Today we often hear heartrending stories from people struggling with their sexual orientation and often Christians have responded poorly. There are some attitudes, perceptions, and orientations which can’t be simply switched off, but Christians too often want to just tell struggling people: “Stop it!”
We wish it were so easy, but it’s not.
Let me provide an illustration of how difficult it is to change ones orientation.
Until 1989 I lived in North Orange County, California, and always had an excellent sense of direction (or so I thought). I always knew where north was. Of course, most of North Orange County is flat and the streets largely run north/south and east/west. The occasional street that didn’t wasn’t a problem because I understood that it ran on a diagonal and it almost always crossed streets that ran map north. Also, I was used to seeing markers such as Mount Baldy, which was basically north of where I lived.
When I occasionally drove to South Orange County, I knew that the 5 Freeway ran at a diagonal and as I got down to the South County I thought that Saddleback Mountain was north.
Well, one day we moved to South Orange County and I quickly learned that I had been wrong about Saddleback Mountain. It wasn’t north of where I now lived. It was much more east than north. I had also underestimated the angle of the 5 Freeway. Thus the sun was setting in the north! Even Mt. Baldy, which on a clear day we can see from the south county, was out of place!
It was humbling.
“Recalculating”!
Within days of moving down here I studied a map to see where I’d gone wrong and found out that I had, obviously, been wrong about a lot of things. So, looking at the map I decided to find some streets that ran north/south (which isn’t easy since the streets here are more of a scribble than a grid). My major marker was the 5 Freeway where it crossed Crown Valley. Right there, for a short distance, the 5 runs almost exactly north. I then found other streets that also ran north and I used my new markers to consciously inform myself where north was. After all, I knew my feelings were irrelevant to where north was. My feelings were wrong: the sun still set in the west.
Now here’s the point. I’ve been living in South Orange County since 1989 and north often still feels wrong. But that’s changing as the years have passed because I’ve kept my markers in my mind’s eye. North ever increasingly “feels” north. But, again, it has been many years and often north still feels wrong.
There are several applications.
First, there are many spiritual and social false beliefs that foster feelings that can’t just be switched off.1 But here I will focus only on sexual orientation.
The evidence doesn’t show that homosexual attraction is innate (see my post Faulty Dilemma: Gays Are Either Born Gay or They Choose It), but that doesn’t mean that those with homosexual attraction can just switch it off. Now, there are some who previously led the full-fledged homosexual lifestyles who now are married heterosexually. For example, see the book from professor and former lesbian activist Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert (Pittsburgh: Crown and Covenant, 2012).
But others may always know only same sex attractions (the attraction in itself isn’t a sin as long as it isn’t acted on). Nonetheless, God asks that they live celibate lives dedicated to pleasing the Father. For an account of someone with homosexual inclinations who is living the celibate lifestyle see Wesley Hill, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010). And celibacy isn’t a second class existence! Remember that Paul extols the unmarried/celibate as a spiritually preferable lifestyle as it enables people to be fully dedicated to God (1 Corinthians 7:32-35). Sadly, many Christians and even many Christian pastors need to embrace this truth. Otherwise the single person feels like an outcast who must have a sexual partner to know fulfillment.
Second, it takes time to change our orientations and the church needs to be patient with those who struggle to feel differently about things they once firmly believed (Rom 15:1; 1 Thess. 5:14). It wasn’t enough to simply remember that north is the direction of the 5 Freeway at Crown Valley because when I was driving miles away I didn’t know how it related to the 5 and Crown Valley! Thus I regularly needed to make a conscious choice to reorient myself to north using other landmarks (my wife doesn’t really know what all the fuss is about because she just uses Garmin). This has taken time and effort.
Third, nonetheless, north is north and I had to reject feelings to the contrary. Similarly, the Bible tells us where spiritual/social/sexual north resides. We should doubt our feelings because, as Solomon said, “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes.” So even though certain Biblical truths may not feel right, feelings don’t guide us to truth. Instead we must transform our minds by non-stop orienting ourselves with Scriptural markers.
I’ve been a Christian now since 1969 and that has given me a long time to transform my thinking about reality and it gets easier all the time. But some Christians, instead of telling their feelings/intuitions that they’re wrong, spend much effort reinterpreting Scripture to line up with their own inclinations. But homosexual practice is a sin even if the desires remain.2
Many ideas may not feel right but that doesn’t matter any more than feeling like the sun sets in the north. Instead of trying to reinterpret Scripture, when you come across an idea that feels wrong to you, ask yourself “What’s wrong with me? What cultural, or psychological, or philosophical beliefs have I been holding that makes the Bible seem mistaken?” Then use the word of God to think different.
As I’ve focused on Biblical truth, by the way, eternal life looms ever larger in my thoughts and the things of this world grow strangely dim.
Romans 12:2: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
- For example, abused or abandoned children often struggle with the concept of a caring “heavenly Father,” and absolutely every Christian struggles to get off the worldly point of view when it comes to self-esteem. [↩]
- It isn’t a sin to be attracted to the same sex any more than it is a sin for a married person to feel attractions to those they aren’t married to. But God forbids that we act on those attractions in our thought-life and actions. [↩]
This is an excellent article overall; however, I have to challenge the notion that
“same-sex attraction in itself isn’t a sin as long as it isn’t acted on”
and “It isn’t a sin to be attracted to the same sex any more than it is a sin for a married person to feel attractions to those they aren’t married to. ”
Jesus clearly states that to even look upon a woman with a sexual attraction is sin and the man has committed adultery in his heart.
It’s one thing to be attracted to good creation. We can view and adore God’s beautiful creation and give him all glory, but if we look upon his image bearers with sexual attraction, we are guilty of marring His image and those image bearers.
That is why Paul told Timothy that we should see women as mothers and sisters, and men as fathers and brothers in the Lord. There can be no sexual intent between familial members outside of the husband and wife relation.
I cannot buy this whole argument that same-sex attraction isn’t sin. I was hoping to find better things here, given the title and beginning of your post which seemed to be going down the path of re-orientation of inclinations – sexual and otherwise.
Hi DL, You wrote, “Jesus clearly states that to even look upon a woman with a sexual attraction is sin and the man has committed adultery in his heart.” But Jesus didn’t use the words “sexual attraction.” He used “lust.” There’s a huge difference. Men and women can find each other attractive even those they are married but that doesn’t mean they are lusting after them.
Hi Clay,
I’m not sure I see the difference. If someone looks upon another with sexual desire, how is that anything but lust or coveting, both sins?
Like I said (look at my original comment). It is one thing to appreciate something beautiful – but we must do that asexually – and we are to give God the glory for that beauty and not selfishly desire it. And to look upon someone *sexually* to whom we are not married is a sin. I don’t see anything in scripture that supports another view. Can you support it from scripture?
I’m not asking you this as a person who doesn’t understand or as a troll. I do understand. I walked away from my gay life almost 20 years ago at the age of 35. It troubles me that there are a handful of voices out there that you all are listening to. I’m just asking us what does the scripture say?
Hi Clay,
The meaning of Matt 5.28 seems clear – “… whosoever looks on a woman (in order) to lust after her …”
I think the key point is intent. There is looking WITH lust/desire, and there is looking TO lust/desire. That is the difference between passive and active observation.
I would say that there is nothing sinful about a passive, momentary experience of physical beauty. But looking at anyone besides one’s spouse for the intended purpose of feeling sexual pleasure is clearly wrong. I think this is what Jesus had in mind.
Also, IMO, looking for the key in distinguishing between nuances of the word lust/desire is missing the point.
I think that’s right, Kevin. I can think a woman is attractive but not lust after her.
But you said that you could find her sexually attractive without lusting or coveting. Do you see a difference between finding someone attractive and being sexually attracted to them? I can find someone of either the same or the opposite sex attractive.
In fact, I can find my mother to be attractive or beautiful. But God forbid that I would view her in a sexual context. Doesn’t that make sense?
I suspect, DL, that we’re probably not that far apart. Let me use another analogy. I know some people who are wealthy and when we go over to their house (which isn’t often) I find many of their possessions to be desirable or attractive. But, that doesn’t mean that I’m lusting after those possessions. In fact, I don’t let myself do that. One can feel a momentary sexual attraction and immediately put that away: that isn’t looking on someone with sexual desire. To continue to look so as to feed the thoughts and increase the attraction would be looking with sexual desire, which is lust.
Clay,
As I had said, to look upon something that belongs to another and acknowledge it or recognize it as a beautiful gift is fine. When we do we can thank God that for our neighbor’s good fortune and for the Lord’s provision – these are glorifying to Him alone and are not selfish in anyway.
However, to look upon those things in a way that trespasses upon them, ie, being sexually attracted to they neighbor’s wife or husband, the Bible is clear that this is sin.
Yes, it is commendable when someone experiences these emotions or urges to immediately put them away! Absolutely — and I am glad for those who do this.
Afterall, that is precisely the Bible calls repentance – to turn away from sinful and toward God. All I’m saying is that as we offer ourselves as living sacrifices in this way, we can hope to be continually transformed to the Lord’s good and perfect will, rather than conformed to the ways of the world, the flesh, and the devil. We have the hope of walking with the Spirit and being set free from the bondage of sinful attractions, emotions, and urges. We with unveiled face are being transformed more and more into the likeness of our Savior.
Thank you for the exchange!
We’re talking past each other, DL. I mean sexually attracted in the sense that one is attracted to a person rather than a possession. In other words, a man or woman who finds another person attractive, but doesn’t let that attraction go any farther in their minds, is what I call sexually attracted. An, in fact, I think most people would use the same definition.
Clay, yes, we are talking past each other. I’m just not sure why are intent on defending the neutrality of sexual attraction.
Are you sexually attracted to your siblings, children or parents? I’ll bet that you think that at least some of them are attractive or beautiful. But I also doubt that you find them sexually attractive.
And this is exactly what 1 Timothy 5 calls us to with all of God’s image bearers (with the exception of the one to whom we are married – if we are married.
I don’t think you can find anything in Bible that says otherwise.
The difference between your response and the author’s intent is found in the differentiation between attraction and sexual lust and/or objectification of an individual. I can acknowledge beauty in another without desiring them sexually. And Jesus mentioned lust, not attraction. Clay mentioned attraction without using the connoted lust of adding “sexual” to his explanation. I would think that was purposeful. I don’t believe you two are in disagreement at all, but the specificity of language (ie word usage) could have been confusing.
David, if you acknowledge beauty in another without desiring them sexually, then you are not sexually attracted to them. (right?)
I’m not sure I see the difference. If someone looks upon another with sexual desire, how is that anything but lust (and coveting thy neighbor’s wife, if she is married to someone else).
Like I said (look at my original comment). It is one thing to appreciate something beautiful – but we must do that asexually – and we are to give God the glory for that beauty and not selfishly desire it. And to look upon someone *sexually* to whom we are not married is a sin. I don’t see anything in scripture that supports another view. Can you support it from scripture?
Actually, Clay Jones’s statement that attraction isn’t a sin is correct, since attraction can be involuntary, and what is totally involuntary cannot be a sin. He also expressly mentions “thought-life” at the end. Therefore, he is *not* including dwelling on lustful thoughts when he says that attraction isn’t a sin. What Jesus was referring to was lusting after the woman. I imagine that every adult, at least, knows what it is like to feel an involuntary initial attraction or sexual feeling and then to put that feeling completely away.
Now, what Prof. Jones says does leave some additional things unsaid, which would be interesting to expand upon, and which he might or might not agree with. For example:
–Even an “orientation” that is not acted upon can disqualify a person for certain roles and situations. For example, a person with same-sex orientation should not be bunking and showering together with others of the same sex, just as a heterosexual person shouldn’t be bunking and showering together with others of the opposite sex. This presents great complications for all sorts of situations involving dorm rooms, roommates, children’s camp counselors, and so forth, yet we cannot pretend that the problem is not there. A person with same-sex attraction simply shouldn’t be sharing an intimate roommate setting with another person of the same sex where privacy will be little or nil, and that’s just one of the tragedies of being a person with same-sex attraction, even though the orientation by itself is not sinful.
–A person who is extremely open about his same-sex orientation and identifies himself with it is creating problems even if he is not (presently) acting on those desires. Such a person may well be demanding that others be “accepting” of his orientation in a way that drastically softens our clear sense that the orientation is objectively disordered and that acting upon it is a sin. He may be grievance-mongering in a way that is detrimental to the institutional stance concerning homosexual acts. Even those who are presently celibate should not be making their sinful desires into an identity. Christian institutions should be firm on this and should firmly refrain from referring to people as “GLBT” or as “gay Christians” and by other designations that turn this orientation toward sin into a personal identity.
–Christians should know clearly that in legal terminology a statement that you must not discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation” _always_ includes sexual acts. Therefore, Christian individuals and institutions should _never_ support legislation making “sexual orientation” a specially protected status. Never, never. Nor should they support policies in their own institutions that state that they “do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” This just creates confusion.
For these reasons and others, the act/orientation distinction is not as useful as some Christians think it is for navigating this issue in practical life. There will still be many cases where we must “discriminate” or treat people with same-sex attraction differently than we would treat others, especially if they are “out of the closet.” Someone who announces to you in a job interview “I’m gay,” should not naively be met with a reassurance that “that’s not a problem as long as you don’t act on it.” His announcement almost certainly carries a lot of potentially very problematic baggage for his being a good representative of your Christian organization. Christians who are wise as serpents, especially those involved in maintaining the identity of Christian institutions and businesses, need to know this and be alert.
Hi Lydia,
I completely appreciate your comments and especially thought that your additional remarks are valuable, practical discussion points.
Going back, however, to the topic of sexual orientation, where you introduce the notion of “involuntary initial attraction or sexual feeling”, I’m still not convinced of this assumption. On the one hand, I admit that sin disorders our being mind, body, and spirit, so if we assume that sexual orientation is based in physiological make-up then we’re sort of coming at this from a similar angle as AA and 12steppers view addiction and alcoholism. Proponents of the view support the notion that their involuntary desire to drink or use is a bodily reflex, part of the physical make-up which they were born with and must simply learn to control and practice abstinence.
However, other folks who consider themselves to be recovered from alcoholism and addiction are no longer fighting the abstinence battle. They humbly admit their weakness to the substance and know that they cannot partake; however, their entire orientation has been so renovated that they no longer find themselves in a constant state of temptation and have no desire whatsoever to consume the substance. In fact, what seems to have the most lasting effect is when these folks have a personal, intimate relationship with God and in particular mostly through the Christian Faith with Jesus Christ.
This is a radical type of reorientation that entirely reorders the person’s desires, in such a way that they are no longer merely “abstaining” and avoiding temptation.
The reason why church people don’t get this is that many believe that the only type of true change comes when someone goes from being homosexual to heterosexual. It’s a failure of church people to recognize what Christ-exalting celibacy and purity actually is, biblically, imo.
But I imagine that some alcoholics are not so blessed as to have the desire taken away, and neither are some people with same-sex attraction. I think it would be both pastorally and theologically incorrect to tell them, “You need to be c0nfessing it as a sin every time you feel ‘that’ involuntary sexual feeling, every time you have a dream at night over which you have no control, every time you are ‘hit’ by a sense of sexual attraction.”
Those things seem to me paradigmatic cases of temptation, inclination, or impulse–all of those words seem accurate. They may be described with the adjective “sinful,” but not in the sense that they are concrete sins against Almighty God for which we must be forgiven. Rather, they are what we might call spiritual diseases of one’s nature. Here the Catholic category (which we Protestants are free to use) of objectively disordered desires seems particularly apt. There is a bit of high Anglican liturgy in which one prays that one may be “healed of one’s sinful inclinations.” We sorrow for those impulses and yearn for the day in heaven when we will be freed of them, but it doesn’t follow that a given instance is per se a sin. I know that I feel this way about my own problems with anger. If anything I feel almost worse about being the *kind* of person who feels that involuntary uprush of anger at such minor things than I do about the occasional times when I actually indulge in an angry outburst or in a time of seething internally. But it is the latter rather than the former (the involuntary uprush) that is strictly speaking a sin.
I think you are right to resist the terminology of mere “appreciation,” for we do not rightly call mere appreciations disordered. Moreover, in heaven we will still have all of our ability to appreciate everything that is good (even more than here on earth, probably) but will not have various impulses to sin. And people with same-sex attraction won’t have those sexual feelings.
So you’re right there. But it doesn’t follow that the disordered feelings, if not indulged and dwelt upon, *are* sins.
fwiw – this is actually helpful and interesting.
I do think that you’ve got a good point about some people who do not easily or perhaps ever have the compulsion taken away or are not able to “mortify” their flesh in this area (to use the old Puritan phrase). I agree that it’s probably fair not to heap shame or condemnation upon someone whose impulse or compulsion still gets the best of them, while they wish to follow Christ and pursue obedience.
At the same time, it’s probably just as important that we convey hope that it is possible for even those disordered feelings to subside substantially through deeper intimacy and knowledge of Christ.
Thnx, D.L.
Maybe this will help, DL. Before men and women get married, they probably find many of the opposite sex to be sexually attractive/desirable but that doesn’t mean that they are lusting after them. There’s a difference. Once they get married, they don’t all of a sudden find other men and women undesirable. The desire isn’t a sin. There comes a time where the desire can become a sin if they let it and that is what we call lust.
Clay,
Not really.
As someone who is almost 60 and who has always been single and never married, I have to disagree with your view of sexual desire. What determines whether a desire is sinful or not is not merely the intensity (ie, when it is nurtured into full-blown lust or action). Desire is sin also when the object desired is illicit (someone else’s wife/your daughter, someone of the same sex, etc..).
This is why Paul told Timothy to treat older men as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity.
I’m not saying that folks don’t sexually desire people they’re not married to all the time, but I am saying that illicit sexual desire always is a sin.
I’m almost 60 too, DL, but I’m not sure what difference that makes. ! I still contend that there’s a difference between finding someone attractive and lusting over them. We can agree to disagree.
Sure there is. Finding someone attractive is not sexual. I can find a baby attractive. But if I find the baby sexually attractive – that is sinful.
(why are we going in circles? you seem to agree with me, but at the same time, you want to defend sexual orientation? )
..
P.S. – The age only matters because it applies to a chronology of pursuing purity. I think that someone who is married doesn’t feel the need to battle purity the same way celibate people do — but I absolutely think they should. Don’t want to get off on a rabbit trail tho.
Well put, Lydia!
Lydia, you’ve made quite a few good, thought-provoking points: “what is totally involuntary cannot be a sin”; “sinful” impulses not being “concrete sins … for which we must be forgiven”; sorrowing over our “disordered desires” without it following “that a given instance is per se a sin.” The involuntary uprush of anger not acted upon is an excellent example of involuntary versus voluntary reactions, and one I’ll use in the future. I hope everyone takes the time to read your remarks fully.
D.L., your point about conveying hope that even “disordered feelings subsiding substantially through deeper intimacy and knowledge of Christ” is spot on. But (as both you and Clay said in different ways), we don’t want those who are struggling to follow Christ to be overwhelmed with shame.
Hi Lydia,
I’ve had some time to ponder this exchange and discuss it with friends who are deeply interested in this topic, and now I think the way you have described and discussed the “inclination” concept is very helpful and biblically correct.
For this reason, my preference would be to avoid using the term ‘same sex attraction’, which to me always connotes desire. “Same sex orientation” seems more helpful and biblical– and also brings me back to the main gist of Clay’s original article.
Important topic and discussion! Thanks for helping me process this.. Blessings to you.
Lydia,
What a great response. Very, very insightful and helpful! I am definitely quoting from this as I am Clay’s article. 🙂 Thanks!
Peace,
Bill Robinson
Well written Clay. I may link this post in a forthcoming series of posts on the holiness of God if you’re agreeable to that. I think it’ll fit.
That would be great, David!
Dear Clay,
One of the clearest, most compassionate and biblically articulated treatise on homosexuality. Clearly, one can have homosexual attractions but that does not mean he/she must act on those attractions. James 1:14-15: “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” The temptation is NOT the sin it is the desire to act upon the temptation that leads to sin.
Also, I grew up in South Orange County in the late 50’s through the mid 70’s. So the article brought up some great memories! 🙂 Thanks for the good work!
Peace to you,
Bill Robinson
Great reading your article Clay. I really enjoyed DL idea’s, of coming to grips with a transformed life, and not just managing desires so they don’t become sin. Actually, fully engaging in being transformed, so I can live in the kind of purity of the mind of Christ, is my joyful, lifelong endeavor. If I would be conforming to the likeness of Christ, what effect would it have on my desires? I think my desires would be properly reoriented. I don’t think I need to be bound or subject to my emotions or inclinations.
I wish I could articulate my thoughts better. I hope this makes sense.
LK
Huge relief I am no longer bound by the rules set in the bible. And Christians wonder why people are leaving the Church..
If people are going to reject the Bible’s teaching, Mike, then there is no reason for them to attend a Christian church. But, if the Bible is the Word of God, which I certainly contend, then they need to do what it says. If Jesus really was raised from the dead, then the Bible really is His Word. If that’s the case, then shouldn’t we pay attention to what He says about our sexuality?
If we need to pay attention to everything the Bible says, including (but not limited to) how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves..
“But, if the Bible is the Word of God, which I certainly contend, then they need to do what it says.” By this way of thinking, aren’t there many heterosexual Christians who should be barred from belonging to a Church as well? Divorced couples, adulterers, people who wear mixed fabrics? They are all in violation of God’s “word”. Where’s the three day conference on that? For Christians, there is undoubtedly something uniquely sinful about homosexuality. Divorcees and adulterers can say penance and call it a day. Talk about gays in the Church, and there is a bitter debate on whether or not they should even be accepted! If they are accepted, there is an even bitter debated about how they should act. Just one of many reasons I live a happier, more peaceful life no longer feeling bound or upset by what the Church tells me is right and wrong. I am not “rejecting” the bible’s teaching, the bibles teaching/interpretation is rejecting people.
Yes, Mike, many heterosexuals are in desperate sin and sadly the church has looked the other way. In fact, if I could speak for the Christian church I would apologize to all those struggling with homosexual desires that the church has often been amazingly hypocritical in this matter.
You say you’re not rejecting the Bible’s teaching but if you have decided that you know better than the Bible, and thus are not going to obey it, then you have rejected it.
As I’ve written elsewhere, the Christian church absolutely must welcome those with homosexual desires in to their fellowship just as they must welcome those with adulterous desires into their fellowship. However, when people who consider themselves Christian decide to engage unrepentantly in homosexual or adulterous practice, they should not be welcomed.
Let me just say that I am not arguing here about Christian theology. Rather, I’m just calling to attention that if we’re going to have these debates about homosexuality in the Church and pre-requisites homosexuals must have in order to gain access, then Christians must do the same for EVERYTHING the Bible says. It’s only fair. Your last sentence is why people are turned off by the Church. Too focused on not welcoming instead of welcoming.
I did change my last sentence, Mike, based on your comments. Let me clarify what I mean. In Matthew 18 and in 1 Corinthians 5 Christians are instructed to remove from fellowship those who call themselves Christians but are unrepentantly in serious sin. But the Christian church should welcome those who consider themselves non-Christians but are engaging in sexual sin into their midst.
Thanks Clay. While I disagree with you whole-heartedly on homosexuality (your previous article on homosexuality “The Fault Dilemma” was borderline offensive to me), you’re not as abrasive as others are..
Thanks for dialoging with me, Mike! What was offensive to you in my other post?
“Okay, this isn’t the only way that a boy might become gay but this is a typical way. Your father was largely absent from your life. You felt like he didn’t like you and didn’t accept you. In the mean time, your mother didn’t get along with your father that well either so she began to share her most intimate emotions with you and she began to raise you up as her little man. She undermined your masculinity and told you things like ‘if you go out and play football, the football might cave in your chest.’ And where you should have been learning sexual aggression towards women, you couldn’t be sexual with your own mother so that aspect of your personality was suppressed. Ever since, you’ve been trying to make up for feeling abandoned by your father by getting the attention of other men” —
1. How do you know this is the “typical” way? My father and I have an amazing relationship. He was the first person I came out to and we just sobbed in each others arms. He was so happy for me. Both he and my mother have been so unbelievably loving and supportive I can’t imagine that God or Jesus would hold their love and acceptance for me against them. Many gay people I know have the same relationship with their families, so I am not sure what “typical” is anymore…
2. What about all of the people whose fathers were absent and didn’t turn out gay? There’s lots of those.
It was all just very stereotypical. Sure it may apply to some gay people, but I read it shaking my head the whole time because this is NOT my experience, and yet you wrote your post with such certainty as if you were speaking for all gay people. It’s like saying “Christians believe in Jesus because they were baptized as babies and indoctrinated as kids”. Well, not so fast. Sure that’s true for some, but not all Christians. Many found Jesus after their own life experiences. Painting with a broad stroke isn’t fair. But you and I have very different views on homosexuality which is obviously where the discrep comes in. But this is why I do not seek out the Church for any moral clarity. I am not welcome.
Hi Mike, regarding “a typical way,” I’ve researched the issue at some length and I’ve talked with people who have homosexual inclinations who have agreed that that happened to them. Also, I had Soulforce board chairman Jimmy Creech on the radio with me and I brought that up to him and he agreed that these are common causal factors. I didn’t say it was the only way or even the major way, but it is common. I said it was “a typical way” not the typical way. As for your point 2, see my prior point. I’m not saying that there are lots of different factors that might lead to homosexual inclination.
Like I told someone else, this is a topic you and I will never agree on. From your first paragraph of your “Faulty Dilemma” piece, you are certain gay people are “socialized” into being gay. I disagree and again shook my head as I read. It’s the manner in which you write though, which is cordial and not harsh, that allows me to read it and take in what you say, even if I still disagree.
I have to say that I don’t agree with the notion of apologizing to one group of sinners, or even people struggling with sin, for having been in the past insufficiently hard on some completely different sin. Why apologize only to homosexuals? Hey, let’s apologize to thieves because we’ve been really hard on armed robbery and not hard enough on heterosexual fornication! There’s a sort of arbitrariness about it, and in my opinion we are too concerned about “apologizing for hypocrisy” as if being insufficiently hard on Sin X were a harm against a person whose Sin Y _has_ been condemned. It is not a harm against the person committing Sin Y. If anything the person harmed is the one committing Sin X who isn’t getting clear enough teaching to turn away and repent!
As far as being welcoming of non-believing “seekers” who are in unrepentant homosexual relationships, that raises many practical problems, and these shouldn’t be overlooked. For example, if Bob and Harry walk into church holding hands, come to coffee hour and other church activities, introduce each other as “my lover,” and so forth, this creates a problem, no? At least, I think it does. All the more so given the fluid nature of church membership and the fact that a person can be very much a part of a church community and hence his behavior can appear endorsed to young people in the community even if he has not been given formal membership.
I’m not saying that I know _precisely_ how to handle such a situation, but it does need to be _handled_. It isn’t simply obvious that you have to keep on welcoming Bob and Harry while they openly flaunt their sexual relationship, hang around for years, and hence functionally normalize that relationship within the church community. This is a practical problem *even if* they continue to be “seekers” all the time and never actually claim to be Christians.
One possible way to put pressure for them either to change or to stop publicizing it or to leave would be for the pastor to make it clear to them that they should not be receiving Communion.
I hasten to add that I would say very much the same about a male-female pair living together unmarried, though holding hands is less of a problem there, as the relationship is not *inherently* disordered and holding hands is not per se an advertisement of sinful behavior.
I point all of this out only to emphasize that it is extremely difficult to be both nice and biblical in these days when, at every turn, we are being asked to endorse homosexuality. Being welcoming gets extremely tricky, however much we want to bring souls within the sound of the gospel and witness to them.
Yeah, when you say gay people are “inherently disordered”, who’s going to even want to join? Forget about welcoming them, they won’t be at the door.
People _join_ a church after they become Christians. Christianity does indeed require people with same-sex attraction not to act on those attractions. It would be nothing other than a cruel bait and switch to give some other impression and then, after the person has become a Christian, to say, “Oh, by the way, now you have to stop engaging in homosexual acts.” That would be inviting them to accept a Christianity under false auspices. Not that I am in any way attributing any such proposal to Prof. Jones. I’m simply saying that Mike’s apparent idea that we should refrain from referring to homosexuality as intrinsically disordered in order to get homosexuals into the church would be a form of deception, false advertising. Non-Christians shouldn’t want that, either.
Lydia, even though I disagree with Christianity’s views on homosexuality, I would be willing to accept what you said if Christians applied that thinking to other sins. They don’t. And I’m not even sure they can! The Bible lists too many things that are sinful and against God’s word that we do every day. It is impossible to follow all of God’s rules/laws, especially in modern society. So again, and this is my opinion, I believe Christians use homosexuality as a tool to put others down. I think it’s a pack mentality, similar to political groups like Republicans and Democrats. You believe this, you can’t join the club! Oh, and by the way, you’re inherently disordered… How does that help the church? Gay people? Do you think Christ gained followers by telling them “you’re inherently disordered”? If Christians were willing to put half as much energy into making sure people follow the ten commandments as they do arguing about homosexuality, who knows how many more Christians there would be.
Historically, the church has taught that we’re ALL inherently disordered apart from Christ, which is why Jesus says that we have to be born again of the Spirit. But even so, as Christians, that inherently fallen nature still resides with us until we die or Christ comes again. The main difference is that if we are new creations in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit which dwells in us, we are able to progressively put off our disordered affections – hate, greed, strife, envy, lust, immorality, etc… We can grow in grace together with one another to be become more Godly and less disordered. And as we walk in this newness of life, we find joy and contentment and the peace that surpasses all understanding, even when we fail or fall or slip in that walk.
I guess my main point is that I actually agree with you that we are more alike than different in that we all suffer from being inherently disordered. And I empathize with you, because most of us in the church would like to think that we’re “okay” because our inherently disordered natures are perhaps more socially acceptable.
Hopefully, the church will start to see how we are actually much more alike than different. Sin (disordered affections) is the grand equalizer. But I pray that our common unity will be found in our reconciliation with our maker, the Lord God, through Christ as we are led by the Spirit. And I hope you’ll consider re-joining a local fellowship that teaches that message consistently. Grace and peace to you.
In situations like these when a Christian like yourself is respectful in your arguments, I usually just end the conversation. Not because I don’t want to hear what you have to say, I think we both got our points across and I am happy that you understood some of my points as I understand some of yours. By the Bibles standards, we’re ALL sinful, flawed, etc. We disagree however on what is considered flawed or “inherently disordered”, based on this instance because of religion. So for that reason alone, it is safe to say we will not agree on this issue, most likely ever, as you are a Christian and I left the Church. But that’s where your point about being “more alike than different” is really tested. I’m sure you and I have much more in common than we think.
Michael–A) I don’t agree that all sins are equally bad–either for society, for a church, or equally possible of being the subject of church discipline. (Some are impossible even to know about, for example.) I don’t have time to debate that with you. I merely bring it up as an apparent premise of your argument that I disagree with. B) If someone proudly says that he commits something that is a grave sin, then of course that is a legitimate and even important ground of church discipline, for one reason, because if you don’t discipline it, he’s going to normalize it to the rest of your congregation. And yes, this _definitely_ applies to sins other than homosexuality. I _definitely_ think that a heterosexual pair “shacking up” should be subject to church discipline. If churches don’t do it, more’s the pity. C) Whether you agree or don’t agree with Christian teaching on homosexuality, it’s bizarre to recommend that Christians be lying and misleading to get people into the church. Christian teaching _is_ that homosexual desires are disordered, and it’s simply used-car salesmanship to pretend otherwise just to get people to join us and then spring the news on them afterwards. Why would anyone recommend this? If anything, you should want us to be honest about what you view as our “homophobic” theological teachings so that the poor gays can avoid our groups.
There are also other ways for people to hear the gospel than by being regular attenders at a church. So it’s not as though the only way to tell people the gospel is by getting them to attend church all the time.
I noticed in your armed robbery/thief analogy that you compared homosexual sin with fornication, Lydia. What if we used adultery instead? I consider adultery to be a more egregious sin than homosexuality. If it were the other way around, I would think that our society should apologize to thieves if we let armed robbers go free. Of course the church is held to a much higher standard.
Yes, I agree with there being practical problems. A pastor and his congregation would have to take each one on a case by case basis.
Clay, I will use any two sins you would like. I think that it’s completely misguided to _apologize_ to people who commit Sin A because you weren’t hard enough on Sin B. What is one apologizing for? One has not harmed those who commit Sin A by telling the truth about it merely because one has not also told the truth, or told it clearly enough, about Sin B.
There is simply no logic in it whatsoever.
And my point, too, was the arbitrariness of pairing up sins in this way. Fine, take adultery. So you and I agree concerning the seriousness of adultery. Now, suppose that you think that a church has been insufficiently clear on the evil of adultery. (I myself do not belong to such a church, by the way, but maybe you do belong to such a church or group of churches.) Why not apologize to bank robbers *because of not being sufficiently hard on adultery*? Why not go around apologizing to any random group of sinners whose sin _has_ been regarded as grave because of the (alleged) failure to regard adultery as sufficiently grave? Why homosexuals, specifically? Because both sins have something to do with sex? There is no argument from
1) My group has been insufficiently hard on a grave sin having to do with sex
to
2) My group owes an apology to people who commit a different sexual sin about which we have told the truth concerning its badness.
Anymore than there is an argument from
1) My group has been insufficiently hard on a grave sin concerning sex
to
2) My group owes an apology to those who commit some other, randomly selected grave sin about which my group has told the truth concerning its badness.
I could try to evolve various premises here, but they would all be so manifestly false that it would be uncharitable to do so. There just really is no rationale for apologizing to homosexuality for not being hard enough on some *other* sin. It doesn’t make sense in any way, shape, or form.
Not asking for an “apology”, rather to practice what you preach. Homosexuality is a sin according to the bible, in need of repentance? Fine, I disagree, but I won’t disagree with what the bible says. My point is that Christians will practice faithfully their views on homosexuality based on the bible (a whopping 6 passages in there), but will look the other way on other things like disrespecting your parents, one of the ten commandments. Again, not asking for an apology, merely pointing out inconsistencies in how Christians apply the bible to their moral standards.
Michael, I was answering Prof. Jones, who did say that we should apologize to homosexuals for having allegedly under-rated the wrongness of adultery. That’s where my comment was addressed.
If you know of particular Christians or groups who are advocating not honoring one’s parents or who are downplaying the wrongness of it, confront them directly. I myself have no idea what you’re talking about. (If anything, I know of some Christian groups who misconstrue the passages about honoring one’s parents in weird ways to create cult-like situations where kids never leave the home even when they grow up and things of that kind.)
As for the whole “whopping six passages” stuff, I’m sorry, but that’s just a red herring. The entire Bible is *pervasively* heteronormative. The topic of gay sex (specifically) doesn’t have to be _addressed explicitly_ for it to be clear that the absolute normativity of male-female sexual and marital relationships and the complementarity of the sexes are assumed and indeed taken to be very important. This is _far_ more than six passages and is in fact why many feminists dislike the Bible.
By the way, it isn’t clear to me that homosexuality is a less egregious sin than adultery. I’m actually glad to see you rank sins at all, because the idea that all sins are equal is a persistent problem in these discussions. But in fact, that is an overstatement. For one thing, there is an “apples and oranges” aspect if one is comparing heterosexual adultery to homosexual fornication. (Homosexual acts can be adultery as well, as anyone knows whose spouse has left for another member of the same sex or for the homosexual lifestyle!) Homosexual acts are always sins against nature as well as sins against chastity, whereas non-perverse heterosexual acts can be sins against chastity without being sins against nature. So there is one axis on which homosexual acts are *by definition* worse than non-perverse heterosexual acts.
One can evolve a scenario in which the circumstances of the homosexual fornication are such that there is nothing other than the sin against nature to “balance out” (if such balancing out is meaningful) the oath-breaking in the adultery. For example, one can imagine a homosexual incident that is isolated, private, not put “in the faces” of other people, and so forth. But very often these conditions are not met. Say that Bill and Harry have each never been married, so their homosexual acts are fornication rather than adultery. But they are attempting to pervert society by flaunting their homosexual relationship. Meanwhile, Joe has cheated on his wife in a one-time act which he feels terribly guilty about and isn’t trying to get anyone to approve of, but which he hasn’t repented of.
You see what I mean. There are huge apples and oranges matters here. Or there is also the “bath house scene,” with wild homosexual promiscuity, which might correspond to nothing at all in an adulterous relationship.
I am not saying any of this to say that adultery is not grave sin. It certainly is. But I am bringing up considerations to argue that it is an oversimplification to say that, simpliciter, homosexual acts that are not adultery are “more egregious” or worse than heterosexual acts that are adultery. That is just not obviously true.
I apologize for mis-typing: While the last sentence is in fact true (that is, I don’t think one can say that non-adulterous homosexual acts are across the board worse than adulterous heterosexual acts), in the context of the conversation I should have said it the other way: I was arguing in the comment that one cannot say across the board that heterosexual, adulterous acts are “more egregious” or worse than homosexual acts that are not adultery.