A Few Words from a Straight Guy
My online friend and colleague Sandalstraps has posted on the homosexual issue here.
I've read his post, and I appreciate his humanity and open-mind. I would like to discuss his ideas and the larger issue here just a bit. As usual, I have more questions than answers at this point.
As a heterosexual man I am naturally at a disadvantage. Further, I am not a sexuality expert nor am I psychologist; I do not have a gay person in my immediate family. I am sorting out my own thoughts only because the issue is a dynamic one in Christianity today and Christian attitudes and policies affect millions of real and feeling individuals, namely, the homosexual population, who are certainly as human as I am. Finally, after watching the 80's goof-flick Weird Science with my sick 14 year old son (and wincing more than once at the PG-13 content) I notice that at the end of the film, when Anthony Hall shows courage and stands up to the quasi-Road Warrior bikers, he calls them "faggots." I was astonished. I am a culture-product of the 80's and saw that film when it was new at the theatre. I was not shocked by that term them. I wonder how gay people in the audience felt? How would my son have felt if he were gay? Moments like that show extreme relevance for this issue.
When straight Christians are faced with the 'gay question' where do they go for input? Mostly, the Bible. I have to begin there, though I cover it briefly as Sandalstraps has already addressed this.
For me, the NT, the Bible as a whole, is not a law-book we can search to find edicts for our conduct. I don't yet know what Wright's vision of Scripture is, but he does invent a great analogy: many view reading the bible the same as picking up a telephone where someone on the other end will tell them how to act or not act. It's just not that simple. Oh, for me, the Bible does contain a special revelation regarding conduct to human beings from God; we are to love each other, forgive, show mercy and compassion, take active steps to alleviate suffering...that is present in the OT and it is central to the NT. The fact that it is mixed with much other content puts me on shaky, or as I prefer to think complex, philosophical ground; I know this, and only time will allow me to process these ideas correctly. This is only a start.
Since I agree with Sandalstraps that the NT is not an ethical end-all encyclopedia of law, of right and wrong action, and since its texts are surely bound within their own times and cultures, I do not believe the Bible can give me a simple answer regarding homosexuality. Sandalstraps does reach conclusions I have yet to reach, however.
Whether 10 percent of the population is gay or 1 percent is not a significant issue for me. We're still talking about a lot of people. Whether homosexuality is in fact genetic is another issue. I do not know yet whether homosexual is inborn, environmental, or a combination of both. Is it actually a neuroses, like depression or anxiety or ocd, rooted in the rain when in full swing but brought on by trauma in the environment? (Many theorists, of course, think much neuroses is inborn or a blend of environment and heredity). Are we all in fact more or less straight at birth? The fact is this question has not been fully answered to my knowledge. It is possible that homosexuality is different in each gender; it surely could be a blend of environment and heredity, unique to each individual. Whether homosexuals can unlearn their orientation is another interesting question. Some seem to, but I'm curious if this could work for all; are some gays who become straight through effort (often with religious incentive) more or less their true selves when straight?
When my own Bishop Jerry, the Bishop of No. Cal., voted to affirm Gene Robinson, he said later he had come to believe that 'homosexuality is part of the human condition.' He may well be right. It's been with us a long, long time, and it seems to appear in many cultures (if not all) no matter its cause(s).
If homosexuality is in fact not at all a choice, pure genetics, as my own orientation simply slammed into my bloodstream at 12: I suddenly began to feel different when I looked at girls' body parts in a way that, at the time at least, felt about as much like choice as laughing at a hilarious movie scene, then it seems hard to exclude these individuals from full participation in the church community. If homosexuality's cause is more complex, the result of environment or some blend of environment, what then? What right do we have to insist these people change? Or to demand they remain celibate? Unless homosexuality is proved to be harmful to the gay person the way a neurosis is harmful, I'm not sure any of us has any right to ask them to change. Does anyone insist I get help for my ocd? My friends want me to be happy, of course, fulfilled, whole, and God knows I want it, but that is not the same thing as saying...Troy, because you have ocd you can't take communion or be a bishop. Of course, the analogy is weak. Obsessions are by their nature hellish; homosexual sex, for homosexuals, I assume to be fulfilling, physically and spiritually, when carried out in love.
Finally, to use compulsive homosexual encounters as the yardstick for the orientation makes no more sense than to argue that straight sex is aberrant based on compulsive, self-debasing, or abusive heterosexual encounters. Those acts are legion, and many of us have been part to them. The case could be made, based on negative example, that all sex is bad, but I see very few straight Christians making it. Why? Because sexual fulfillment is so critical for almost all humans. Release, intimacy, fulfillment. Frankly, most of us need it. Why deny gays the same process, the same pleasures?
However, I do not see why the same principles of straight sex ethics shouldn't apply to homosexuality. The commitment I've made to my wife (and kept, so far, through God's grace) is essential to her development as a person, as is her commitment to me. Gays in the church should make the same commitment, shouldn't they? In that sense, as others have argued, allowing them legal marriage would make their unions stronger. Cheating is cheating and marriage is marriage.
The fact is humans are sexual animals; sex is important but it is not the road to spiritual salvation. I continue to marvel over the softened stance on heterosexual divorce and remarriage in most of Christianity compared to the biblical severity so quickly shoveled onto homosexuals. The fact seems to be the idea of gay sex unnerves most straight people, so then they find verses in the Bible (written by others unnerved by the same thing) to support their need to control others. If I believed God wrote the entire OT Law I'd have to feel differently, on this as on many other issues, but even Jesus didn't read the Law that way. If I believed every line of Paul's letters to the churches he founded was God's own command I'd also be wrong, but as I wrote earlier, this does not seem to be the case, and straight Christians will write off other pieces of Paul as cultural, or conditional based on location, but not this issue.
I could be wrong, but if the Torah and Paul isn't informing my opinion what is? The Christ of the gospels. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Well, I'd like my culture to allow for my healthy (and this surely does not mean random, promiscuous, or indiscriminate) sexual fulfillment. If homosexual orientation runs life-long deep, if it forms a core piece of the persona, a necessary piece of their emotional and hence spiritual happiness, then am I not to care for and love and respect these individuals?
Some will say homosexuals who have sex are committing premeditated sin (as opposed to the kind we all commit before thinking every day and for which we are to forgive seventy times seven). But looking at the deep nature of the orientation, and at Jesus' commands to love our neighbors as ourselves, to love sacrificially and fully and even to our own loss, it seems only right, at this time at least, to give these individuals the benefit of the doubt, as horrific and weak as that language may sound to some gay men and women. Since they live within it, and we don't know what causes it, why not treat their impulses with respect and protect them the same way we protect ourselves: through commitment, marriage, the growth of love in the home.
I wish I had more time. In sailing, when in doubt what knot to tie in a line, use a bowline knot. In the Christian life, when in doubt, respect the other and use Love. Fundamentalist' reading of scripture has led to multitudes of abuse, of children (spare the rod, at this moment I actually hate James Dobson) of women (I refuse to let a woman teach a man, many others) of slaves (slaves respect your masters, rather out of context as it was used in American history I agree) of other countries as so, so many nations have appropriated the biblical God as their own War God, their nation as the Holy Nation (as if being the chosen people meant we were to exterminate the other nations; oh, that is the point of Joshua). It's time the church grew up with this issue as it has so many others, and the only way that can happen is if individual opinions change. That only happens, of course, when people think for themselves.
Time may show that homosexuality is a disease. Gays and lesbians will deserve our love, mercy and compassion as much then as now, maybe more. Or perhaps we will find that in fact homosexuality is genetic more than anything else, or that once in place, it might as well be genetic. What then? We give them the same tough-work chance at happiness straights now allow themselves as we see the marriage relationship as a critical part of human fulfillment (not generally an ancient attitude, and I surely doubt St. Paul's).
In conclusion, there are so many issue more important than this. How about the hungry, those suffering in prison, those sick or poor? Jesus' own priorities. Those who have not heard the message of Jesus' love? Those alone and distressed, for surely we have all been there ourselves.
Christianity is not about the indulgence of every sexual whim. How outrageous. My family, my job, would be history, and both rightly so (Sappho notwithstanding). Self-control to care for the self and the beloved and the friend is important. But neither is Christianity, in its essence, about a lifetime of total sexual denial or control.
Jesus says we will know a tree by its fruits. How relevant here.
I've read his post, and I appreciate his humanity and open-mind. I would like to discuss his ideas and the larger issue here just a bit. As usual, I have more questions than answers at this point.
As a heterosexual man I am naturally at a disadvantage. Further, I am not a sexuality expert nor am I psychologist; I do not have a gay person in my immediate family. I am sorting out my own thoughts only because the issue is a dynamic one in Christianity today and Christian attitudes and policies affect millions of real and feeling individuals, namely, the homosexual population, who are certainly as human as I am. Finally, after watching the 80's goof-flick Weird Science with my sick 14 year old son (and wincing more than once at the PG-13 content) I notice that at the end of the film, when Anthony Hall shows courage and stands up to the quasi-Road Warrior bikers, he calls them "faggots." I was astonished. I am a culture-product of the 80's and saw that film when it was new at the theatre. I was not shocked by that term them. I wonder how gay people in the audience felt? How would my son have felt if he were gay? Moments like that show extreme relevance for this issue.
When straight Christians are faced with the 'gay question' where do they go for input? Mostly, the Bible. I have to begin there, though I cover it briefly as Sandalstraps has already addressed this.
For me, the NT, the Bible as a whole, is not a law-book we can search to find edicts for our conduct. I don't yet know what Wright's vision of Scripture is, but he does invent a great analogy: many view reading the bible the same as picking up a telephone where someone on the other end will tell them how to act or not act. It's just not that simple. Oh, for me, the Bible does contain a special revelation regarding conduct to human beings from God; we are to love each other, forgive, show mercy and compassion, take active steps to alleviate suffering...that is present in the OT and it is central to the NT. The fact that it is mixed with much other content puts me on shaky, or as I prefer to think complex, philosophical ground; I know this, and only time will allow me to process these ideas correctly. This is only a start.
Since I agree with Sandalstraps that the NT is not an ethical end-all encyclopedia of law, of right and wrong action, and since its texts are surely bound within their own times and cultures, I do not believe the Bible can give me a simple answer regarding homosexuality. Sandalstraps does reach conclusions I have yet to reach, however.
Whether 10 percent of the population is gay or 1 percent is not a significant issue for me. We're still talking about a lot of people. Whether homosexuality is in fact genetic is another issue. I do not know yet whether homosexual is inborn, environmental, or a combination of both. Is it actually a neuroses, like depression or anxiety or ocd, rooted in the rain when in full swing but brought on by trauma in the environment? (Many theorists, of course, think much neuroses is inborn or a blend of environment and heredity). Are we all in fact more or less straight at birth? The fact is this question has not been fully answered to my knowledge. It is possible that homosexuality is different in each gender; it surely could be a blend of environment and heredity, unique to each individual. Whether homosexuals can unlearn their orientation is another interesting question. Some seem to, but I'm curious if this could work for all; are some gays who become straight through effort (often with religious incentive) more or less their true selves when straight?
When my own Bishop Jerry, the Bishop of No. Cal., voted to affirm Gene Robinson, he said later he had come to believe that 'homosexuality is part of the human condition.' He may well be right. It's been with us a long, long time, and it seems to appear in many cultures (if not all) no matter its cause(s).
If homosexuality is in fact not at all a choice, pure genetics, as my own orientation simply slammed into my bloodstream at 12: I suddenly began to feel different when I looked at girls' body parts in a way that, at the time at least, felt about as much like choice as laughing at a hilarious movie scene, then it seems hard to exclude these individuals from full participation in the church community. If homosexuality's cause is more complex, the result of environment or some blend of environment, what then? What right do we have to insist these people change? Or to demand they remain celibate? Unless homosexuality is proved to be harmful to the gay person the way a neurosis is harmful, I'm not sure any of us has any right to ask them to change. Does anyone insist I get help for my ocd? My friends want me to be happy, of course, fulfilled, whole, and God knows I want it, but that is not the same thing as saying...Troy, because you have ocd you can't take communion or be a bishop. Of course, the analogy is weak. Obsessions are by their nature hellish; homosexual sex, for homosexuals, I assume to be fulfilling, physically and spiritually, when carried out in love.
Finally, to use compulsive homosexual encounters as the yardstick for the orientation makes no more sense than to argue that straight sex is aberrant based on compulsive, self-debasing, or abusive heterosexual encounters. Those acts are legion, and many of us have been part to them. The case could be made, based on negative example, that all sex is bad, but I see very few straight Christians making it. Why? Because sexual fulfillment is so critical for almost all humans. Release, intimacy, fulfillment. Frankly, most of us need it. Why deny gays the same process, the same pleasures?
However, I do not see why the same principles of straight sex ethics shouldn't apply to homosexuality. The commitment I've made to my wife (and kept, so far, through God's grace) is essential to her development as a person, as is her commitment to me. Gays in the church should make the same commitment, shouldn't they? In that sense, as others have argued, allowing them legal marriage would make their unions stronger. Cheating is cheating and marriage is marriage.
The fact is humans are sexual animals; sex is important but it is not the road to spiritual salvation. I continue to marvel over the softened stance on heterosexual divorce and remarriage in most of Christianity compared to the biblical severity so quickly shoveled onto homosexuals. The fact seems to be the idea of gay sex unnerves most straight people, so then they find verses in the Bible (written by others unnerved by the same thing) to support their need to control others. If I believed God wrote the entire OT Law I'd have to feel differently, on this as on many other issues, but even Jesus didn't read the Law that way. If I believed every line of Paul's letters to the churches he founded was God's own command I'd also be wrong, but as I wrote earlier, this does not seem to be the case, and straight Christians will write off other pieces of Paul as cultural, or conditional based on location, but not this issue.
I could be wrong, but if the Torah and Paul isn't informing my opinion what is? The Christ of the gospels. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Well, I'd like my culture to allow for my healthy (and this surely does not mean random, promiscuous, or indiscriminate) sexual fulfillment. If homosexual orientation runs life-long deep, if it forms a core piece of the persona, a necessary piece of their emotional and hence spiritual happiness, then am I not to care for and love and respect these individuals?
Some will say homosexuals who have sex are committing premeditated sin (as opposed to the kind we all commit before thinking every day and for which we are to forgive seventy times seven). But looking at the deep nature of the orientation, and at Jesus' commands to love our neighbors as ourselves, to love sacrificially and fully and even to our own loss, it seems only right, at this time at least, to give these individuals the benefit of the doubt, as horrific and weak as that language may sound to some gay men and women. Since they live within it, and we don't know what causes it, why not treat their impulses with respect and protect them the same way we protect ourselves: through commitment, marriage, the growth of love in the home.
I wish I had more time. In sailing, when in doubt what knot to tie in a line, use a bowline knot. In the Christian life, when in doubt, respect the other and use Love. Fundamentalist' reading of scripture has led to multitudes of abuse, of children (spare the rod, at this moment I actually hate James Dobson) of women (I refuse to let a woman teach a man, many others) of slaves (slaves respect your masters, rather out of context as it was used in American history I agree) of other countries as so, so many nations have appropriated the biblical God as their own War God, their nation as the Holy Nation (as if being the chosen people meant we were to exterminate the other nations; oh, that is the point of Joshua). It's time the church grew up with this issue as it has so many others, and the only way that can happen is if individual opinions change. That only happens, of course, when people think for themselves.
Time may show that homosexuality is a disease. Gays and lesbians will deserve our love, mercy and compassion as much then as now, maybe more. Or perhaps we will find that in fact homosexuality is genetic more than anything else, or that once in place, it might as well be genetic. What then? We give them the same tough-work chance at happiness straights now allow themselves as we see the marriage relationship as a critical part of human fulfillment (not generally an ancient attitude, and I surely doubt St. Paul's).
In conclusion, there are so many issue more important than this. How about the hungry, those suffering in prison, those sick or poor? Jesus' own priorities. Those who have not heard the message of Jesus' love? Those alone and distressed, for surely we have all been there ourselves.
Christianity is not about the indulgence of every sexual whim. How outrageous. My family, my job, would be history, and both rightly so (Sappho notwithstanding). Self-control to care for the self and the beloved and the friend is important. But neither is Christianity, in its essence, about a lifetime of total sexual denial or control.
Jesus says we will know a tree by its fruits. How relevant here.
Comments
Outstanding. I've read it once, and will read it again (if time permits - things are crazy around here right now) and respond to some of my favorite parts. In the meantime, I'm going to link to it, hopefully drawing some readers to you.