Looking back at the last 10 years, from junior high through college, the issues at the forefront of the social climate have been gay marriage and homosexuality.
My generation — Generation Y — is slow to offend, quick to show tolerance, especially to under-privileged groups, while extending hatred to the traditionally privileged. We have a minority conscience.
I encounter people my age and others, either 5 years younger or older, that are not interested in issues outside their immediate community and politics in particular. There exists an apathy, a general mistrust of authority and big-brother media, and a hypersensitivity to the hometown, which is primarily due to the fact that politics have moved into our living rooms, especially as it relates to abortion and gay marriage. Private life has become increasingly public in the last 10 years because of the legislative (Prop 8 beginning Fall 2008, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) and the media (Modern Family, Gossip Girl, Six Feet Under) arenas. The former has influence in that it has the power to enforce, and the latter, in that it uses emotion, story, persuasion — for better or worse — to present us with, and possibly convince us of, its conception of normality, right and wrong.
Reality is clear: public figures like Ellen DeGeneres, Elton John and Brandi Carlile paved the way to making a both gay and public lifestyle accessible. Kids are still bullied every day, but the ‘gay people’ are no longer just Broadway performers, and the Broadway performers are no longer just Broadway performers. They are our friends, brothers, nieces, aunts and uncles. And parents. They are us. They are no longer a concept, and idea, a type or stereotype. We see them with our eyes, and we see them in ourselves. They are Christians, atheists. We are getting better at seeing through the glasses of the human condition, and, in general, the climate of acceptance is warming up (possibly too warm in some areas). Those in my immediate circle and those I interact with at work, school, church seem to want to affirm the similarities in all human beings. Our parents are learning not to ignore but to embrace their daughters and sons even if they don’t agree and not because they do but because it is the human thing to do. Because accepting is a parent’s first responsibility. This is the foundation from which we should all build our interactions, despite the specifics of individual opinions.
As I finished up my time at Biola University this past spring, a LGTB group of proclaimed students and faculty anonymously created a website, called The Biola Underground, to share their stories and converse with administration regarding their stance on a homosexual lifestyle. This initial buzz developed into some harmful, but also, some insightful and beautifully honest lectures and conversations between the faculty and student body, both gay and straight.
In the root sense of the word, politics, coming from “polis” — the Greek word for city — is essentially the way in which people in a society relate to one another. It sounds simple, but logistics obviously get more complicated with each person you add to the mix. I myself have a hard time with government legislating my personal life. And in the areas of gay marriage and abortion: possibly my own gender and sexual identity but most definitely, my friends and family.
So while I don’t appreciate government limiting my very personal human choices, sometimes legislative efforts are helpful when used to repeal acts that some view to be inhuman and discriminatory. For instance, on September 20, 2011, Congress repealed the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Act. According to HRC (Human Rights Campaign), “For 17 years, the law prohibited qualified gay and lesbian Americans from serving in the armed forces and sent a message that discrimination was acceptable.” So, the line seems unclear like most. Should the government legislate social and often personal issues? Many, like the Human Rights Campaign, would argue that legislative action is necessary to restore equality. One pro to legislation is that it can undo corrupt legislation. Even libertarians admit this.
So, I’ve found that while we (generalizing my generation here) are hyper aware of being tolerant, we also are reluctant to have opinions, much less voice them. There is simply more at stake for the people we know. The issues are not easy, and the messages are confusing on both sides. Opinions in themselves elicit abstraction because they are often black and white. How do you develop and hold to a hard and fast opinion about the people you love whose private lives are debated in the public square? Do you? I still have no clue. But I ground my opinions in the people I know and in the experiences and knowledge of past and present, admittedly limited, that I have. So, I express them because I have the right and because conversation is fruitful. But, delicately. I am deciding to share my opinions, but delicately.


Personally, I don’t think Christians have the right to mandate their views on the rest of society in the case of sexuality/homosexuality. Why do we want someone who does not hold our beliefs to act as if they do? I think the rallying against homosexual acceptance is quite telling–if homosexuality is wrong, why do they act like it’s worse than any other sin? Why don’t they try to make sex outside of marriage illegal? Why do divorced people feel comfortable in our churches but not homosexuals (and I’m not at all saying that divorced people shouldn’t feel comfortable in churches!)? It’s as if people who sin differently than we do are anathema. Maybe the homosexual community is right. Maybe we are intolerant.
Savvy,
I think your point is a good one. I’ve often thought this as well: Why is being gay the only thing someone cannot ‘be’? Maybe this is a little simplistic, but it sounds true to me. At least, this is where our society is at present. I also do not think that Christians should impose their views. We’ve seen what it does: foster division and misunderstanding on both sides. If Christians want to convince ‘non-Christians—be they gay, buddhist, etc., then they/we better have a better answer for them than they have for themselves. If we don’t, we should just sit and listen.
You also wrote: “Why do divorced people feel comfortable in our churches but not homosexuals?” Very, very good question. I think this is very sad. It’s as if the church has no space for the parts of people (gender, sexuality, desires, relationship, family) that are at the very center of being human and connecting, in this instance regarding homosexuality. I think homosexuality makes a lot of people very uncomfortable, and we become unwelcoming because we are anxious. Thoughts?
Thanks for reading!
Savvy,
Do secularists have the right to “mandate” their views on the rest of society? Do secularists views count more than those of the religious? To extend and reverse the point, why is intolerance the chief among all other sins in a secular framework? There are so many unjustified assumptions at work here, namely that religious persons are second-class citizens whose moral framework counts less in the public sphere. The situation is transparently misleading as positioned in the national mindset, fundamentally undemocratic, and does not withstand serious critique.
Tolerance is not a virtue, it is a political principle analyzable in terms of power. We do not tolerate those with more military/social/economic power than we do. Tolerance is part of the fog of the modern discursive environment, shrouding social and identity warfare in a mist of cheery optimism and false promises to contemporary social conflict.
Love, on the other hand and in the Christian sense, makes a conceptual mockery of tolerance in both its ideal and realized states…it is there we must go, in all our moral discomfort…
http://www.amazon.com/Regulating-Aversion-Tolerance-Identity-Empire/dp/0691136211/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351047685&sr=1-3&keywords=wendy+brown
A.T., I think both are problems. Christian intolerance of homosexuality/secularism is one, as well as secular intolerance of Christians. I think the latter is very true, but I think there are more bad answers out that on the religious side that outweigh the good and thoughtful, which is unfortunate. Or maybe, the judgmental and non-sensical messages from the religious is all the “secularists” as you call it, will hear.
But, I don’t think Savvy was talking primarily about a shallow tolerance as a handout. I think he is saying that there is generally an understanding that gay people are not welcome in churches. That’s the sense I get, anyway. And if the church is meant for people and should serve people, then there needs to be a great deal more of acceptance happening. That is not to say that the lifestyle may be unhelpful. But, I think Christians should get to know people first. Just like heterosexual people, there are a lot more to gay people than their sexual orientation. Feel free to follow-up! I could go into this in more depth. Thank you for reading!
On another point, what makes the following true?
“Because accepting is a parent’s first responsibility. This is the foundation from which we should all build our interactions, despite the specifics of individual opinions.”
Also, with DADT, what makes elites who have no experience in the military qualified as authorities on how to construct the most viable fighting force? Shouldn’t limits placed on the situations where elites are allowed to play their multi-cultural games and identity politics…limits on how they sooth the socially constructed problematics of a conditioned and compliant electorate?
“Acceptance” is a tricky word. (I am mainly dealing with interpersonal/family relationships here and not a once-and-for-all stance on whether something is right or wrong). I think that the main cause of shame is when someone believes that they cannot be loved in their bad (Regardless of whether or not it is bad. The person still feels guilt and sinful). But, parents, of all people, can demonize their children for one choice they make (though this choice may be very life-changing). I personally don’t think that homosexuality is the most helpful lifestyle, but if a child/adolescent/adult exhibits these desires and choices, I think that it is a parent’s first responsibility to show them love— to make sure they know that, even if they don’t agree with their child’s choice, that they are still loved, accepted, wanted. That would have been a better way to say it than merely accept. Thanks for pointing that out.
Re: DADT. I hadn’t thought about that before. Very good point. I may agree with you there.
I’m glad that I’m no longer in the military. I would not be comfortable sleeping in close quarters or showering with a man who was an outspoken homosexual.
Also, I’d be interested to know, Kelsey, if you think a practicing homosexual is a Christian.
Peter,
Thank you for sharing your experience. If you are comfortable, would you mind sharing why that would make you feel uncomfortable?
To the second question, I do. And where that simple answer comes from is a very complicated origin. But there it is.
Do you really have to ask? How would you feel, Kelsey, showering with women who were sexually attracted to other women?
You realize that your opinion is contrary to scripture don’t you? Paul says those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of heaven while you say they will (unless you believe some Christians won’t inherit the kingdom of heaven).
Peter, how do you define “practicing”? And are you asking if all practicing homosexuals are Christians or can be?
Also, have you seen our discussion over here? http://soulation.org/MyFaithHurdle/2011/04/what-if-youre-a-christian-and-gay/
I offer wonder, Kelsey, if some of these dilemmas are set up because of institutional structure. AT mentioned it above regarding DADT.
For example, I think our tax system is set up in such a way that to be married benefits someone upon death. They pass along their assets to their spouse before the govt takes it. But why must the govt take it? An arbitrary tax law then requires others to clamor for the same rights if they are not married. If we did not have death/estate tax, marriage would not be under the attack in that situation. Are some tax laws more important and more moral than marriage? That’s one of the messages we are told.
Similar for end of life issues in medical practice. Spouses get certain rights that unmarried lovers do not. The arbitrary law puts marriage under attack.
Then there are churches, which as organizational structures as we see them today, do not appear like their biblical forefathers. We don’t see questions of what qualifies for a nursery worker in the NT or what counts for Membership in a church organization because these structures didn’t exist. But we have them today and make people feel unwelcome who do not fit the structure. Are the structures more important than the people? Many today say “no” and we see an exodus from the churches happening.
The result is a lot of pain. But what becomes analyzed and debated is something as timeless as marriage while nobody is willing to debate for arbitrary conditions that caused the confusion.
No wonder we are more sensitive to local issues! We know mistreatment is bad and that changing institutional powers are nearly too impossible to be worth the effort. Easier (and better) to weep with those that weep…
The govt will always be involved in personal affairs. Taxes touch on very personal matters. And even speed limits are limiting to our abilities. Women’s abortion rights are personal as well as prostitution rights (which rarely exist). I wonder if we could consider the argument for “what is personal” is weaker than an argument for what is just and beautiful for the good of community. For it starts with community and works inward, not the other way around.
But first as a society we should examine what institutions of power are upstream of these other questions or personal rights. That will likely lead us to love more clearly and then speak up for systemic change when we get the chance.
“Peter, how do you define ‘practicing’?
Since practicing means doing something regularly, that’s how I define it. We know temptation isn’t sin–Jesus was tempted but without sin–but in the first chapter of James we read, “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.”
“And are you asking if all practicing homosexuals are Christians or can be?”
I was pointing out to the author of this post that the Bible clearly says those who practice homosexuality (and other sins, see 1 Cor 6) will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. They cannot be called Christians since they refuse to repent and obey God. Christians must walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh. I’m not saying Christians cannot sin or will not sin, but I am saying that there is no forgiveness and therefore no justification for those who knowingly practice sin.
I’ll check out that other link, thanks.
Peter, I don’t want you to take this the wrong way, but your comment comes across as condescending. The way you define “practicing” in relation to my question sounds like you think anyone is somehow not as smart as you who may wonder what you mean. Yet I see your response is two-dimensional and not understanding the complexity of the issue at hand and can easily keep a homosexual who wants to know Jesus more from ever considering him as their healer and friend. “Friend of sinners” was a title Jesus bore. We want the same title for ourselves if we’re to be like him.
“Practicing” can mean a variety of things to someone who identifies themselves as homosexual. Some may define “practicing” as merely “being homosexual” since everything we do somehow involves our sexuality informing it. We can easily say that all “heterosexuals” are also living out their daily lives (even celebately) as heterosexuals. We are all “practicing our sexuality.”
Some may see practicing as having a relationship with another homosexual without involving sex.
And some others may see practicing as the sexual act itself. Most people, however, do not define practicing as merely “doing it.”
I’m sure more distinctions can be made.
So in your response, it makes me wonder what you think a “homosexual” is being tempted to “practice.” It appears you think “practice” only involves an explicit sexual encounter of some kind.
And I think by my laying out the above you can see how I’m unsure what you mean by “practicing” and those you claim the bible is condemning.
In Scripture, it appeared those who practice the lists of sins you mention did not want God. Many wanted to “use” God for their own ends, but they did not want God for himself. That is why all of these since are associated with idolatry throughout the Bible (the historical context backs this). Those who are idolaters do such things… this is their fruit. However, what we are talking about today are those who want God, love Jesus, and are told they are unloveable by God by virtue of being homosexual. And that’s quite a different issue today and a Bible verses without context are unconvincing to many.
If you ever get to watch “Through My Eyes” by the Gay Christian Network you’ll hear teens and 20-somethings share their stories of growing up in the evangelical church having unhelpful verses hurled at them, how even young men were encouraged to lust after Baywatch girls so they could be cured of their homosexuality… as if that was righteous.
So these issues are more complex than you are making them and our concern for these issues should be larger than quoting Bible verses to make sure everyone is line. So however we define “practicing” it may include some who, on my view, are true lovers of God. But not all “practicing homosexuals” are lovers of God. And not all kinds of “practicing” are the same. That’s why defining these terms are so important.
You can also read my wife’s recent post on the problem of homosexuality that in line with my view: http://soulation.org/jonalynblog/2012/11/the-problem-with-homosexuality.html. Her article takes the conversation into healthier perspectives but which the culture and the homosexual community haven’t quite agreed to yet as paradigms.
Hi Dale, maybe there was a part of me that did mean to be condescending (if so, I’m sorry), but I kind of felt like your question was similar to President Clinton asking for a definition of “is.”
Even after reading your examples several times, I’m not convinced that defining “practicing” is any more complex than what I stated.
It seems obvious to me that Paul was talking about “practicing” sinful behavior and not just living life as a sexual being, which you refer to above as “practicing our sexuality.” And nowhere in the Bible are we told that attraction to another man or woman is sinful. We know 1 Cor. 6:9 can’t be talking about being tempted because as I said in my earlier post, Jesus was tempted but without sin. Nowhere in the Bible is a nonsexual relationship between homosexual (or heterosexual) men condemned. Paul can’t be talking about loving another man (feelings of affection) because the Bible clearly says that Jesus loved various men. What else could it reasonably be referring to if not same-sex fornication?
You may think that my view is two-dimensional while yours is three-dimensional, but I’m not sure why you think my response would keep homosexuals from wanting to know Jesus. Jesus was a friend of sinners but this never caused him to hide the truth for fear of causing offense. Should we not say that stealing is a sin because that might keep thieves from wanting to know Jesus?
In this 1 Corinthians passage, Paul is writing to people who do want God. Paul is reminding these Christians that they have been washed and sanctified so they should not be deceived but instead should flee from sexual immorality.
I agree that, like Jesus, we should be friends of sinners. I agree that using Bible verses out of context can be very harmful. I agree that urging young men to lust after women as a form of therapy is simply encouraging sin. But I don’t agree that defining the word “practicing” as it’s used in 1 Cor. 6:9 is as complex as you seem to think.
I would never tell anyone they are unlovable by God, but at the same time I will not shy away from telling people (those who love God, and those who hate God) that practicing same-sex fornication is sinful. Many find the truths in scripture offensive, but I believe their conscience bears witness to the truth and as a result of God’s work in their lives many will experience godly sorrow and repent.
Finally, just to be clear, I don’t think practicing homosexuals are any more sinful than heterosexuals practicing opposite-sex fornication. I’m simply singling this sin out because the original post is about homosexuality and not idolatry, drunkenness, etc.
I hope I haven’t come across as condescending in this reply. I’ll check out that post on your wife’s blog.
Peter, thanks for your reply. I didn’t sense condescension. Thanks!
I’m sorry you don’t see how “practicing” cannot be more complex than the way you started it. But you never hear people ask if they are a “practicing heterosexual”. Because the way the terms are used today, one just “is” what they are and they practice what they are daily. When you say “practicing homosexual” to a modern person, they will hear something more than what you are assuming through Paul. It would be like asking a horse, “Are you a practicing horse?” And the horse would need some clarification as to what you are getting at.
So, by context, I gather you mean “practicing” in the last sense of the word: sexual acts.
If you ask most homosexuals, especially those who identify themselves as evangelical, you will not hear them say they are tempted to be homosexuals. They will identify with being tempted toward wrong behavior, just like an evangelical heterosexual would. But on both instances, many would not consider “practicing” to follow under “intercourse” alone, as you’ve outlined it here.
I’m trying to help you see that words have meanings and the modern context doesn’t communicate the way the ancient context did. So we have to “translate” it and figure out the parallels without requiring people to fit an older paradigm before any real discussion can take place.
In the ancient world, like Corinth, these behaviors were associated with idolatry. That’s what I’m saying about “wanting God.” For Paul the “light and darkness” analogies were clear in his context. So Paul’s admonition against them is why are they dabbling in behavior clearly associated with idolatry when they are no longer subject to other idols… it’s a beautiful logical argument. But it doesn’t speak with direct parallel into today’s complexity where other gods are not involved. Someone may even grow up worshipping Jesus their whole life and find themselves with homosexual leanings. Paul doesn’t speak to that context explicitly. Paul also doesn’t speak to homosexual monogamy since idolatry did not involve monogamy in the ancient world.
If you ever speak to evangelical homosexuals, these assumptions will already be in play and you’ll talk past one another without profit.
Now, I’m not advocating homosexual relationships. But I am saying that our words need to be weighed to ensure people are understanding where we are coming from. To be a friend of sinners means we speak into the context of sinners, with words and contexts they understand and reasonings they hold. Even Jesus quoted the Pharisees when speaking to the Pharisees to convince them of their hypocrisy. One example, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” Jesus had a brilliant way of getting into context rather than simply quoting Bible verses or overlaying older contexts without an updated meaning.
This all relates back to what you asked Kelsey above. And then you jumped at her with Bible verses before understanding what today’s generation means by “practicing.” While I believe that homo-erotic behavior is unhealthy and contrary to God’s design in nature (the meaning of “sin”), I believe we are required to help those who love God to live according to conscience and their understanding of scripture. I don’t rebuke the neo-puritans as hell-bound, though I think their theology and practice ultimately unhealthy. I do believe there are some who are in monogamous homosexual relationships who know God’s grace and are working our their salvation with fear and trembling. Some may come to a conclusion that their relationship wasn’t appropriate all along, others may not. But when this hangup becomes our only judgment of people and not our other repetitive sins that we are not convinced of, then are any of us safe in Jesus? Are any of us capable of grace? Are any of us allowed to called “Christians” who struggle or are unconvinced we should be struggling in certain areas of virtue (the original question)? I’d rather leave space for growth in my own soul and others under the banner of God’s grace and love. I’d rather leave space than insist the unconvinced–who love God and scripture–must conform to OUR way in areas where we stand on the moral high ground and have no struggle.
Hi Dale,
I read your wife’s blog and agree with her that people shouldn’t be labeled by their desires. I guess that’s what you’re trying to point out to me–that because we often do label people according to their desires we need to carefully qualify our words so that people understand exactly what we mean when we say “practicing homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.”
There were two reasons I commented the way I did on Kelsey’s post. First, I don’t think she really thought about the ramifications of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Act being repealed. And as a former soldier I hoped to give her a perspective that she may not have considered. Second, I thought the post could easily give readers the impression that the Bible is wrong about what it says regarding homosexuality. By directly asking her whether or not a practicing homosexual could be a Christian, I hoped she would make it clear to those reading her blog post that as a Christian she viewed scripture as authoritative in this matter.
I have to admit I was shocked when she said she believes that those who practice homosexuality are Christians. Although she didn’t talk about whether or not she feels like scripture is authoritative in this matter, I assumed because she was writing a post on soulation.org she would agree with the apostle Paul on this matter.
Now maybe she does believe that scripture is authoritative on this matter, and maybe she would have answered differently if I had clarified that by “practice” I was referring to the sinful act of regularly engaging in same-sex fornication. I hope so.
I realize after talking with you—and reading your wife’s blog post—that others may hear the word “practice” and think “be tempted to lust,” “be tempted to engage in same-sex fornication,” or “be attracted to others of the same sex” since in our culture we often refer to individuals who are tempted in these ways or who have these desires as “homosexuals.”
Although I agree with you that same-sex fornication was often tied to idol worship, I don’t see how that fact has anything to do with the list Paul gives in 1 Cor. 6. To argue that Paul is referencing idol worship when he talks about those who practice homosexuality, one would also have to argue that stealing and swindling were directly related to idol worship in Corinth! I think it’s obvious from the context (and from other Bible passages about men sleeping with other men) that Paul is talking about same-sex fornication in 1 Cor. 6:9.
You said, “I’d rather leave space than insist the unconvinced–who love God and scripture–must conform to OUR way in areas where we stand on the moral high ground and have no struggle.”
If it were just OUR way, I would heartily agree with you. But I think the Bible is very clear on this issue. I think we should speak the truth in love, and then leave it to the Holy Spirit to convict. And I think we must be willing to listen when others speak the truth to us regarding sinful activity that we may be practicing that could prevent us from inheriting God’s kingdom–be it lying, stealing, swindling, etc.
Peter, thanks for your reply and for the discussion.
At Soulation, we value an exploration of ideas, especially on BreakfastReading. Over at SturdyAnswers (soulation.org/sturdyanswers), a more rigorous, apologetic discussion would take place. We also value Biblical literacy across the Soulation network. We want to give charity to a myriad of ways the Bible is interpreted, while having the freedom to say what we believe to be true about Scripture. Truth exists, and we’re all doing our best to get at it the best we can and learning from each other as we go.
That’s why I”m careful to say that an interpretation of Scripture could be “our way.” While we may think it is “pure” scripture, we often overlay our own lens on scripture and, thus, it would be OUR way built on our tradition, our sub-culture, the way “our people” think. We can all be guilty of it. The Calvinist believes he’s reading Scripture, plain and simple. And the Catholic may think the same. You may think the same and I may think the same. And yet all or some of us may be wrong on some matters while calling ourselves “Biblical.” (I try to use the term “biblical” cautiously because it is often used a stamp of being absolutely right and all other bible-believing, Jesus-loiving people who disagree are absolutely wrong and “unbiblical.”) This week at MyFaithHurdle (soulation.org/MyFaithHurdle) we feature this very question from a reader.
I do agree with you that repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has ramifications that those politically pushing for “sexual” or “marriage” equality often do not take into account. Mr. Stowell above adds to that reasoning. While we want to treat one another with respect, some situations call for a hierarchy or exclusion for practical reasons.
Thanks again for the discussion, Peter. Blessings on your day.
Kelsey, I can see that the way I asked my first question and then responded to your response makes me look just like the Pharisees who asked questions with the goal of trapping Jesus and making him look like a fool. I’m sorry! I hope you’ll forgive me. This wasn’t my intent. In hindsight, I wish I had clearly defined “practicing” in my first reply and mentioned that I was attempting to confirm your agreement with the 1 Cor. 6:9 passage. I’ll try to be more careful in the future.