A/N: Well, I should be writing an Old Testament paper, but since it's a
rather boring gen-ed class and I like writing about what I'm interested in
more, here I am distracting myself. I'll probably regret it later, when I
get a bad grade on my paper, and everyone sends me nasty reviews that open
up holes the size of Godzilla in any arguments I put forth. So let me do
what I'm good at, which is, tell a story.
____________________________________________
My first contact with someone who was (or had been, rather) a homosexual was in the form of a man in my church who was extremely well-respected and, in fact, held a high position in the church. It was discovered eventually that he *had* been a "practicing" homosexual, though he wasn't practicing any more. Some members of the church were stricken with scandal. But the majority of the church surrounded him with love and supported him, and thankfully he was allowed to retain his position. For my part, I simply grew more respect for his courage to actually admit to what, in his position, was assuredly a rather embarrassing experience. No one wants their past put out in front of everyone, and especially no one wants their past sexual experiences paraded for everyone to know about. He himself was convinced that his homosexual behavior was sinful, and so it was all the more amazing to me that he had the courage to face his past, and admit his sins. I know other people who have not; and this man's courage has been and is to me a great example of both courage and godliness.
What this first experience did for me was to make homosexuality real, instead of being some far-off abstraction. In the south mid-west, where I grew up, and especially in the Christian subculture there, one doesn't generally run across many people who are gay. This man from my church brought homosexuality into the realm of reality for me, in a way that Barbara Walters interviewing Elton John or the Ellen Degeneres sitcom did not. I've never used celebrities as role models only on account of their celebrity; and I wouldn't advise that you do, either. Yet the man from my church - he was godly, he lived the gospel, he had lived the homosexual "lifestyle", and that had a large impact on me.
Yet, homosexuality really isn't a daily concern of mine - I'm still in the Midwest, attending an evangelical college, and it doesn't really come up very often, except for the occasional admission of homosexuality by some student or another, usually anonymously, to remind us that they're there. I don't know anyone personally, at least not that anyone has admitted to me, but I don't think it would change anything in my relationship to them. They know what the bible says. They know the different opinions on how it should be translated or interpreted. They're mature adults, with the ability to discern for themselves.
My views of truth (see the earlier discussion in "Almost Goodbye But Not Quite") have made me quite humble in the area of interpreting the bible. I'm no scholar; I leave it to others to decide what God wants from them. I believe the Bible speaks against promiscuity; therefore, wishing (as I do) to grow closer to God, I make the general attempt to not be promiscuous. Yet there are people who believe the Bible to be less strict on the matter than I do. My question for them is, do they truly believe the Bible to be less strict, or do they simply use the imperfect translations and variety of interpretations to make the Bible say what they want it to say?
If the former, I would then question their beliefs, in the same way I would question all of my friends beliefs about anything: by pounding them over the head with my own beliefs. No, wait. What I meant to say was that I would bring the subject up, and then ask questions about what they believe and why they believe it, with the objective of seeing how well thought-out their beliefs are. If I note major flaws in their thinking, I bring it up, but the way in which I bring it up is in the spirit of love, humility, and friendship, and in general it is in a mutual attempt to get to the bottom of what the evidence indicates, rather than an attempt on my part to convert them to my view. If someone with a clear conscience disagrees with me as to what specifically constitutes an act of sin, and they truly disagree with me instead of simply using the ability to disagree as a crutch, then I will be very hesitant to label them as a backslider.
To bring this back to the issue of homosexuality; if someone uses the disparity of interpretation as an excuse to do something that they "know" to be wrong, then, shame on them. If someone has come to the conclusion, however, that a given action is not a sin, then even if I disagree with them, at some point I must simply leave it to God to have his way in their lives. I may attempt to convince them to do otherwise, but - you have to understand, you must earn the right to people's ears. You have to earn the respect of your listener before they listen, and the way to do this is not by shouting "God hates F*****", but by doing essentially what my church did with the man who "came out" about his past - they loved him, supported him, and, because he was doing his best to follow God, they accepted him. After all, as Christians we believe that Christ has bought us with His blood, and that His blood has washed away all of our sins - those that we have knowingly done, and those that we have unknowingly done. We must try to instruct people in good theology and good interpretation of the scripture, yes - of course. But there are ways of doing so without offending people. It makes a world of difference to someone who is, say, prone to gossip, if I come to them with my knees calloused from prayer and my face flushed with tears, than if I come to them with a sneer and a rant against the "gossiping agenda". Or the hypocrisy agenda, as the case may be.
Now, on the issue of homosexuality being genetic vs. being a choice: I don't think that it matters either way. Christians believe that it is in everyone's nature to sin, and therefore, the Biblical ideal of righteousness has always run counter to the life which humans are prone to live if left to their own devices. The question is not whether God has laid an impossible edict upon homosexuals, but how any human can possibly live up to a standard of perfection (the answer, of course, is that we can't. But that's been provided for.) People keep harping on this both ways, and I think it's avoiding the issue. The Christian view is that God loves us for who we are, whether or not we are prone to sin - because I think it's obvious that everyone has a weakness toward *some* area or another. I know I do, at least.
You'll note, finally, that I haven't come down on either side of the issue in this...er...story. This is because I'm not certain of my own opinions. My Midwest cultural upbringing has tried to teach me that homosexuality is a sin, but I'm still searching for where the exegetical and hermeneutical evidence points. It's sometimes hard to tell which is my intellect speaking, and which is my heart, and which is my upbringing. I'm willing to accept anyone holding either opinion, if the above conditions are met. For me, the point is somewhat moot, because I am not myself homosexual, and whether or not I adopt either standpoint in the end it will not change the way I interact with people, or the extent to which I will stand by as others interact with people. C.S. Lewis, in Surprised by Joy, refused to condemn people involved in homosexuality for the reason that it was "the one sin" with which he had never been tempted, and thus he was not in a position to judge anyone who had given in to such a temptation. I find that very helpful - and not just in the area of homosexuality.
However, I would recommend that, if you are at all interested in the matter, you read Kenworth's wonderful posts, which have had an extremely profound affect on my way of thinking of the issue in the past year or so. In fact, if I had my way we would make his works required reading for anyone wishing to comment on the issue of homosexuality in the bible section.
Anyway, there you have it. Another post by berenwasteland which doesn't really reach a resolute conclusion. Thank you and goodnight.
My first contact with someone who was (or had been, rather) a homosexual was in the form of a man in my church who was extremely well-respected and, in fact, held a high position in the church. It was discovered eventually that he *had* been a "practicing" homosexual, though he wasn't practicing any more. Some members of the church were stricken with scandal. But the majority of the church surrounded him with love and supported him, and thankfully he was allowed to retain his position. For my part, I simply grew more respect for his courage to actually admit to what, in his position, was assuredly a rather embarrassing experience. No one wants their past put out in front of everyone, and especially no one wants their past sexual experiences paraded for everyone to know about. He himself was convinced that his homosexual behavior was sinful, and so it was all the more amazing to me that he had the courage to face his past, and admit his sins. I know other people who have not; and this man's courage has been and is to me a great example of both courage and godliness.
What this first experience did for me was to make homosexuality real, instead of being some far-off abstraction. In the south mid-west, where I grew up, and especially in the Christian subculture there, one doesn't generally run across many people who are gay. This man from my church brought homosexuality into the realm of reality for me, in a way that Barbara Walters interviewing Elton John or the Ellen Degeneres sitcom did not. I've never used celebrities as role models only on account of their celebrity; and I wouldn't advise that you do, either. Yet the man from my church - he was godly, he lived the gospel, he had lived the homosexual "lifestyle", and that had a large impact on me.
Yet, homosexuality really isn't a daily concern of mine - I'm still in the Midwest, attending an evangelical college, and it doesn't really come up very often, except for the occasional admission of homosexuality by some student or another, usually anonymously, to remind us that they're there. I don't know anyone personally, at least not that anyone has admitted to me, but I don't think it would change anything in my relationship to them. They know what the bible says. They know the different opinions on how it should be translated or interpreted. They're mature adults, with the ability to discern for themselves.
My views of truth (see the earlier discussion in "Almost Goodbye But Not Quite") have made me quite humble in the area of interpreting the bible. I'm no scholar; I leave it to others to decide what God wants from them. I believe the Bible speaks against promiscuity; therefore, wishing (as I do) to grow closer to God, I make the general attempt to not be promiscuous. Yet there are people who believe the Bible to be less strict on the matter than I do. My question for them is, do they truly believe the Bible to be less strict, or do they simply use the imperfect translations and variety of interpretations to make the Bible say what they want it to say?
If the former, I would then question their beliefs, in the same way I would question all of my friends beliefs about anything: by pounding them over the head with my own beliefs. No, wait. What I meant to say was that I would bring the subject up, and then ask questions about what they believe and why they believe it, with the objective of seeing how well thought-out their beliefs are. If I note major flaws in their thinking, I bring it up, but the way in which I bring it up is in the spirit of love, humility, and friendship, and in general it is in a mutual attempt to get to the bottom of what the evidence indicates, rather than an attempt on my part to convert them to my view. If someone with a clear conscience disagrees with me as to what specifically constitutes an act of sin, and they truly disagree with me instead of simply using the ability to disagree as a crutch, then I will be very hesitant to label them as a backslider.
To bring this back to the issue of homosexuality; if someone uses the disparity of interpretation as an excuse to do something that they "know" to be wrong, then, shame on them. If someone has come to the conclusion, however, that a given action is not a sin, then even if I disagree with them, at some point I must simply leave it to God to have his way in their lives. I may attempt to convince them to do otherwise, but - you have to understand, you must earn the right to people's ears. You have to earn the respect of your listener before they listen, and the way to do this is not by shouting "God hates F*****", but by doing essentially what my church did with the man who "came out" about his past - they loved him, supported him, and, because he was doing his best to follow God, they accepted him. After all, as Christians we believe that Christ has bought us with His blood, and that His blood has washed away all of our sins - those that we have knowingly done, and those that we have unknowingly done. We must try to instruct people in good theology and good interpretation of the scripture, yes - of course. But there are ways of doing so without offending people. It makes a world of difference to someone who is, say, prone to gossip, if I come to them with my knees calloused from prayer and my face flushed with tears, than if I come to them with a sneer and a rant against the "gossiping agenda". Or the hypocrisy agenda, as the case may be.
Now, on the issue of homosexuality being genetic vs. being a choice: I don't think that it matters either way. Christians believe that it is in everyone's nature to sin, and therefore, the Biblical ideal of righteousness has always run counter to the life which humans are prone to live if left to their own devices. The question is not whether God has laid an impossible edict upon homosexuals, but how any human can possibly live up to a standard of perfection (the answer, of course, is that we can't. But that's been provided for.) People keep harping on this both ways, and I think it's avoiding the issue. The Christian view is that God loves us for who we are, whether or not we are prone to sin - because I think it's obvious that everyone has a weakness toward *some* area or another. I know I do, at least.
You'll note, finally, that I haven't come down on either side of the issue in this...er...story. This is because I'm not certain of my own opinions. My Midwest cultural upbringing has tried to teach me that homosexuality is a sin, but I'm still searching for where the exegetical and hermeneutical evidence points. It's sometimes hard to tell which is my intellect speaking, and which is my heart, and which is my upbringing. I'm willing to accept anyone holding either opinion, if the above conditions are met. For me, the point is somewhat moot, because I am not myself homosexual, and whether or not I adopt either standpoint in the end it will not change the way I interact with people, or the extent to which I will stand by as others interact with people. C.S. Lewis, in Surprised by Joy, refused to condemn people involved in homosexuality for the reason that it was "the one sin" with which he had never been tempted, and thus he was not in a position to judge anyone who had given in to such a temptation. I find that very helpful - and not just in the area of homosexuality.
However, I would recommend that, if you are at all interested in the matter, you read Kenworth's wonderful posts, which have had an extremely profound affect on my way of thinking of the issue in the past year or so. In fact, if I had my way we would make his works required reading for anyone wishing to comment on the issue of homosexuality in the bible section.
Anyway, there you have it. Another post by berenwasteland which doesn't really reach a resolute conclusion. Thank you and goodnight.