Homosexuality
inquiry
I've been married for twenty years this month, and still live in Silicon
Valley. (I recall it being called the Valley of Heart's Delight.) I have
been working primarily in high-technology industry research, mostly in
networking. Staying somewhat close to my Catholic roots, I have chosen the
Episcopal Church as an adult, though, as my parents do, I have an
ecumenical perspective and hold a strong commitment to the Bible. The
other day, someone called me a liberal fundamentalist. I have no idea what
that means, if it is actually a term in common usage, but I can relate to
the general sentiment.
I'm writing to you today because I stumbled across your web site while
surfing. I'm writing to you more specifically because I am quite involved
as a gay-rights advocate through Soulforce, an organization founded by the
Rev. Mel White and dedicated to justice for sexual minorities, particularly
in our churches. I'm also involved with Bridges Across
the Divide, a cyberinitiative to develop dialogue between those who believe
that homosexual behavior is ever within our Creator's plan for our
sexuality and those who believe it is or can be -- a passionate and
respectful dialogue between many interesting folks including several Exodus
leaders and several long-time gay-rights activists.
Further, I'm working toward my Ph.D. in
Psychology at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, and will probably
do my dissertation related to some aspect of reorientation/reparative
therapy and/or transformational ministry.
I recall hearing on a few occasions that homosexuality has been an issue
you have dealt with, in different ways over time. We young whippersnappers
tend to get all wrapped up in ourselves and our generation, generally.
More specifically, because the issue of homosexuality was, uh, well, in the
closet until recently, many folks tend to think that younger folk are the
only ones with any real understanding of the situation as a whole rather
than on an individual basis. Poppycock, I say.
So I'm writing to ask about your views on homosexuality. Rather than ask
specific questions, I'll just open the discussion and invite you to join me.
first response
It is a pleasure to hear from you. You family is truly amazing in
every way!
I have a big section on my web site of sexuality and wholeness in
Christ.
I do think the Bible speaks about behavior, not orientation. Many
people struggle with same-sex attractions and, carrying their own
crosses, do not act on these desires. Certainly there are a good
number of godly priests and nuns in the Catholic church in this
class.
I see the Bible as being unequivocal about sexual expression as having
God's approval and blessing only for a married couple. The union of
male and female as a complimentary pair is what defines
marriage; there can be no same-sex unions. Indeed I have never seen
anything anywhere close to this proposed kind of gay union among
gays or lesbians in practice.
My view is that homosexuals get a very unfair share of the burden
since they account for only a few percent of the people in our
society. The vast heterosexual majority these days freely engages in
all kinds of premarital sex with no one lifting an eyebrow! I suspect
the tiny gay minority sees the injustice in this double standard:
condemnation for merely being gay, but not a word spoken against
almost universal heterosexual fornication.
The New Testament treats homosexual acts exactly the same as
heterosexual fornication or adultery. The issue for every Christian is
a life style pleasing to God.
The Biblical issues are applicable to those who enjoy a relationship
with our Lord Jesus Christ. If one is a Christian, that means naming
Jesus as Lord and taking the Bible as authoritative the same way Jesus
and Apostles did. Persons who do not have a relationship with Christ
can not please God and they have neither the power nor the motivation
to line themselves with Biblical standards of behavior. To the
non-Christian one offers to love, compassion and friendship of God.
There is a terrific new book, "Beyond Gay" that I'm sure you would
enjoy. Dave Morrison was a gay activist, found himself in the
Episcopal church where he had a personal and powerful experience with
Christ. He is now an active Catholic. His story is powerful and
insightful.
Thanks again for getting in touch, and God bless you.
Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men; but what we
are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.
We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to
be proud of us, so that you may be able to answer those who pride
themselves on a man's position and not on his heart. For if we are
beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is
for you. For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced
that one has died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for
all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for
him who for their sake died and was raised. From now on, therefore,
we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once
regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no
longer. Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the
old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God,
who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry
of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world
to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting
to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for
Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of
Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who
knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
(2 Corinthians 5:11-21)
first reply
> I have a big section on my web site of sexuality and wholeness in Christ.
And you think I didn't notice this? :-) It's partly because of this
section that I wrote to you.
I will confess that I've only skimmed the surface of it, there's
tons of depth there. I'll be reading it further over time.
Sexual wholeness is certainly a major issue for our times.
Personally, I have had quite a colorful past, though I've been blessed
with the ability to live out my commitment to monogamy for twenty
years now.
In addition to studying Biblical exegesis and psychological theory and
research on the issue, from both sides of the divide, I've also been
doing research on celibacy per se and on human sexuality in general.
I'm always pleased to better understand various points of
view and there are actually quite a range of views on each side!
> I do think the Bible speaks about behavior, not orientation. Many
> people struggle with same-sex attractions and, carrying their own
> crosses, do not act on these desires. Certainly there are a good
> number of godly priests and nuns in the Catholic church in this
> class.
I agree that orientation is not the issue. I hope, over time, that
more folks come to this realization.
I've got a couple of good books to recommend on celibacy and on the
Catholic priesthood, if you're interested. If celibacy is one's
calling, in the short or long run, it must certainly be a sublimation
rather than a repression of one's sexual energy to be successful and
rewarding.
> I see the Bible as being unequivocal about sexual expression as
> having God's approval and blessing only for a married couple. The
> union of male and female as a complimentary pair is what defines
> marriage, there can be no same-sex unions. Indeed I have never seen
> anything anywhere close to this proposed kind of gay union among
> gays or lesbians in practice.
First, I see ways for same-gender unions to reflect the rich symbolism
of God's relationship with His creation as well as, though differently
than, other-gender marriages.
Second, I don't see the Bible as unequivocal on that issue, though I'm
not particularly interested in getting in depth into our differing
exegesis unless you'd really like to. My intention in writing to you
was not to start a debate. I certainly understand your point of view
as expressed at your web site.
Third, I have seen many wonderful, loving, committed, generative
long-term gay Christian relationships, showing all the fruits of the
best marriages I have seen.
> My view is that homosexuals get a very unfair share of the burden
> since they account for only a few percent of the people in our
> society. The vast heterosexual majority these days freely engages in
> all kinds of premarital sex with no one lifting an eyebrow! I suspect
> the tiny gay minority sees the injustice in this double standard:
> condemnation for merely being gay, but not a word spoken against
> almost universal heterosexual fornication.
Yep. It's a bummer. Major bummer. (I have some stronger words for
it, but I try to contain my, um, enthusiasm.)
And also, apart from sexual sin, they don't tend to get down on the
more than 50% of members, on average, who are overweight due to
gluttony (and those who commit gluttony by consuming irresponsibly and
wastefully, even if not overweight), which has clear and significant
impacts on health and on the planet, while they hammer the
less-than-10% who experience same-gender attraction.
> The New Testament treats homosexual acts exactly the same as
> heterosexual fornication or adultery. The issue for every Christian
> is a life style pleasing to God.
Actually, it condemns adultery many more times, and fornication gets
quite some number of mentions as well, but anything remotely related
to same-gender behavior are quite limited. And, in the context the
latter are mentioned, I believe the disapproval relates more to the
context than the behavior.
But I agree, gay or straight, married or single, in sexuality and in
every other aspect, the issue is living as God wills.
Loving and understanding and support and respect for each person as
being of immeasurable sacred worth is a lot more important, and a
better way of living witness, IMHO, than pointing at any particular
behavior in others. Or, as Jerry Falwell publicly confessed last
fall, he's been spending way too much effort on hating the sin than
loving the sinner.
> The Biblical issues are applicable to those who enjoy a relationship
> with our Lord Jesus Christ. If one is a Christian, that means naming
> Jesus as Lord and taking the Bible as authoritative the same way
> Jesus and Apostles did. Persons who do not have a relationship with
> Christ can not please God and they have neither the power nor the
> motivation to line themselves with Biblical standards of
> behavior. To the non-Christian one offers to love, compassion and
> friendship of God.
To me, the belief about the sanctity/sinfulness of homosexual behavior
is not a core criterion for Christianity. As you say, though I'll
put it as I understand it, Christianity involves accepting Jesus
as Lord and Divine and Savior, and having a commitment to live
one's life according to God's will as revealed in the Scripture,
first, and the tradition of the Church, and our reasoning
faculties (including being informed by, though not dictated to, by
science), and our experience in the world.
There are differing views about Christian teachings and Biblical
standards of behavior. (Big surprise, right?) I believe that both
Pope John Paul II and the Rev. Bob Jones and Glide Memorial's
Rev. Cecil Williams are each Christians, though they hold
significantly different views about Christian teaching and biblical
exegesis. Although any particular Christian community, church, or
denomination may certainly have a doctrine and require adherance of
its members to this doctrine, in action even if not in belief, I
believe it is at least risky to judge another person as not a true
Christian because of a particular belief. John Wesley put it well, I
think, when he established the core doctrine for the Methodist Church
"in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things,
charity." I could never say it as well as Wesley does in his
Sermon on Catholic Charity:
http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-039.html
Given this, I don't believe that viewing homosexual behavior either as
never moral or as equivalently moral to heterosexual behavior are core
criteria for Christianity. Thus, although I personally support gay
marriage or holy union as the appropriate way for Christian gay
couples to commit to a life together, I also support the
transformational ministries for those Christians with a homosexual
orientation who feel called to celibacy or, if God wills, change or
adaptation to heterosexual relationship.
> There is a terrific new book, "Beyond Gay" that I'm sure you would
> enjoy. Dave Morrison was a gay activist, found himself in the
> Episcopal church where he had a personal and powerful experience with
> Christ. He is now an active Catholic. His story is powerful and
> insightful.
I've heard much about this book, and I've read an interview with the
author. It is definitely on my reading list. I'm sure I will enjoy
it.
Have you read "Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in
America" by Mel White?
If this area is of interest to you for dialogue, I'd like to invite
you to join us at our forum on Bridges Across the Divide. We have
some wonderful, wide-ranging discussions and the forum is well
organized and closely moderated so that disagreements don't flare
too hot. We tend to run a bit short on Side B* people, so you'd be
very welcome. I hope you'll at least wander by the site and let
me know what you think. You can easily register to participate in
the forums and we have a range of people, from ages 18 to 78, of
various backgrounds and faith traditions.
Surprising and pleasing to me is the discovery that, rather than
debate each other with an intent to convert, we come to understand
each other and care for each other as human beings, and many have
become active in teaching others on our own Side to better
understand and respect those on the other Side.
Justice & Respect is a web site that
has grown in part from this discussion to present a Method E **
response for conservative Christians to the issue of homosexuality.
Several revisions included in the new Exodus web site and materials
have also resulted from this dialogue.
*BA has developed the 'shorthand' of Side A for those who believe
same-gender behavior to be morally equivalent to other-gender
behavior, ceterus paribus, and Side B for those who see same-gender
behavior as not in the Creator's plan for our sexuality.
**We also have two methods: Method D views the proper approach to
people on the other side is to denounce them, avoid them, keep them
away from the children, name them as dangerously evil and do whatever
must be done to either change them or silence them. Government should
be called in at some level to make sure that happens. Method E views
the proper approach to people on the other side is to recognize their
humanity, try to hear them, love them, learn where their pain is, and
stand in solidarity with them as human beings in opposition to the
approach taken by D from either side.
It's delightful to hear back from you. I hope all is well with you
these days.
mumpsimus (MUMP-suh-muhs) noun
1. Adherence to or persistence in an erroneous use of language,
memorization, practice, belief, etc., out of habit or obstinacy.
2. A person who persists in a mistaken expression or practice. [From a
story, which perhaps originated with Erasmus, of an illiterate priest
who said mumpsimus rather than sumpsimus (1st plural perfect
indicative of Latin sumere to pick up) while reciting the liturgy, and
refused to change the word when corrected]
"This mumpsimus ascends the highest heaven of invention, but does not
hold up under the applicable case law or the facts." Ann McGuire, The
quality of mercy is not strained, Michigan Law Review, Feb 1999.
second response
I think we are in substantial agreement on most issues.
Marriage is the oldest institution--going back to creation. In Genesis
One we have the creation (bara) of Adam/Eve as the first man (the
Hebrew "Adam" is a generic term as you no doubt know). In Chapter
Two are the details of how the body of the first man was formed
(yatsar = to mold, as a sculptor molds clay). Later in the Chapter,
God takes out the woman and builds (banah = construct) a woman. He
then presents her to Adam and he exclaims, "Here at last...." in
essence, "here at last, after I studied all the male and female
animals, is the complementary creature who corresponds to me."
So marriage is the joining of two different sexes. All of us are
masculine/feminine (see my article "Made in the Image of God"), so in
marriage there is both a conscious level and an unconscious level
union. Homosexuality used to be called "inversion" because attempts to
unite two men or two women involve conscious to unconscious bonds
rather than Cs to Cs and Ucs to Uncs bonds.
To be a bit crude about it, the penis was made for the
vagina. "Sanctification" means putting one's body to the use God
intended. Masturbation, fellatio and sodomy are the wrong use of the
parts of the body. In Romans 1 we have the term "against nature" and I
take it this is an argument from creation about what is now acceptable
in sexual expression.
I have known a number of gay men who lived together for years but in
all the cases I know of, the sexual part of the relationship
disappeared after a time, or the partners' sexual activity was outside
of the relationship (a form of adultery). Two men or two women can of
course live together happily in non-sexual relationships, but then the
term "gay" no longer applies. Will God be the Third Person in the
midst of a gay union? I don't think so. Marriage covenants require a
man, a woman, and God as the Mediator, Healer, Sanctifier of the
relationship.
Gay men I have known are incredibly promiscuous so the issue of gay
monogamy is a big one. I never see this addressed. Joseph Nicolosi
(psychologist) says that in his years of experience he has never met a
successful sexual union between two gay persons. (Have you read
Nicolet?)
I know probably a dozen formerly gay men in this area who are now
happily heterosexually married Christians (with children). Some men
who were once gay and now are Christians never marry, but that is
OK. We do not have a "right" to sex. It is part of the privilege that
goes with the covenant of (heterosexual) marriage.
When I became a Christian in 1962 I was very much struck with 1
Cor. 6 the part about "and such WERE some of you" really hit
home. Then he uses the terms sanctified and justified in that order,
whereas elsewhere in Scripture the order is first justified and then
sanctified. Thus, I think one can not be both gay and
Christian. Coming to Christ imparts an entirely new core identity,
so that in spite of the flesh and many temptations, one's real new
self is no longer gay.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified,
you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the
Spirit of our God. "All things are lawful for me," but not all
things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be
enslaved by anything. "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach
for food ", and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is
not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the
body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his
power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?
Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members
of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who joins himself
to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written,
"The two shall become one flesh." But he who is united to the Lord
becomes one spirit with him. Shun immorality. Every other sin which
a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against
his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the
Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your
own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
I have not read Mel White. I think he probably did not become a
Christian in the first place. Or he has simply lapsed for a season and
will come back to the Lord one day. If I had time with him face to
face I would focus on what he currently says about the Lord Jesus. I
suspect he is rationalizing way down deep. This is understandable in
the light of the way the church has not dealt with gay issues for
decades now.
I was away from the Lord for 7 years as a real Prodigal Son and wear a
prodigal son ring to this day. That was 20 some years ago now. I know
how very easy it is to drift away from an intimate walk with our Lord
and how subtle is the blindness that sin (of any kind) brings.
Thanks again for writing, and for asking about me. I am well, now 68,
and busier than ever. I maintain 5 web sites and have much email, plus
two Bible classes to teach each week, and a very fine men's group
which has been together half a dozen years. God has been
extraordinarily good to me in the past decade or so, giving back "the
wasted years which the locust has eaten."
I appreciate your depth of knowledge and wisdom in this discussion.
second reply
> I think we are in substantial agreement on most issues.
I'm glad you started with this. So many people, if they disagree on a
particular thing, tend to focus on it and not attend to the great
number of things the two have in common.
This is sad for many reasons, not least of which is that what they
have in common can build a bridge between them which will support them
in truly loving each other, even with the disagreement and, further,
this bridge itself will help them to better clarify and understand
their disagreement than arguing and debating would do.
> Marriage is the oldest institution--going back to creation. In
> Genesis One we have the creation (bara) of Adam/Eve as the first man
> (the Hebrew "Adam" is a generic term as you no doubt know). In
> Chapter Two are the details of how the body of the first man was
> formed (yatsar = to mold, as a sculptor molds clay). Later in the
> Chapter, God takes out the woman and builds (banah = construct) a
> woman. He then presents her to Adam and he exclaims, "Here at
> last...." in essence, "here at last, after I studied all the male
> and female animals, is the complementary creature who corresponds to
> me."
It depends on how one interprets the Bible as relating to the actual
formation of matter in a specific way or a parable explaining God's
will in and for His Creation. "Adam" geing a generic term, and the
fact that Cain and Abel were said to have found wives and they
were, presumably, also human leads me to a more metaphorical
understanding of this revelation.
Scientifically, it is clear that the female was the first gender for
animals, with the male evolving as a later adaptation. This is
mirrored in the embryo, which begins always as female and develops as
a male only in the presence of male hormones instigated by its y
chromosome.
It may be that God inspired the Genesis writer with the story of man
created before woman because that is the only way His patriarchal
people could hear and understand His message.
Adam didn't say, "Hey, cool, a woman!" Instead, he recognized her as
of his own species and with his same human level of consciousness. He
recognized their similarities, not their differences. He didn't say,
"Oh hey, she has a vulva and I have a penis -- we're different."
God didn't say, "I'm going to make you a woman, a sex partner, a
person different from you." He referred to her more as a partner, a
helper.
> So marriage is the joining of two different sexes. All of us are
> masculine/feminine (see my article "Made in the Image of God"), so
> in marriage there is both a conscious level and an unconscious level
> union. Homosexuality used to be called "inversion" because attempts
> to unite two men or two women involve conscious to unconscious bonds
> rather than Cs to Cs and Ucs to Uncs bonds.
God didn't say, "Now you're married." He said they were for each other.
With regard to the male/female archetypal dynamic, I could go all day.
But I'll be very brief. I believe that same-sex relationships, just
as other-sex relationships, involve balancing of different modalities.
Masculinity/femininity is only one aspect of many in an intimate
relationship. Cognitive/Emotive, Intellectual/Grounded,
Introvert/Extravert, and many many others are involved in every
relationship, and different aspects are salient in each particular
relationship.
For some relationships, the masculine/feminine axis is powerful. In
others, including many straight relationships, gender attributes are
much less significant than other dynamics.
I agree that we relate at both a conscious and an unconscious level.
But I disagree completely with your simplistic characterization of how
these work differently in straight and gay relationships.
I also disagree with your source of the use of the term 'inversion.'
IIRC, its use was based simply on the definition of the word, meaning
a reversal of position, order, form, or relationship. If you're
interested, I can look it up, though.
> To be a bit crude about it, the penis was made for the
> vagina. "Sanctification" means putting one's body to the use God
> intended. Masturbation, fellatio and sodomy are the wrong use of the
> parts of the body. In Romans 1 we have the term "against nature" and
> I take it this is an argument from creation about what is now
> acceptable in sexual expression.
The fact that an item can be used for a certain thing does not
logically nor theo-logically mean that it is not to be used for other
things. Capacity does not dictate purpose. You, as a scientist, know
this to be true.
The Bible certainly sanctifies sex in the context of a marital
relationship, but it nowhere says _what_ they ought or ought not to be
doing in the bedroom, other than that they should be doing it. I
find nothing against masturbation, fellatio, anal intercourse or
other paraphilias as such, though certainly any of them and even
coitus can be done in an unholy manner, such as in the context of
sex addiction or marital rape.
For centuries, people in general, and so the Church also, had this big
semen worship thing going on. Since semen contained life (they used
to think the man contributed all the material and the woman only the
incubator), some reasoned that it should thus never be released in any
other fashion but towards a womb. This is primitive thinking with no
Biblical basis.
It should be noted that most married folks have far from a healthy,
holy sexual relationship, being all that God intends it to be. Even
though I'm monogamous, I will confess that my participation in this
gift with my husband, in many cases, falls far short of loving, holy,
unitive sex. I'd bet a higher percentage of vowed celibates are
directing their sexual energy (in ministry and creativity and other
sublimations) in a more sacred way than the percentage of married folk
directing their sexual energy in a holy manner.
In the same way that I think a varied diet, including some foods that
are unnecessary or frivolous, is not gluttony, I think that a varied
sex life, per se, is not sexual sin.
wrt Romans: I have several cool exegeses of Romans 1, one of which is
exemplary and I'd like to refer you to, if you're interested. The
many aspects of the term "nature" or "natural" by itself is worthy of
many pages, as, therefore, would any interpretation of "against
nature."
IMO Romans 1 is talking about non-marital sex, is talking about sex in
the context of burning lust rather than intimate, unitive sex, and
from most interpretations I've read, refers to sex in temples as
practiced by neighboring peoples. I don't believe this passage refers
to private, committed, responsible sexual relationships of any kind.
And, yes, I think it probably talks about the likelihood of
infections, in that day before antibiotics, of STDs as a result of
promiscuous intercourse (where it refers to women) and more often
(including bladdar infections) as a result of male-male anal
intercourse, especially promiscuously.
> I have known a number of gay men who lived together for years but in
> all the cases I know of, the sexual part of the relationship
> disappeared after a time, or the partners' sexual activity was
> outside of the relationship (a form of adultery). Two men or two
> women can of course live together happily in non-sexual
> relationships, but then the term "gay" no longer applies. Will God
> be the Third Person in the midst of a gay union? I don't think
> so. Marriage covenants require a man, a woman, and God as the
> Mediator, Healer, Sanctifier of the relationship.
In _most_ committed relationships, _including_ straight relationships,
the sexual part of the relationship decreases significantly after a
while.
Certainly adultery is an issue, whether straight or gay, and certainly
adultery is more common in gay male relationships, based on studies.
But the _reasons_ for this difference are many and impossible to
adequately identify separately, at least at this time.
However, the absence of social support for the gay relationship itself
(which straight marriages have) and, further, the often closeted or
semi-closeted nature of the relationship contributes significantly to
this situation. In addition, studies have shown that the man is the
more likely one to commit adultery, and so a double tendency in a gay
relationship would contribute to higher rates of non-monogamy.
wrt non-sexual same-gender relationships, What counts as sex? Is it
improper to live in a relationship in all ways like a marriage,
living together, others aware of them living together and
perceiving them as a couple, developing economic and emotional
interdependence and support, monogamous in emotional, romantic
fidelity, and even hugging and kissing, but not calling it a
sexual relationship because neither shares orgasm or sexual
intimacy with each other? (btw Even the Roman Catholic Church,
though, supports and encourages such relationships, friendships
for gay people.)
I think God's definintion of marriage includes most of these things
and is not defined solely by penetration nor orgasm. Having a
marriage in all but name and orgasm seems, to me, as fallacious as
Clinton saying he didn't have sex with that woman.
> Gay men I have known are incredibly promiscuous so the issue of gay
> monogamy is a big one. I never see this addressed. Joseph Nicolosi
> (psychologist) says that in his years of experience he has never met
> a successful sexual union between two gay persons. (Have you read
> Nicolet?)
I think you're referring to Joe Nicolosi. And, yes, I've read his
work in great detail, including his main book and much of the NARTH
materials. I can comment on them in more detail, if you are
interested.
I wouldn't be surprised that Nicolosi would not have encountered a
successful gay union. By his basic, core, psychodynamic definition of
homosexuality, by definition, that is, a gay union _cannot_ be
successful. I'm not particularly enamored of tautological reasoning.
But even putting that aside, the type of folks with same-gender
attraction that come to Nicolosi are those who are conflicted about
their sexuality, to the point of committing to 'leave homosexuality.'
Folks who are deeply conflicted about their sexuality are very
unlikely to have a successful relationship.
Also, Nicolosi states clearly in his book that his theory and therapy
relate only to a certain kind of same-gender-attracted person, which
usually includes a component of gender-identity issues and quite often
childhood sexual abuse. Of the other gay people, who claim to be
confident in their sexuality. He dismisses them as narcissistic, again
by his definition of homosexuality as an invalid "orientation", and
these are simply loving themselves through the mirror of the
same-gender partner, rather than attempting to reclaim their
incomplete masculinity in a same-gender partner. However, though he
mentions this distinction of different types of homosexuality, all the
rest of the book speaks as if 'his' type is the only homosexuality.
I have been honored to have several gay friends who have deep,
committed, loving long-term relationships.
> I know probably a dozen formerly gay men in this area who are now
> happily heterosexually married Christians (with children). Some men
> who were once gay and now are Christians never marry, but that is
> OK. We do not have a "right" to sex. It is part of the privilege that
> goes with the covenant of (heterosexual) marriage.
I do not deny, as many gay-rights advocate often do, that some folks
with same-gender attraction can be fulfilled by or at least adapt to a
heterosexual relationship. The whole issue of the range of elements
that any definition may or may not include when it speaks of "change"
is a very charged issue these days, change of behavior, orientation,
fantasies... and change from promiscuity or sex addiction or adultery
or 'the gay lifestyle' or from solely same-gender behavior... and
change from bisexual orientation and same-gender behavior to bisexual
orientation and other-gender behavior or change from fully same-gender
orientation to fully other-gender orientation or change to
other-gender behavior while still primarily same-gender
attracted... and... You get the picture.
I'm in communication with Dr. Stanton Jones, Provost of Wheaton
College, who is undertaking a large, 5-year outcome study of Exodus
ministries. Based on his work that I have read so far, I am quite
confident that his research will be methodologically sound, with a
commitment to truth rather than politics. Hopefully, it will help us
to better define and understand the issues around both
reorientation/reparative therapy and transformational ministries.
As I stated before I read Jones' work, and his conclusions agree with
mine, it doesn't matter, in terms of making a moral decision, whether
homosexuality is innate or developmental, whether it is immutable or
fluid, whether it is essential or a social construct, whether it is,
psychologically, a broken orientation or simply a different
orientation. If it's a sin, it's a sin. I agree with you that we do
not have a "right" to sex.
(OTOH, of course, these other elements _do_ matter, enormously, in a
practical or political sense. As more and more people come to
_believe_ homosexuality is mostly innate, largely immutable, not tied
to psychological disorders, and pretty much the same as straights in
relationship commitment, more and more voters will support civil
unions. Because of this cultural acceptance, more and more
denominations will bless holy unions and ordain non-celibate
homosexuals. And these _beliefs_ will have this effect, even if
research turns out to not support the beliefs.)
> When I became a Christian in 1962 I was very much struck with
> 1 Cor. 6, the part about "and such WERE some of you" really hit
> home. Then he uses the terms sanctified and justified in that order,
> whereas elsewhere in Scripture the order is first justified and then
> sanctified. Thus, I think one can not be both gay and
> Christian. Coming to Christ imparts an entirely new core identity,
> so that in spite of the flesh and many temptations, one's real new
> self is no longer gay.
> Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of
> God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor
> adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor
> drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of
> God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were
> sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
> and in the Spirit of our God. "All things are lawful for me," but
> not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will
> not be enslaved by anything. "Food is meant for the stomach and the
> stomach for food ", and God will destroy both one and the other. The
> body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for
> the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his
> power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall
> I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a
> prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who joins himself to a
> prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two
> shall become one flesh." But he who is united to the Lord becomes one
> spirit with him. Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits
> is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body.
> Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within
> you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought
> with a price. So glorify God in your body.
If you'll pardon a humorous aside, one of my favorite lines from any
TV show was on Laverne & Shirley, where Shirley said to Laverne:
"You're body is supposed to be a temple. You have allowed yours to
become an amusement park."
I am grateful for God's washing clean of sins. I'm sure I couldn't
bear up under them, I feel unpleasing enough to God even with my
belief in His forgiveness.
For some time, I have been quite enamored of the very next verse -
"All thngs are lawful for me." This and the rest of the verse tell me
that a wider range of behavior is available to Christians, who are
free of the Law, than many conservative Christians tend to believe.
Of course, the process of discernment of what is helpful and where
addiction begins is a tricky and difficult process. I don't tend to
wander outside traditional behavioral guidelines unless I have
researched the area deeply, including prayer, consultation with wise
folks of differing beliefs about it, and reflection on my motivations
for reconsidering a change in my perspective. But I feel free to
engage in this process, though it can be tricky.
> I have not read Mel White. I think he probably did not become
> a Christian in the first place. Or he has simply lapsed for a
> season and will come back to the Lord one day. If I had time
> with him face to face I would focus on what he currently says
> about the Lord Jesus. I suspect he is rationalizing way down
> deep. This is understandable in the light of the way the church
> has not dealt with gay issues for decades now.
On a future time that Mel comes up to visit me, would you be
interested in such a face-to-face conversation? He was an evangelical
pastor and a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary for many years,
and was raised in a devoutly evangelical home, and was quite active,
even in high school, in developing films and writing books that
express the messages of Christianity and explore what it is to be
human. This book discusses his life, including his many decades of
religious and psychological work to overcome his sexual orientation.
The development of his belief o/understanding his homosexuality as a
gift was a gradual process for a lifelong, devout, believing
Christian.
I understand you may see his experience and new viewpoint as
rationalizing. Were it you, it might be a rationalizing process, and
I don't doubt that some people do this. But I, at least, don't
believe it to be so for Mel and for many other GLB people who are also
devout, believing Christians.
It may be that some people are called out of homosexuality, and
several successful ex-gay stories I have heard seem to indicate this
is true for these people. But I don't believe that all nor even most
same-gender attracted folk are so called.
Are you saying that you cannot believe any person who believes
homosexuality to be as moral as heterosexuality, ceterus paribus, can
be a true Christian?
Are you saying that you cannot believe any person who changes his mind
from seeing it as always sinful to seeing it as sacred in the same
context as heterosexuality cannot do so if s/he is a true Christian?
> I was away from the Lord for 7 years as a real Prodigal Son
> and wear a prodigal son ring to this day. That was 20 some
> years ago now. I know how very easy it is to drift away from
> an intimate walk with our Lord and how subtle is the blindness
> that sin (of any kind) brings.
I remember hearing of your prodigal period. It is indeed easy to
wander, and I wander often, and sometimes I have wandered far. The
Prince of Lies has such a honeyed, reassuring confidence in his voice.
> Thanks again for writing, and for asking about me. I am well,
> now 68, and busier than ever. I maintain 5 web sites and have
> much email, plus two Bible classes to teach each week, and
> a very fine men's group which has been together half a dozen
> years. God has been extraordinarily good to me in the past
> decade or so--giving back "the wasted years which the locust
> has eaten."
I'm not at all surprised to see you with your fingers still in many
pies. The breadth of your knowledge and experience, and your delight
in them, are pleasing to behold.
>I appreciate your depth of knowledge and wisdom in this discussion.
I appreciate and value yours also.
You've got to do your own growing, no matter how tall your grandfather
was. -Irish Proverb
third response
You are certainly well read and sophisticated and broad in your
tolerance and compassion. Evangelicals are not as culturally
sophisticated and aware as they ought to be in these areas, but I
think we tend to cluster together in similar (and narrow) groups. It
is most refreshing to be "talking" to you.
> This is sad for many reasons, not least of which is that what they
> have in common can build a bridge between them which will support them
> in truly loving each other, even with the disagreement and, further,
> this bridge itself will help them to better clarify and understand
> their disagreement than arguing and debating would do.
Right on. If Paul says he is willing to become all things to all men
and to meet people where they are and come alongside them, this, it
seems to me, is our basic calling as Christians. How can we help
people if we meet them from a position that we are superior and they
are "lost"?
Marriage is the oldest institution--going back to creation. In Genesis
One we have the creation (bara) of Adam/Eve as the first man (the
Hebrew "Adam" is a generic term as you no doubt know). In Chapter Two
are the details of how the body of the first man was formed (yatsar =
to mold, as a sculptor molds clay). Later in the Chapter, God takes
out the woman and builds (banah = construct) a woman. He then
presents her to Adam and he exclaims, "Here at last...." in essence,
"here at last--after I studied all the male and female animals--is the
complementary creature who corresponds to me."
It depends on how one interprets the Bible as relating to the actual
formation of matter in a specific way or a parable explaining God's
will in and for His Creation. "Adam" geing a generic term, and the
fact that Cain and Abel were said to have found wives -- and they
were, presumably, also human -- leads me to a more metaphorical
understanding of this revelation.
Genesis One clearly says God "created them male and female," so the
two different, distinctive sexes are required to bear the image of God
in mankind. Without denying the wide diversity in gifts, abilities,
emotions, and so on, in both men and women I do think God intends that
the differences in men and women are preserved in Scripture, starting
at Genesis. Marriage as union of male and female is so important it
starts at creation, is preserved under the Old Covenant and also under
the New Covenant. In the New Testament marriage is exalted to an even
higher place because it is compared to Christ's love for His church
(Ephesians). Marriage is also "honorable" among non Christians
everywhere.
"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be
undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous." (Hebrews
13:4)
If Genesis is not literal, then Jesus is not a historical Person,
because the genealogy between Adam and Jesus is given to us in
Scripture. The two Adams are connected. Adam is the head of the old
creation, Jesus is the Head of the new.
see http://ldolphin.org/genmyth.html
and http://ldolphin.org/2adams.html
> Scientifically, it is clear that the female was the first gender for
> animals, with the male evolving as a later adaptation. This is
> mirrored in the embryo, which begins always as female and develops as
> a male only in the presence of male hormones instigated by its y
> chromosome.
> It may be that God inspired the Genesis writer with the story of man
> created before woman because that is the only way His patriarchal
> people could hear and understand His message.
I think this undermines the authority of the Scripture. The author was
the Holy Spirit. Hebrew is capable of enormous depth of expression
and accuracy in detail. Adam was much more intelligent than modern
man. He lived nearly 1000 years. He was taught by God. His genes were
undamaged. The history of the human race has been downhill ever
since. Not only is "there nothing new under the sun," but we know less
now than our forefathers did and "progress" is an illusion. Compared
to Adam we have all been greatly "dumbed down", we are near the end of
history and the Second law of Thermodynamics has worked its inexorable
damage on our race.
Yes, masculinity is born out of a background "sea" of femininity. It
arises from a struggle. Men, of course, have a crisis in childhood in
identifying with the parent of the same sex in preference to the
inborn identification with the mother. This whole subject is utterly
fascinating to me.
> Adam didn't say, "Hey, cool, a woman!" Instead, he recognized her
> as of his own species and with his same human level of consciousness.
> He recognized their similarities, not their differences. He didn't
> say, "Oh hey, she has a vulva and I have a penis, we're different."
> God didn't say, "I'm going to make you a woman, a sex partner, a
> person different from you." He referred to her more as a partner, a
> helper.
Marriage develops gradually, as do friendships. "become one flesh" is not instantaneous.
Actually the word "help" in Hebrew is used more often of God's
relationship to Adam than of Eve's relationship to Adam. The whole
idea is servanthood, servant authority. God gives authority
(weightiness) to the one who is the best servant of others.
It is easy to love someone who is very much like oneself. It is more
demanding and requires greater self-sacrifice to love a person who is
different, in the sense of complementarity.
The pending wedding between Christ and His church brings forth all
sorts of issues. Adam married one unique woman Eve ("the mother of all
living"). Christ "marries" a good many millions of men, women and
children from all cultures and all parts of the world.
It is clearly not a physical union, but a great family gathering
(figured by the picture of a great middle eastern marriage supper).
C.S. Lewis was great in describing men and women in heaven as no
longer explicitly sexual beings, but certainly not losing any of their
masculine and feminine distinctives. I think these differences will be
enhanced in heaven. We will most certainly not be una-sexuals or
eunuchs up there.
I think the Bible takes care to avoid blurring the complementarity of
the sexes. However the world system has a way of squeezing people into
a common mold, "you are not a name but a number." In Christ the
uniqueness of every individual is enhanced, unfolded, expanded, not
diminished. As we grow in Christ we become more different, more
diverse. God likes variety. In the world, on the other hand, any
person who fits a rigidly defined job description will do.
> > So marriage is the joining of two different sexes. All of us are
> > masculine/feminine (see my article "Made in the Image of God"), so
> > in marriage there is both a conscious level and an unconscious
> > level union. Homosexuality used to be called "inversion" because
> > attempts to unite two men or two women involve conscious to
> > unconscious bonds rather than Cs to Cs and Ucs to Uncs bonds.
> God didn't say, "Now you're married." He said they were for each
> other.
Marriage is a gradual union between two persons. Humans are capable of
spiritual, soulish, and physical unions. In a good marriage I would
expect a union can occur at all three levels over time. "He who is
united to the Lord becomes one spirit together with Him." Jonathan and
David had their souls "knit" together. Sexual relationships bring a
one-flesh attachment, but not always the lawful kind.
"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I
therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a
prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who joins himself to a
prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two
shall become one flesh." But he who is united to the Lord becomes
one spirit with him. Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man
commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own
body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit
within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were
bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."
I always come back to the fact that God (being Sovereign and Holy)
will not be a party to any "unlawful" union. He is not "there" when a
Christian man has an adulterous relationship. So there is no blessing,
only harm. One can not force God to be a party to a sexual
relationship between two men or two women. I don't believe He honors
such relationships. I think He merely withdraws.
But this is not to exclude the most intense imaginable same sex
friendships (short of sex). Such friendships are "within the family"
of God and so other family members are brought in and they also
benefit from such synergistic friendships. But if two people of the
same sex enjoy such a friendship, minus sexual expression, there is
no need to use the pejorative label "gay." The gay label is very
narrowing in my judgment and provokes so much misunderstanding and
hostility. Gay men and women are pushed into a very common mold in
public opinion. Their true dignity is offended I think. They are
violated because vast areas of who they really area is denied and not
drawn out.
People who are privately gay but never disclose this publicaly are
better thought of by history, I think because of their
discretion. They are men and women of mystery and I think respected
for that. It is not good to broadcast one's sexual choices. These are
private matters, deserving modest and private attention, and
privately-defined boundaries. Even the marriage bed is not a matter
for public discussion. (Our society has lost all sense of modesty and
shame).
> With regard to the male/female archetypal dynamic, I could go all
> day. But I'll be very brief. I believe that same-sex relationships,
> just as other-sex relationships, involve balancing of different
> modalities. Masculinity/femininity is only one aspect of many in an
> intimate relationship. Cognitive/Emotive, Intellectual/Grounded,
> Introvert/Extravert, and many many others are involved in every
> relationship, and different aspects are salient in each particular
> relationship.
True. But just leave out the erotic element, which I do not think is
appropriate for same sex relationships, and then at that point there
is no limit to the depth and value of a same-sex friendship. But as I
said above, such relationships are by definition not gay, but
Biblically just normal Christian brotherly love. We do not need sex
(as we need food). It is possible to live with no sexual expression,
the church (and the Jewish faith) has always held chastity and
celibacy as great virtues, great sacrifices for the greater good of
the family of believers.
Everyone has a cross to carry! It gets to the heart of what it means
to be a follower of Jesus. "If for this life only we have hoped, we
are of all men most miserable."
> For some relationships, the masculine/feminine axis is powerful. In
> others, including many straight relationships, gender attributes are
> much less significant than other dynamics.
> I agree that we relate at both a conscious and an unconscious level.
> But I disagree completely with your simplistic characterization of how
> these work differently in straight and gay relationships.
> I also disagree with your source of the use of the term 'inversion.'
> IIRC, its use was based simply on the definition of the word,
> meaning a reversal of position, order, form, or relationship. If
> you're interested, I can look it up, though.
The term "inversion" was a narrow term when it was in vogue. It has
lost its meaning to us nowadays. I think it was meant to suggest a
twisting around of the normal, natural ("according to nature") view of
sexuality as it was originally created by God.
> > To be a bit crude about it, the penis was made for the
> > vagina. "Sanctification" means putting one's body to the use God
> > intended. Masturbation, fellatio and sodomy are the wrong use of
> > the parts of the body. In Romans 1 we have the term "against
> > nature" and I take it this is an argument from creation about what
> > is now acceptable in sexual expression.
> The fact that an item can be used for a certain thing does not
> logically nor theo-logically mean that it is not to be used for
> other things. Capacity does not dictate purpose. You, as a
> scientist, know this to be true.
We still have guidelines and boundaries and when these are important
they are spelled out in Scripture so we will not lose track of certain
absolutes, the way things really are, not merely the way we wish they
could be. The whole issue of the headship of men in the family and in
the church (not denying the equality of the sexes), is the subject of
much teaching in the NT.
It is metaphor but I think Leviticus is clear in what is really meant,
God considers it "abhorrent" in His sight for a man "to lie with a man
as with a woman." The topic is sodomy, not two men being emotionally
close or sleeping in the same bed. Even God is discrete and modest
when talking about subjects that ought to be shameful to his people!
The same modesty and discretion is in Ephesians 5: "Therefore be
imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ
loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice
to God. But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even
be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no
filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but
instead let there be thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no fornicator
or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any
inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive
you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath
of God comes upon the sons of disobedience."
There is something in these passages that suggests to be a sensitive
Holy God who shrinks from evil conduct when it is brought to His
attention.
> The Bible certainly sanctifies sex in the context of a marital
> relationship, but it nowhere says _what_ they ought or ought not to
> be doing in the bedroom, other than that they should be doing it. I
> find nothing against masturbation, fellatio, anal intercourse or
> other paraphilias as such, though certainly any of them and even
> coitus can be done in an unholy manner, such as in the context of
> sex addiction or marital rape.
Yes. The Bible leaves it to man and wife to define for themselves what
is right in marriage. This area is off-limits to public view, except
when real abuse occurs. Several people have raised this question with
me. A friend and I put together a short discussion on what might or
might not be right within marriage, see
http://pbc.org/dp/stedman/wise
and specifically, http://pbc.org/dp/wise/week0111.html
> For centuries, people in general, and so the Church also, had this
> big semen worship thing going on. Since semen contained life (they
> used to think the man contributed all the material and the woman
> only the incubator), some reasoned that it should thus never be
> released in any other fashion but towards a womb. This is primitive
> thinking with no Biblical basis.
Yes. The evangelical church has not in general suffered from Thomas
Aquinas in this area. Instead we just don't deal with the issues at
all. As ex-Episcopal Eastern philosopher Alan Watts once said,
"Christians are people who believe that the Word of God was made
flesh, but only from the waist up."
> It should be noted that most married folks have far from a healthy,
> holy sexual relationship, being all that God intends it to be. Even
> though I'm monogamous, I will confess that my participation in this
> gift with my husband, in many cases, falls far short of loving,
> holy, unitive sex. I'd bet a higher percentage of vowed celibates
> are directing their sexual energy (in ministry and creativity and
> other sublimations) in a more sacred way than the percentage of
> married folk directing their sexual energy in a holy manner.
> In the same way that I think a varied diet, including some foods
> that are unnecessary or frivolous, is not gluttony, I think that a
> varied sex life, per se, is not sexual sin.
Amen! Of course marriage as an institution is under ferocious enemy
attack these days. Most of the social forces that once helped foster
and encourage marriage and family are now destroying marriages and
"holy matrimony" and making is very much more difficult for a man and
a woman to have a vital marriage. I take this sign of the times as
indicating that we are down in the last few verses of Romans Chapter 1
which speaks of the broad decline of civilizations when God is
abandoned as the primary object of worship and devotion. (This chapter
is really not about homosexuality, except incidentally. It is about
all of us collectively).
Among hundreds of friends only a handful of my married friends have
what I would call a great Christian marriage, and in those rare cases
the good marriage has been born out of suffering and fire and much
hard work. But I think this is what wholeness (holiness) is all
about. Becoming a whole person in Christ involves a radical rebuild,
from self-centered to other-centered. The old life (the flesh) will do
anything to avoid the cross.
The cross is the symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent
end of the human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross
and started down the road had already said goodbye to his friends. He
was not coming back. He was not going out to have his life
redirected. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no
compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing. It slew all of the man
completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its
victim. it struck swift and hard and when it had finished its work the
man was no more. That evangelism which draws friendly parallels
between the ways of God and the ways of man is false to the Bible and
cruel to the soul of the hearers. The faith of Christ does not
parallel the world. It intersects it. In coming to Christ we do not
bring our life up on to a higher plane. We leave it at a cross. The
grain of wheat must fall into the ground and die. That is the
beginning of the gospel. (A.W. Tozer)
> wrt Romans: I have several cool exegeses of Romans 1, one of which
> is exemplary and I'd like to refer you to, if you're interested. The
> many aspects of the term "nature" or "natural" by itself is worthy of
> many pages, as, therefore, would any interpretation of "against
> nature."
I have read many commentaries on Romans and am not impressed. Almost
all are rationalizations which reveal the hang ups of the writer, the
unresolved issues the author has not dealt with himself, or on the
other hand, the author's unawareness of the whole of Scripture
(majoring in minors). The more one intimately one knows the Lord Jesus
the more obvious are the flaws in the reasoning of the less mature in
Christ.
> IMO Romans 1 is talking about non-marital sex, is talking about sex
> in the context of burning lust rather than intimate, unitive sex,
> and from most interpretations I've read, refers to sex in temples as
> practiced by neighboring peoples. I don't believe this passage
> refers to private, committed, responsible sexual relationships of
> any kind. And, yes, I think it probably talks about the likelihood
> of infections, in that day before antibiotics, of STDs as a result
> of promiscuous intercourse (where it refers to women) and more often
> (including bladdar infections) as a result of male-male anal
> intercourse, especially promiscuously.
I don't think the Bible recognizes as legitimate "private" sexual
encounters that are not in marriage. Take the case of Judah. (Genesis
38). His indiscretion was eventually not only made public but was a
cause of long-term shame even though God brought good out of it for
the long term. The way things were created and intended speaks of
absolutes of the old creation. We are not yet in the New Creation (in
our resurrection bodies) where there will be new, freer, rules of
conduct. Until that Day we are obligated to respect the forms and
limits of the original created order before the Fall.
> > I have known a number of gay men who lived together for years but
> > in all the cases I know of, the sexual part of the relationship
> > disappeared after a time, or the partners' sexual activity was
> > outside of the relationship (a form of adultery). Two men or two
> > women can of course live together happily in non-sexual
> > relationships, but then the term "gay" no longer applies. Will God
> > be the Third Person in the midst of a gay union? I don't think
> > so. Marriage covenants require a man, a woman, and God as the
> > Mediator, Healer, Sanctifier of the relationship.
> In _most_ committed relationships, _including_ straight
> relationships, the sexual part of the relationship decreases
> significantly after a while.
To me, in light of the Judgment Seat of Christ when ALL our lives will
be reviewed, we shall all suffer loss because of those things in our
lives that were without value in the eyes of God. We shall all receive
the praise of God at the time as well, but in my old age I am more
concerned about my motives so that what I am doing now does meet with
God's approval.
I can not conceive of truly self-giving sexual relationships between
two men or two women. I have thought about this a lot and conclude that
by the very nature of the way we have been created it is impossible to
express oneself sexually with another person of the same sex except in
a selfish manner. Agape love is not possible when sexual expression
occurs, except in marriage, when, as I have said, God is the Third
Participant. Modified narcissism is involved in homosexual
relationships I suppose, and that may be a minor improvement on
solitary sex in a relative sense. But, if I really loved the other
person would I behave this way? No, I would allow the cross to put to
death my selfish desires so that Christ in me can love my brother for
his own long term good, rather than for my short-term selfish
gratification. True love pays any price for the long term good of the
beloved.
I have known many gay men. All that I am aware of have had badly
damaged relationships (lack of same-sex bonding) with the fathers. All
need affirmation and love, most of all the intimate manly love of the
Lord Jesus. I see many of these people as suffering from I would call
"arrested psycho-sexual development." In some cases when gay men come
to Christ, their stuck sexuality begins to move forward again,
towards the more demanding, more sacrificial demands of
marriage. "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and
gave himself up for her," is, however, a tall order for any man.
"You must be holy for I am holy, says the Lord." This is a call to
each of us to be whole men and men and not to stay in a dysfunctional
or undifferientiated state of being. The sameness and mediocrity of
much of the gay culture suggests that a lot of people live in the
backwaters and have not joined the mainstream of true followers of
Christ.
So what if a man's sexuality does not respond the way it is "supposed
to." It is no big deal (in view of the rewards in glory) to take up a
cross and make a real contribution to the well being of Christ's
church. How does Jesus feel after two thousand years of unfulfilled,
unexpressed sexuality? He has been denied a wife, a family, a gay
Lover, even His disciples deserted Him and slept during His great
agony in Gethsemane. Where in the world do we get the idea that there
is any such thing as "gay rights?" It is not our universe. We are
house guests in Someone else's universe and the Landlord will be back
soon to throw out all the tenants who have ignored Him all these
years.
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses,
let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely,
and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,
looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the
joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame,
and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him
who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you
may not grow weary or fainthearted. In your struggle against sin you
have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. (Hebrews
12:1,2)
> Certainly adultery is an issue, whether straight or gay, and
> certainly adultery is more common in gay male relationships, based
> on studies. But the _reasons_ for this difference are many and
> impossible to adequately identify separately, at least at this time.
> However, the absence of social support for the gay relationship
> itself (which straight marriages have) and, further, the often
> closeted or semi-closeted nature of the relationship contributes
> significantly to this situation. In addition, studies have shown
> that the man is the more likely one to commit adultery, and so a
> double tendency in a gay relationship would contribute to higher
> rates of non-monogamy.
> wrt non-sexual same-gender relationships, What counts as sex? Is it
> improper to live in a relationship in all ways like a marriage,
> living together, others aware of them living together and perceiving
> them as a couple, developing economic and emotional interdependence
> and support, monogamous in emotional, romantic fidelity, and even
> hugging and kissing, but not calling it a sexual relationship
> because neither shares orgasm or sexual intimacy with each other?
> (btw Even the Roman Catholic Church, though, supports and encourages
> such relationships, friendships, for gay people.)
> I think God's definintion of marriage includes most of these things
> and is not defined solely by penetration nor orgasm. Having a
> marriage in all but name and orgasm seems, to me, as fallacious as
> Clinton saying he didn't have sex with that woman.
Society today is chaotic and in near-total disarray so we can not set
rules based on "generally accepted behavior." But only a small remnant
will survive, a holocaust of divine fire will soon fall on earth and
that will be a terrible day for the vast majority. Popular or not I
think we Christians have to seek out God's ways for us, we are after
all "strangers and exiles in this present world."
> > Gay men I have known are incredibly promiscuous so the issue of
> > gay monogamy is a big one. I never see this addressed. Joseph
> > Nicolet (psychologist) says that in his years of experience he has
> > never met a successful sexual union between two gay persons. (Have
> > you read Nicolet?)
> I think you're referring to Joe Nicolosi. And, yes, I've read his
> work in great detail, including his main book and much of the NARTH
> materials. I can comment on them in more detail, if you are
> interested.
Yes, I did mean Nicolosi. I have read his books and I can see his
strengths and weaknesses. There is a small sub-set of gays he does
help in my opinion.
> I wouldn't be surprised that Nicolosi would not have encountered a
> successful gay union. By his basic, core, psychodynamic definition
> of homosexuality, by definition, that is, a gay union _cannot_ be
> successful. I'm not particularly enamored of tautological
> reasoning.
> But even putting that aside, the type of folks with same-gender
> attraction that come to Nicolosi are those who are conflicted about
> their sexuality, to the point of committing to 'leave
> homosexuality.' Folks who are deeply conflicted about their
> sexuality are very unlikely to have a successful relationship.
> Also, Nicolosi states clearly in his book that his theory and
> therapy relate only to a certain kind of same-gender-attracted
> person, which usually includes a component of gender-identity issues
> and quite often childhood sexual abuse. Of the other gay people,
> who claim to be confident in their sexuality. he dismisses them as
> narcissistic, again by his definition of homosexuality as an invalid
> "orientation", and these are simply loving themselves through the
> mirror of the same-gender partner, rather than attempting to reclaim
> their incomplete masculinity in a same-gender partner. However,
> though he mentions this distinction of different types of
> homosexuality, all the rest of the book speaks as if 'his' type is
> the only homosexuality.
True. I agree.
> I have been honored to have several gay friends who have deep,
> committed, loving long-term relationships.
I have suspected that such exists, I have never myself seen a good gay
relationship involving sex. But I know a number of men living together
and a number of women long-term friends living together in non-sexual
relationships who have great relationships that deserve all possible
encouragement and surely have God's approval in most cases.
Any two people living together (regardless of sex) can become
co-dependent, so of course they are unhealthy in the long term because
neither party is growing.
> > I know probably a dozen formerly gay men in this area who are now
> > happily heterosexually married Christians (with children). Some
> > men who were once gay and now are Christians never marry, but that
> > is OK. We do not have a "right" to sex. It is part of the
> > privilege that goes with the covenant of (heterosexual) marriage.
>
> I do not deny, as many gay-rights advocate often do, that some folks
> with same-gender attraction can be fulfilled by or at least adapt to
> a heterosexual relationship. The whole issue of the range of
> elements that any definition may or may not include when it speaks
> of "change" is a very charged issue these days, change of behavior,
> orientation, fantasies... and change from promiscuity or sex
> addiction or adultery or 'the gay lifestyle' or from solely
> same-gender behavior... and change from bisexual orientation and
> same-gender behavior to bisexual orientation and other-gender
> behavior or change from fully same-gender orientation to fully
> other-gender orientation or change to other-gender behavior while
> still primarily same-gender attracted... and... You get the
> picture.
Everyone I know is highly flawed. I think we need to adjust to the
total bankruptcy of mankind apart from Christ, and the big task that
is involved when Christ goes to work to make us into new men and
women. It is a life long job, hard work, and usually not finished even
after many years of knowing and loving God. Live is never a neat
package and I do not think God intends that we should find fulfillment
in this life, instead we are training for something far grander and
greater in the life to come. Without training now we shall not be able
to handle the intensity of experience and sensuality of heaven.
> I'm in communication with Dr. Stanton Jones, Provost of Wheaton
> College, who is undertaking a large, 5-year outcome study of Exodus
> ministries. Based on his work that I have read so far, I am quite
> confident that his research will be methodologically sound, with a
> commitment to truth rather than politics. Hopefully, it will help
> us to better define and understand the issues around both
> reorientation/reparative therapy and transformational ministries.
The evangelical church, having never examined what it means to be a
sexual being, lags far behind the Catholic Church (in spite of the
weird conclusions some Catholic fathers arrived at). So any work on
the complexities of sexuality is long overdue and much needed.
> As I stated before I read Jones' work, and his conclusions agree
> with mine, it doesn't matter, in terms of making a moral decision,
> whether homosexuality is innate or developmental, whether it is
> immutable or fluid, whether it is essential or a social construct,
> whether it is, psychologically, a broken orientation or simply a
> different orientation. If it's a sin, it's a sin. I agree with you
> that we do not have a "right" to sex.
>
> (OTOH, of course, these other elements _do_ matter, enormously, in a
> practical or political sense. As more and more people come to
> _believe_ homosexuality is mostly innate, largely immutable, not
> tied to psychological disorders, and pretty much the same as
> straights in relationship commitment, more and more voters will
> support civil unions. Because of this cultural acceptance, more and
> more denominations will bless holy unions and ordain non-celibate
> homosexuals. And these _beliefs_ will have this effect, even if
> research turns out to not support the beliefs.)
Homosexuality has been equated with leprosy in today's world and that
is not Biblical. The vocal gay community is at least bringing a wake
up call to the church. It is a late hour for the church to come to
life and smell the coffee. Here and there I do see signs of hope and
change for the better. The fact that so many "Christian" marriages are
in big trouble, and the fact that divorce rates inside the church as
the same (or higher) than in the culture at large, ought to raise some
red flags in the church. I hope so.
> I am grateful for God's washing clean of sins. I'm sure I couldn't
> bear up under them, I feel unpleasing enough to God even with my
> belief in His forgiveness.
Same here. Well said!
> For some time, I have been quite enamored of the very next verse -
> "All thngs are lawful for me." This and the rest of the verse tell
> me that a wider range of behavior is available to Christians, who
> are free of the Law, than many conservative Christians tend to
> believe. Of course, the process of discernment of what is helpful
> and where addiction begins is a tricky and difficult process. I
> don't tend to wander outside traditional behavioral guidelines
> unless I have researched the area deeply, including prayer,
> consultation with wise folks of differing beliefs about it, and
> reflection on my motivations for reconsidering a change in my
> perspective. But I feel free to engage in this process, though it
> can be tricky.
Yes. Right on! We have full freedom and the governing Law is Love
alone. But it is no easy matter to decide how love should act in every
situation.
> On a future time that Mel comes up to visit me, would you be
> interested in such a face-to-face conversation? He was an
> evangelical pastor and a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary
> for many years, and was raised in a devoutly evangelical home, and
> was quite active, even in high school, in developing films and
> writing books that express the messages of Christianity and explore
> what it is to be human. This book discusses his life, including his
> many decades of religious and psychological work to overcome his
> sexual orientation. The development of his belief o/understanding
> his homosexuality as a gift was a gradual process for a lifelong,
> devout, believing Christian.
I am extremely busy and have more than I can add to my life right
now. Since Mel has godly friends who care about him, I doubt I could
add much to the discussion.
I don't see anything in the Bible that suggests being gay is a "gift"
from God. I think of it as a handicap which when overcome gives great
glory to God. I can not see being gay as something to be celebrated. I
am old fashioned enough to think that such issues should be reserved
for circles of discussion among intimate close friends, not for
limelight reports on the evening news. I see these are demeaning, even
to very good people, even to saints of God, by their very public
nature. The beautiful things of God's gardens are not on public
display. They are for the Beloved (Song of Solomon).
> I understand you may see his experience and new viewpoint as
> rationalizing. Were it you, it might be a rationalizing process,
> and I don't doubt that some people do this. But I, at least, don't
> believe it to be so for Mel and for many other GLB people who are
> also devout, believing Christians.
I do not know Mel so I don't have a clue about his motives, that state
of his actual relationship (or lack of a relationship) with God. I
know a lot of people who think they are Christians, but are
not. Knowing my own ability to rationalize sin and to be terribly
blind to my own evil, I naturally suspect that such COULD be the case
with him. But I reserve judgement.
> It may be that some people are called out of homosexuality, and
> several successful ex-gay stories I have heard seem to indicate this
> is true for these people. But I don't believe that all nor even
> most same-gender attracted folk are so called.
True. Dave Morrison's book is most helpful. He is one of the latter
group.
> Are you saying that you cannot believe any person who believes
> homosexuality to be as moral as heterosexuality, ceterus paribus,
> can be a true Christian?
If a person is a follower of Jesus Christ I do not see the need to
hold on to the arbitrary label of gay. I would simply drop it. It puts
a person in a narrow sub class of people, it diminishes the true
person. The term gay underdefines personhood. Why wear such a label?
Why not champion the cause of wholeness in Christ to a wider audience?
The issues are then responsibility as a Christian, real love,
individual development, holiness and godliness, "together with all the
saints." "May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may
your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thess. 5:23).
Heterosexuals do not advocate or champion their sexuality, they simply
live out their lives and are evaluated on the basis of the quality of
their lives. For gays to insist on so called equal rights is
embarrassingly self-justifying. I think the end result will be a
terrible backlash, causing even more damage to this small minority of
persons.
> Are you saying that you cannot believe any person who changes his
> mind from seeing it as always sinful to seeing it as sacred in the
> same context as heterosexuality cannot do so if s/he is a true
> Christian?
We are all saints and sinners at the same time! As Ray Stedman used to
say, "When you become a Christian everything is changed, but nothing
is changed."
God bless you, and thank you for your time, your thought, your
stimulating thoughts,.
your brother in Christ,
third reply
Thank you for yet another deep and provoking response. I look forward to
ruminating over it several more times before fully digesting it.
Things are quite busy for me in the next couple of days, so I might not
have time for the reply your message deserves as soon as I would like.
Please know that I will respond as soon as I can.
Since my reply may be even longer (!) than your message, I may decide to
both tackle it and send it in smaller pieces.
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
fourth response
Hello dear friend,
I also have been very busy, so like you I have not really had time to
continue our rather intense discussion on the issues of sexual
identity and life style.
Looking back, I am quite amazed at the wonderful quality and depth of
your comments and questions.
I would like to write up our e-conversation as an anonymous discussion
for posting on my web page, with your permission of course.
I think what we have talked about together thus far greatly broadens
the issues and could be helpful to those whose thinking is limited,
stereotypical, and boxed in by tall walls and fences. I would imagine
that talks like ours are are surely potentially of value to people on
all sides of this complex issue. It is not that one side is right and
the other wrong, but that the political discussions have become like
those in the creation-evolution circus which is now more than a
hundred years old and still stalemated. Or the right to life/freedom
of choice issue which many see as entirely black and white with no
room for useful dialogue. Can we help people think a bit more
creatively, and more Christianly on this subject?
We did not exactly finish our discussion of course. Also, if you would
like to write up what we talked about in the form of an essay or
discussion paper (with additions and changes) that would be superb,
you have great gifts in writing, and a deep wonderful mind.
God bless you!
with love in Christ our Lord,
To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will
certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of
keeping it intact you must give your heart to no one, not even to an
animal. Wrap it carefully 'round with hobbies and little luxuries,
avoid all entanglements, lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of
your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless,
it will change. It will not be broken, it will become unbreakable,
impenetrable, irredeemable. The only place outside heaven where you
can be perfectly safe free from all the dangers and perturbations of
love in hell.
fourth reply
> I also have been very busy, so like you I have not really had time
> to continue our rather intense discussion on the issues of sexual
> identity and life style.
I'm glad you understand. Though I miss it terribly! Our discussion
was deep and delightful for me.
Alas, I've got a big work deadline this Friday, and I'm interviewing for a new job, and doing our taxes (after the extension), and spring cleaning, and...
I'll look forward to continuing it as soon as I can breathe again.
> Looking back, I am quite amazed at the wonderful quality and depth
> of your comments and questions. I would like to write up our
> e-conversation as an anonymous discussion for posting on my web
> page, with your permission of course.
I'd be honored! Wow! If it works better for you, you can feel free
to use my first name. Otherwise, anonymous is fine, too. I'm pleased
to contribute as I can to this important discussion, as respectfully
as possible.
> I think what we have talked about together thus far greatly broadens
> the issues and could be helpful whose thinking is limited,
> stereotypical, and boxed in by tall walls and fences. I would
> imagine that talks like ours are are surely potentially of value to
> people on all sides of this complex issue. It is not that one side
> is right and the other wrong, but that the political discussions
> have become like those in the creation-evolution circus which is now
> more than a hundred years old and still stalemated. Or the right to
> life/freedom of choice issue which many see as entirely black and
> white with no room for useful dialogue. Can we help people think a
> bit more creatively, and more Christianly on this subject?
The dialogue on homosexuality has certainly come out of the closet. I
agree that there is much truth in both sides of this issue, and not
all the folks on one side, nor all the folks on the other, are on that
side for the same reasons nor with the same degree of fervor, not to
mention with the same sense of respect for those of varied opinions.
I would be content, pleased even, to see, in a church bulletin, that
the Pride meeting for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenered and
heterosexual allies meets in the church hall on Tuesday at 7pm, and
the Exodus-affiliate New Directions meets in the church library on
Thursday at 7:30.
Gandhi teaches these beliefs that a follower of Satyagraha (truth
force or soul force - his system of putting the principles of
nonviolence into action) should hold:
My adversary is also a child of the Creator; we are both members of
the same human family; we are sisters and brothers in need of
reconciliation.
My adversary is not my enemy, but a victim of misinformation as I have
been.
My only task is to bring my adversary truth in love (nonviolence)
relentlessly.
My adversary's motives are as pure as mine and of no relevance to our
discussion.
My worst adversary has an amazing potential for positive change.
My adversary may have an insight into truth that I do not have.
My adversary and I will understand each other and come to a new
position that will satisfy us both, if we conduct our search for truth
guided by the principles of love.
I expect the dialogue will continue for some time, though likely not
the 300 years it took the Christian church to settle down about the
issue of the Trinity. I think it may end up something like the third
wave about the gifts of the spirit. First, they were required for
salvation. Then, they were discouraged for modern time. Now, those
who are given the gifts are welcome to receive them and those to whom
God chooses not to call/speak to in that way are respected for their
various callings.
And, yes, I do believe that each person willing to listen and think
and consider can make a difference in this discussion. As Margaret
Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed
individuals can change the world, indeed it's the only thing that ever
has."
When it comes down to it, though, from a religious or moral
perspective, I am in agreement with Wheaton College provost and
psychology professor/researcher, Dr. Stanton Jones, in the conclusion
of his excellent paper evaluating much of the recent reasearch in this
area, which is, essentially, that science can and should inform moral
decisions, but not dictate, replace, or substitute for them:
http://www.wheaton.edu/cace/jones%26yarhouse.html
--Jones, S.
http://www.wheaton.edu/cace/jones%26yarhouse.html
--Yarhouse, M. (1997). Science and the ecclesiastical homosexuality debates
"Science will not solve the ethical debate about homosexual behavior
for the Church though good science competently understood should
inform the ethical deliberations of the Church. Unfortunately, in this
area science is often incompletely and inappropriately presented and
then invoked for rhetorical rather than substantive purposes. Even if
what some proponents of change regard as the most "optimistic"
scientific scenario were realized, that homosexuality was found to be
common, utterly unassociated with psychological distress, the
orientation clearly and determinately caused by genetic factors, and
the orientation itself utterly immutable, the traditionalist vision of
sexual morality would still have to be engaged on ethical and
theological grounds, informed but not decided by science."
> We did not exactly finish our discussion of course. Also, if you
> would like to write up what we talked about in the form of an essay
> or discussion paper (with additions and changes) that would be
> superb, you have great gifts in writing, and a deep wonderful mind.
Gawsh golly gee shucks... Thank you! Coming from you, that is a
wonderful compliment.
In my copious spare time (cough-sputter-cough), I'll try to work on
such a write-up for you.
I've actually put together a rough outline for a book (doesn't
everyone at some point in their life?), for a book on the myriad
issues or concerns or misunderstandings many people have about
homosexuality, and a respectful response to them from a gay-affirming
perspective. It noted about 20 issues related to Christianity
specifically and another 30 or so secular issues (including The Ick
Factor). Another outline is for a book that presents information and
opinions on both sides of the divide: What We Know (consensual
reality/where we agree), What We Don't Know (where we speculate), and
What We Think and Believe (where we disagree).
For your part, you have been gracious and open, as well as insightful.
I'm just as delighted as I thought I would be by writing to you.
Peace,
The greatest homage to truth is to use it. -Ralph Waldo Emerson
The words of truth are always paradoxical. -Lao Tzu
Power is not revealed by striking hard or often, but by striking true.
-Honore de Balzac (1799-1850)
"Let then our first act every morning be to make the following resolve
for the day: I shall not fear anyone on earth. I shall fear only
God. I shall not bear ill will toward anyone. I shall not submit to
injustice from anyone. I shall conquer untruth by truth. And in
resisting untruth I shall put up with all suffering." -- M.K. Gandhi
