David Gushee is distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University; he writes for Christianity Today and Associated Baptist Press. He has written two fantastic pieces on homosexuality and the church; really some of the best I've read on the topic. I strongly urge you to read:
and
I'd love to hear feedback...
9 comments:
"...truly Christian ethics focuses relentlessly on Jesus Christ. It starts there, it dwells there, it ends there. All statements about Christian morality -- all statements about anything -- must fit with the Jesus we meet in the Gospels."
I think this is an absolutely essential foundation to Gushee's argument. In my mind, the disgust with which "Christian" people treat those who identify as homosexual is equally --if not more (my old Catholic theology coming out)-- evil than any consensual sexual sin between adults.
To my knowledge, the Biblical texts that most people refer to in condemning homosexuality are either condemning sexual promiscuity in general, or included in long lists of other things that "Christians" now regularly do without thinking (I'm thinking of Levitical law) or are regularly guilty of (Romans 1). In other words, I think the Biblical basis for condemnation of homosexuality is arguable.
I have really had to wrestle with this issue internally. In the world of academia, I have met many homosexuals in long term committed relationships and have found them to be warm, wise and incredibly strong people. This has caused me some profound cognitive dissonance. I still wrestle with an initial reaction when I'm told someone is gay, as though gay=promiscuous(=hellbound)... which, frankly, I can't defend from experience or from the Bible.
I take heart at what Gushee implies at the end of his second article, and I pray God's grace on us all. We are --I am-- sometimes so intolerably cruel to one another.
thanks, Amy. I've been wrestling with this; pretty much agree with your view.
I'm intrigued by Gushee's perspective that the middle ground doesn't really work; you have to move toward one answer or the other...I think a lot of us have tried to balance in the middle, but it's not really a solution.
I've talked with gay people who say that the middle ground isn't honest--it basically says I want to love you, but I can't support what you are doing. I won't condemn you, but God will. not too inviting.
A friend once said if there is an issue that seems unclear, I would rather lean toward the side of grace. Sounds pretty Christlike to me. (Her name is Rose Swetman--you would like her--check out her blog on my links.)
I don't see anything wrong with condemning homosexual DEEDS--see Romans 1. But why is this issue more important than illicit heterosexual deeds (e.g. King David & Bathsheba), drinking too much alcohol, stealing, etc? I don't see anything wrong with the middle ground. One post, trying to describe the middle ground, said something like: "I don't condemn you, but God does." I don't think this is part of the middle ground. Also God is in the business of SAVING people, not condemning them. Different people have different weaknesses. One of mine is that I enjoy dropping names & knowledge. Another of mine is that I can see very quickly & easily what somebody else ought to do while having a very hard time doing what I ought to do. I am so straight I can make a flagpole look like it's doing the Twist, but that would not justify my grabbing the closest attractive female and even kissing her. It would be very difficult for me to have a close relationship with a lady not in my close family. There are 3 or 4 guys with whom I could live if our wives went on their rewards first (and if I couldn't live with one of my children) but I would not want to share a bedroom with any, let alone a bed.
I would have a difficult time if a LEADER in the church PRACTICED wrongdoing without any twinge of conscience. If they struggle with a weakness and have a hard time behaving themselves, I would say: "Welcome to the club, brother\
sister, we are all finite human beings and need to change more for the better. Or let God change us."
thanks for your input, anonymous. Your first sentence makes it clear which side of the issue you are on-that which views homosexual behavior as clearly sinful.
Perhaps what I was trying to say is that the middle ground position isn't really in the middle, or that one can't stay there--it is usually, as Gushee said, the "sinful, but" perspective. It still sees homosexual behavior as sin.
and even if one is trying to communicate love, what a gay person usually hears is "I love you but you're wrong, and should change who you are."
the difference between you talking about your weaknesses and a gay person talking about their sexualty--you are acknowledging yours as sinful; most gays don't see their behavior as sinful--so it makes no sense to them to have this conversation about their behavior.
I think the bottom line is determining how we read scripture on the subject--that will decide which of Gushee's two camps we fall into. that is what I am praying and working through these days.
Hi Todd -
I'm on the side that believes "homosexuality is not a sin" and that scripture has been misinterpreted. But this wasn't always the case in terms of what I believed.
At this point, it's simply a mystery to me. I don't know what some are gay and some are not. But - in terms of leadership in the church (and not just whether you are a sinner if you are gay) I increasingly know that God is God and I am not. And God has chosen many people I would not have chosen (Issac) but I'm not the one who gets to choose.
My best friend, a Christian whom I met at church, and a member of the military has been living as a closeted gay man for many years. It would be easy in the church I attend to side with those that condem and punish however, your perspetive tends to change when you can make it personal. Love is unconditional and no revelation could change the friendship that existed - nor should it.
Grace extended, love poured out, fellowship and community - it is the heart of Christian living. While the "I love you, but" arguement makes as much sense to me as "Don't ask don't tell," I can see that for many it may have to be the first step towards extending grace to EVERYONE. We are to love...there are no conditional put on that. Love.
I also struggle with my response to this topic. It often comes down to a "hate the sin, love the sinner" attitude for me. If we are saying being homosexual isn't sinful but the behavior is the question must be asked..."what is the behavior that is sinful?"
It seems it would be sex outside marriage (either heterosexual or homosexual) and therefore how do we define marriage? The Catholic Church has a particular theology of marriage and I'm not aware of any evangelical churches having written a specific theology of marriage. Even if one did, another church would not necessarily have to adopt it since most are "free-church."
So ultimately I feel like the question comes down to how we define marriage because I don't think being homosexual is a sin based on my reading of Scripute. Richard Hayes has some good comments on this in one of his books.
Finally, while I'm personally considering the marriage route of the question I definitely feel like the side to "err" on if there is "error" involved in the choice is always to lean towards grace and love.
Thanks for the links Todd!
A few things:
1. I write this as someone who struggled with homosexual experimentation/impulses in my adolescence.
2. I write this as someone who has been friends with and ministered to a few people struggling to comprehend their sexuality.
3. I write this as someone who has personally crossed a lot of boundaries (socio-economic, sexuality, religious, etc) in my daily relationships with people. My interests and my work both have taken me across a lot of boundaries. I've been appreciated and thanked by homosexuals, bisexuals, and people of all races. I've even been called, "nigga" as a term of endearment.
4. The Bible tells us that sin is deceptive. The Bible also tells us, "Who can know the heart, for it is deceptive above all things." Let us not forget these things. This means that we must be very careful about discerning what someone says are their true intentions/convictions. For those of you versed in psychology, this is where "ego defense mechanisms" come into play.
6. We must remember and recognize that as humans we are weak, and very rarely are willing to battle the core heart issues that God tells us to deal with. That is why the scripture laments that, "There are none who seek God, no not one."
However, for those times that we are operating on God's strength, those are the times we are able to see things more clearly, and fight those battles. And once you fight that battle, your eyes are opened to much, much more. That's not to say that everyone walks away from those battles with the same conclusions, but I think upon fighting the difficult fights within one's mind, that we are confronted with the truth, and that hard truth forces us to make a choice: either we will engage in this life-long battle, or we will admit defeat, and accept the route we think will be easier.
So now...a few thoughts.
First off, we must be INCREDIBLY careful with the language we use when discussing issues like this that hit at the heart of what is sin and what is not. While we may use a story or example to prove one point, we have to be aware of what that point may be saying in between the lines.
I think the author of the article about narrative walks dangerously on that line, by bringing up comparisons of slavery, civil rights, and women in ministry. Because the problem is that people cannot choose their skin tone, and for the most part, people cannot choose their gender.
But the jury is still out on whether or not people can choose their sexuality.
I believe they can. As one who struggled with homosexuality, and still struggles with lust, I believe people's choices can affect their sexuality.
I believe the problem that most people have with that way of thinking is that it is such a battle to do as the Bible says, "take captive every thought" and to "make a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully a woman(someone else)" and to "think about such things (whatever is pure, lovely, just...)." It is such a struggle, even moreso in the culture we live in, that who really wants to fight that battle? It is so energy sapping, requires such a lifestyle change, and makes one feel so isolated and defeated from time to time, that who wants to even fight that fight? Instead, it's easier to believe that we cannot control our thoughts, and that our thoughts are so strong, we can't really control our actions. But then, what good is a verse like, "I can do all things through Him who gives me strenght?"
Another problem is our definition of love, or lack of a definition. The love of Christ was not always gentle, and not always permissive. People making a market place out of a house of prayer were driven out with a whip by Jesus. A woman at a well was convicted by Christ that the man she was living with was not her husband. In Christ's love, He still called sin for what it was. But He balanced that with grace and truth. We can't forget that. Every parent knows that loving your child requires correction and occasional punishment. Not that we should be the ones to punish homosexuals, but it does go to show that sometimes love is not all grace and mercy. And the books in the Bible that were written to church leaders do require at times that people be corrected for their behavior.
We must remember that when Christ said, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do," He wasn't only speaking of those who had a direct hand in crucifying Him, but He was speaking for all of us, for who His death was the atonement for.
So what's the answer for me in the way I treat homosexuals? I will be kind, I will be honest, and I will dare to dive into the deep issues of dialoging about their life's course if they so wish.
As Richard Foster says (summarized), "The great need in the world is not for smarter or more capable people, but for deep people." What good is my depth if I am not willing to discuss it with another?
And in that, we must remember, not to judge people or jump to conclusions to quickly based on a few things they say, because they are usually deeper than we know at the first few bits of communication we get from them.
Oh, and while the middle ground is difficult, I do believe it can be honest, and I believe it does "work." Although, like Todd said in his response to "moff", it can certainly be uninviting. But, in my experience, truth rarely is inviting. How often have we had someone tell us something that was not right about the way we acted, and how often do we receive it warmly? 3/4 of the time we probably do not.
However, the gentleness and sincere comprehension with which we display that truth, and the time we take to explain our belief in truth, and the way that people see cold hard truth balanced by love in our lives, that is what often makes truth inviting or uninviting. That, and I believe the hardness of someone's heart plays a role in whether the truth is inviting or not, but it's not my role to be too judgmental/confident about the condition of an individual's heart.
Post a Comment