he is called upon to bear. I know of church members in this category, and I admire them for their faithfulness to God and their reliance upon Him for the strength they need to bear this burden.
I apparently wasn't clear enough. I believe that my comments in the post and subsequently ARE responding to your analysis of Paul's Genesis commentary. Yes, I believe nature in the wider sense is part of that narrative (I think it is also suggested in Paul's remarks to the Romans), but I also get that you believe that it is specifically related to human sexuality. We simply interpret this differently.
DeleteSo what do you believe about Paul himself? Do you agree with the LGBT apologists who say that Paul, given his religious and cultural background, most likely believed that homosexual activity (whether in a committed relationship or not) was an abomination? If so, do you believe Paul's culturally-shaped beliefs on this are reflected in Romans 1? I ask because I'm trying to understand your position on inspiration of Scripture. You have made statements in the past that left me thinking that you hold to a view similar to that of the apologists I refer to above. For instance, you have stated that Jesus said Moses was wrong about divorce and remarriage. Does that mean that what Moses said was not inspired of God?
ReplyDeleteYes, Paul does make reference to "natural law," which I briefly referred to in the message, but he understands that it's not completely reliable because of the corruption of nature.
Vance
Vance,
DeleteThank you for your willingness to engage on this topic. I am not an apologist for anyone or anything - I am a seeker of truth and understanding (like you). I have always wanted to be WITHIN God's will. As you know, this is personal for me. I have wrestled with this topic for my entire life. For many years, I believed and lived the traditional Christian understanding of human sexuality. I actively suppressed my sexual orientation, married and had children. None of that changed my personal reality.
As with many other theological issues, I came to the conclusion that the Armstrong Church of God perspective on human sexuality was flawed and untenable. I began studying the Bible again and quickly realized that the shame-based perspective on human sexuality was not of Divine origin, but it was just another example of how Satan has attempted to twist and pervert everything that is good.
You may not believe it (that's your privilege), but I didn't choose to be gay. If I had had any choice in the matter, I would have chosen your team! That realization has some very profound implications for what constitutes sin and what does not constitute sin.
As for Paul, I believe that he was a man, like you and me, subject to fatigue, prejudice, and errors in judgment (even when acting in matters of faith). I do not subscribe to the doctrine of infallibility or inerrancy in any of its manifestations. Humans are subject to imperfection and mistakes - even when acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit doesn't possess us. It doesn't control us.
I believe that Paul's letters and the rest of the canon were inspired by God and are profitable for teaching, reproving/correcting, and instructing us in righteousness. Scripture, however, was a joint project between God and humans (his decision). The Divine part of that equation is flawless, but anything touched by human hands will be flawed and full of imperfections. I have briefly attempted to answer your question, but if you're interested, I have a number of posts on this blog which address this subject in much greater detail.
I believe that Paul was subject to the cultural and religious perspective of the times he lived in (as was every human who ever lived minus one). So, yes, I believe that Paul did NOT understand human sexual orientation (no one did back then), and that his views reflected a First Century Jewish bias against homosexuality. Nevertheless, I also believe that the many biblical scholars who have suggested that Paul's writings have been misinterpreted with regard to this subject are absolutely correct. Paul's perspective and writings were colored by the world around him - one with male temple prostitution, Roman tolerance of homosexuality within military ranks and the upper echelons of society, and the patriarchy which permeated ALL of the societies which were part of the Roman world of his time. Clearly, Paul's writings about homosexuality cannot be interpreted to include ALL homosexual behaviors or even homosexual behaviors in the context of our world in 2023. I hope all of this clarifies my perspective on these topics.
I personally see this as an issue of "do we believe what God says" rather than one of human emotions, feelings, reasoning and treatment.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Maker of all things, is homosexuality right in His sight or not? If not, is it even permissible to use such Godly principles as marriage, fidelity, loving sex with this non sequitur? Politicians never answer these kind of blunt questions but instead will shift the focus to some tangent or extreme. Darkness is safety for some!
I can't explain why people have certain dispositions or identity as "gay". I certainly do not accept the " world's " explanation of it. I also can't explain why Adam, Eve and Cain rejected God's instructions in favor of doing their own thing, but I know there were dire consequences.
The animal kingdom is of no help. There is no intellect there. Animals do a lot of strange things, some eat their own young and others will eat their own poop. There are many reasons and triggers to explain this behavior and biologist in history past have done so. Not always so in today's world, grant money can buy any conclusion one wishes!
A Christian must, first of all, believe God! Without that we have nothing. Then, we are to love God and love neighbor. Love towards neighbor should be directed to everyone. Everyone, even a murderer, should be treated as we want to be treated. But that doesn't make murder ok or acceptable!
You are right about one thing. God is watching.
BP8,
DeleteThank you for contributing to this thread. Although we obviously disagree, I appreciate the perspective you present here - it was also mine once upon a time. You asked, "do we believe what God says?" In this connection, I think we should also ask ourselves: "Did God say that?" OR "Did a priest, scribe, or apostle say that?" And, from my perspective, this is an important distinction.
Jesus said that Moses decided to make a provision for divorce, but he went on to say that this was NOT in harmony with God's original intent. Again, Scripture was/is a joint venture between God and human (God's decision). While you and I would probably agree that all of the Judeo-Christian canon is inspired, it does NOT follow that every word in those writings belongs to God! In other words, is God speaking or is Paul speaking? For me, that's an important distinction to make.
Like you, I can't explain why I am a homosexual. I spent a great deal of my life trying not to be. Indeed, as I related in my comments to Vance, if I had had a choice in the matter, I would have chosen to be on the "straight" team. Nevertheless, it is my reality - whether I (or you) like it or not. So, the question becomes, "What do I do with that?" What's more, God decided to call me to himself and give me his Holy Spirit! Hence, although I don't completely understand the circumstances in which I find myself, I also realize the necessity of doing my very best to be within God's will and strive to understand what he wants for me. Obviously, we have arrived at different answers to those questions. Even so, the really great thing about out God is that I won't have to answer for what you understand and believe, and you won't have to answer for what I understand and believe. We won't answer for each other. Christ will answer for both of us, and God's decision will be based on that and whether or not our own conscience condemns or upholds us. Fortunately, God does understand ALL of this perfectly, and He knows what's in your heart and what's in mine. God is paying attention - even when we aren't.
First, let me give you my essential perspective. I am a heterosexual and I believe that a homosexual disposition is not sin but that homosexual intercourse is sin. But my position is more nuanced than that. I also believe that the attitude towards homosexuality of some denominations such as the Westboro Baptist Church and various groups descended from Armstrongism is wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am seeing in this debate is an interaction between natural history, natural theology, on one side, and revealed theology on the other. Natural history and natural theology are informed by science and revealed theology is a matter of interpretation. Paul supports the idea of seeing God in natural history (Romans 1:20). He even supports the idea that we may know his divine nature from the observation of that which is created. This is a bold statement. It connects God to his creation. Hence, we cannot separate the animal kingdom from the domain of God and his sentient creatures. Ultimately, the cosmos, created ex nihilo by God, must reflect God in the eschaton.
There is homosexuality in the animal kingdom. So, it is not surprising that there is homosexuality among hominids. I have read that roughly 7 percent of people are homosexual. I would never have expected this. When I was in high school in the Midwest, a school of 3,000 students, I knew of only two male students who were gay. I knew this through their bizarre behavior. I knew of no Lesbians. But the statistical studies indicate that around 200 students were actually homosexual. It is just the case that their behavior was normal and there was nothing overt about their sexual orientation. Yet, I would imagine most students based their perception of homosexuals on the two guys with the bizarre behavior. I worked at one of the Ambassador College campuses and was surprised, over time, how many students were revealed to be homosexual, including a ministerial assistant in a local church area where I later lived. Homosexuality that manifests only normative social behavior is present in nature in larger numbers than we like to admit.
The problem I have with those who interpret the Bible in the vein of the Westboro Baptist Church is the failure to make a fundamental distinction between two forms of homosexuality – the acquired form and the inherent form. I am not a sociologist so my terminology is not technical only descriptive. There are those who choose to become homosexual and those who are born that way - in simplistic terms. One of the much quoted scriptures against homosexuality is Romans 1:26-27, But in this scripture, Paul is speaking exclusively about acquired homosexuality. An acquired behavior that might be repented of. Nowhere does the Bible make an explicit distinction and we might well conclude that it speaks exclusively of acquired homosexuality. How then should inherent homosexuals live? And do we not do a great evil in not recognizing the sharp distinction between these two categories?
ReplyDelete(Continuation)
This could get much longer so let me cut to the chase. The Westboro-like churches have failed in their ministry to the inherently homosexual community. These organizations have used homosexuality as a lurid point of division. I have a friend who has ADHD and this leads to some unusual behaviors. Yet, nobody in these denominations rails against ADHD in Number 8 speech style – because it affects, no doubt, many of their congregants and because it is understood to be an inherent human condition for some. Nobody is crying out for people with ADHD to repent of their disposition. These denominations are against homosexuality but that is an apophatic statement. The question is what do they support as a ministry for inherent homosexuals? Condemnation? To say there is no condemnation from the pulpit is sophomoric. One only knows by surveying the audience to find out how they received the pulpit’s words. That seldom happens in autocratic denominations. Nobody cares what the pews think. I was a devout Armstrongist for 30 years. I know the deal. These denominations need to rise to the level of Christianity and support a ministry to inherent homosexuals. See how that goes over at your next ministerial conference.
Neo,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful and nuanced contribution to this thread. I believe your comments suggest a better explanation of Paul's position on this topic. Most Armstrongists reflect a Fundamentalist/Literalist view of what Scripture has to say on this subject. Unfortunately, they seem to be in complete harmony with the more traditional Christian understanding of human sexuality. This is also more than a little ironic since they reject the traditional view of almost every other theological teaching! The notion that Satan could have deceived the Chruch on the topic of gender and sexuality is completely foreign to them - though they believe that that very thing has happened with most of the other major teachings of the Church.
NEO. You advocate a ministry directed to the inherent homosexual. Exactly how would one do that, what would it consist of, and how would it differ from ministering to the common sinner?
ReplyDeleteAlso, you talk like the acquired vs. inherent theories are exact science? I would argue that they are not! The debate is ongoing with both having their supporters.
Lonnie, "the notion that Satan could have deceived the church on the topic of gender and sexuality"? What are you basing that idea on? I have seen no evidence presented here that indicates that! Besides, with such a small percentage of the population involved, where's the great deception? and why?
Miller:
ReplyDeleteIf the Bible, OT and NT, focus only on acquired homosexuality, a point of view that should be the subject of exegesis, then the Bible is silent on inherent homosexuality. This means that God has left inherent homosexuality to the ministry of the Holy Spirit for dogma. I believe the Christian heart should be receptive to this. I cannot now forsee what the consensus of the Body of Christ ultimately will be. But I do believe that the issue of inherent homosexuality will be a test of submission to the Holy Spirit for some people - just as women in the ministry, interracial marriage and salvation by grace through faith has been.
I have so enjoyed this conversation! I would like to thank all of you for participating in this discussion. I would also like to say that all of the views expressed here have been more compassionate, thoughtful, and nuanced than is generally the case within the Armstrong Churches of God (or the Evangelical branch of the Christian Church).
ReplyDeleteI wrote this post because I believe that there are already more than enough voices of condemnation within our community. It is NEVER a good idea to simply write-off a whole community, be they LGBTQ, Catholics, or Republicans/Democrats. Whatever one believes about LGBTQ folks, we should all be able to acknowledge that these folks have worth and are eligible for redemption through Jesus Christ! In other words, the Church is in desperate need of a greater and more compassionate outreach to these people - we don't need anymore sermons scapegoating them for society's problems or consigning them to the lowest depths of Hell (or Lake of Fire).
Finally, the evidence that Satan has deceived many within the Church is all around us. The shame-based, puritanical, and outright avoidance of the subject should be proof enough of this phenomenon. However, even in this conversation thread, we have seen the evidence of this phenomenon. Jesus Christ was clearly talking about a married man lusting after a woman who was NOT his wife. Nevertheless, many Christians have absorbed the notion that ALL sexual lust/attraction = SIN.
I am advocating for a moral position based on the Law of Love (love for God and each other) - NOT one of dos and don'ts. I believe that Almighty God designed us to be sexual creatures, and that everything that He created is wholesome and good. We can (and have) twisted, perverted and made dirty a great many things; but that does NOT mean that those things are inherently bad/evil. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed. Afterwards, they were ashamed and needed clothing. Go figure!
BP8:
ReplyDeleteThanks for asking. A ministry for inherent homosexuals would begin with the acknowledgement of their condition. They are Christians who are homosexual and have been homosexual from birth. This is a fundamental recognition of fact that you are unlikely to find in COGs
where the card that has been played from the pulpit is that homosexuals are all degenerates and their influence heralds the end of the age. The Archie Bunker view is that they should just "repent" and be like the rest of us. Doesn't work. Then they should not be treated like any other common sinner. They deal with a special existential disposition the likes of which the common sinner knows nothing about. Otherwise, it should be like any other ministry involving prayer, outreach, sermons on the topic, prayers at the close of service mentioning them. Their Christian walk should be supported by the church in any way possible rather than summarily disfellowshipping them. Such homosexuals are likely to be so dogged in their determination to follow Christ that they outshine the rest of us as saints. They should be cherished by other Christians.
Science so far can tell us very little about homosexuality but knowledge is growing. There is now a theory that there is a hormonal shift in the womb that causes homosexuality. I am not a reproductive biologist but you can find understandable material on the web if you are interested. I think eventually homosexuality will be found to be a biological occurrence. What percentage of homosexuals are elective and how many are biologically determined has probably been explored.
A hint. If you have three male children in a family and they are all close in age and have had the same parents and environment and one boy has always been attracted to female things and later announces that he has always felt like a girl, you know something biological is probable.
Another hint. The people who castigate homosexuals are the same people who derogate minorities. Open your eyes and ears and you find this right away.
This thread and its comments have truly been (as Lonnie stated) "Quite a Discussion" about homosexuality. One conducted with civility and respect that we often don't see when discussing LGBTQ people.
ReplyDeleteThank you to everyone who have been part of this thread. Especially Lonnie - who courageously carries on in honest discussion about the human side of struggling in conflict between traditional Christian teaching against what has also been called "the love that dare not speak its name" and the emotional urgency of a LGBTQ person to both love and be loved, just as all human being have the need to love and be loved.
Like Lonnie, I've felt same-sex attraction since childhood. I didn't "learn" or acquire homosexuality from others. I know the agony of conflict between uncompassionate religious condemnation and my core emotions that haven't changed over 53 years of struggling in pain while being with the Armstrong-affiliated Church of God fellowships (I am with UCG). But, yes, I do believe that these fellowships are part of the Church of God. I do believe the people in those fellowships are God's people - with most having good, sincere hearts - wanting to do what's right to their God.
I completely understand and empathize with Lonnie. I completely understand his thinking. And I actually agree with parts of his perspective. I also discern a difference between inspired scripture and scripture that conveys the direct words of God. I certainly don't discount inspired scripture. It can be used for teaching and correction - and the spiritual principles taught within it - I believe are sound and inspired by God.
But is all inspired scripture without human opinion? No. When the apostle Paul wrote his letters - he clearly expressed "opinion" on different things. He wrote to the early Church, clearly expecting Christ to return during his lifetime. Was he correct? No. I believe the spiritual principle and teaching of Christ's coming was correct - but Paul's opinion of when was clearly wrong. Yet, his opinion was part of his inspired letter. So, considering this, I agree with Lonnie that there is a different between inspired scripture and scripture bearing God's direct words.
I also want to say that I find Neo's commentary to be very discerning and insightful. Yes, (as you stated) it also seems to me also that there is a difference between "acquired" (as in Romans 1 description) and "inherent" (I didn't choose it - the feelings were just there from childhood) homosexuality.
In my 53 years of association with the WCG, and now UCG, I've always cringed when I hear scriptures cited from Romans 1. It does seem to me that Paul is talking about acquired homosexuality linked to pagan worship practices of the Roman culture of the time. As a man who has had same-sex attraction from childhood, I never fit the profile of Romans 1. Romans 1 has always seemed cruel to me!
(Comment continued)
Continuation of comment:
ReplyDeleteBut Romans 1 is only a part of scripture. I believe the totality of scripture conveys God's design and intent for male-female sexual union in marriage. Yes, I'm aware of God allowing exceptions to this based on cultural and situational circumstances. But, regardless of my personal circumstances, I see nothing in the scriptures to indicate that God will approve homosexual relationships based on the desire to love and be loved.
Lonnie, my friend, I understand your perspective. I 'know' why you feel the way you do. But, for me, that means wishing into God's will or the holy scriptures what isn't there.
In closing: NEO, your insight that Christianity should discern the difference between "acquired" and "inherent" homosexuality and should have a kinder and gentler ministry for all people who struggle with same-sex attraction (regardless of 'why' they do) is an insight that I wish many could gain.
Actually, there was some attempt to do that back in the 80s and 90s. It was discreet and ahead of its time. Most of the men I had contact with back then are now gone. Some have died. Others just left the WCG or other fellowships because of either the church split of 1995, or because the burden was too painful, or because they just didn't believe the same way any longer.
I hope Lonnie's post and all comments here help further understanding about the human side of homosexuality.
Dean