Sometimes my friends think I wish to go back to the days when people with a homosexual orientation were in a “closet.”
I am glad those days are over. I have no wish to return to them.
Closets are for clothes and not for people. Nobody should be forced to hide their nature and no Christian should be shocked to discover the diversity out there.
Sin is sin. I think homosexual actions, like any sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, is sin. I think masturbation is a sin, but I don’t think people who struggle not to do it should hide their struggles.
That people who struggled with temptation to a particular sin felt the need to hide it from the community of faith did not help them deal with their particular “thorn in the flesh.” In fact, to hide a temptation frequently enables acting on the temptation. To reveal the proclivity helps the community work with the person to avoid the temptation.
Too often the church community would be “shocked” to discover Bob was tempted by homosexual desire, but not at all shocked by Bob’s abusive temper. He would be fired for the first from any church job (especially if he faltered), but not for repeated examples of brow beating.
No wonder Bob hid his temptations.
The church I attend is open to all of us that struggle, but struggle with hope for liberty from vice. My church knows that some members have same sex attraction and that some members are discontent in their marriages. It acknowledges any number of ways we fall short of our goal. We confess our sins one to another.
We judge the sin as sin and the sinner as a sinner. We don’t stop there.
We pray for mercy as we have received mercy. The closet, hidden sin, is wrong. The Lord Jesus points out that every hidden thing will be revealed. The future of the Church is not a return to the closet, but a blessed release from that bad, un-Christian system to real holiness.
October 25th, 2011 | 4:29 am | #1
Typo in the sixth sentence, should read, ‘between a man and a woman.’ Hope you get this sorted.
October 25th, 2011 | 9:31 am | #2
Although the “Works of the Flesh” (Galatians 5) list includes sexual immorality and fits of anger, even Christian pastors are able to hide their anger from the rest of the world through air conditioning. That is, your neighbors will never hear you yell.
However Paul was clear in his conclusion:
“I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
We need to come out of the closet regardless of our sin. Homosexuality and fits of anger “weigh” the same to God. Without deliberate repentance, these sins damn equally.
Otherwise isn’t he a hypocrite who refuses to disclose his fits of anger (or whatever his thorn is), but rails mercilessly against the Christian who admits his powerful struggle with same-sex attraction?
October 25th, 2011 | 11:44 am | #3
Ian,
Thanks!
October 25th, 2011 | 7:38 pm | #4
Good food for thought! Thanks!
October 26th, 2011 | 12:09 am | #5
Closets are for clothes and not for people. Nobody should be forced to hide their nature and no Christian should be shocked to discover the diversity out there.
I wonder if the world will be a better place when all ‘sin’ is transformed into guilt-free “identity”, and we’re all expected to embrace “diversity”.
There will be no more closets – but that is the same thing as saying there will be no more social norms, social expectations, or even social judgements. After all, what social norm exists that someone, somewhere, does not struggle with? If stigma is presumed to be a bad thing (because it feels bad to be stigmatized), then having behavioral expectations must by definition be a bad thing. Surely if the ultimate judge of good vs. bad behavior is desire, then no social norm can ever be anything but destructive – oppressive even. Social norms only exist for the purpose of restricting unwanted behaviors – which means that for every social norm, there must be someone, somewhere, being hurt or shamed.
Soon, our world will be free of any distinction between “public” and “private” knowledge. Will that be a good thing?
Is it possible to get rid of shame without also getting rid of socialization?
Or is there something that somehow differentiates gays from all the other “closeted” desires – not to mention all the other sexual identities – out there?
Somehow I suspect we’re not really emptying any closets – just rearranging what gets put in them. (Ironic that the primary tools used for this task are shaming and stigmatization.)
October 26th, 2011 | 12:22 am | #6
“I wonder if the world will be a better place when all ‘sin’ is transformed into guilt-free “identity”, and we’re all expected to embrace “diversity”.”
Hmm, find me the place where JMR called homosexuality a “guilt-free identity.” Currently, I don’t see it.
October 26th, 2011 | 11:18 am | #7
John Mark,
Not sure I agree but need to check and see if am reading you right before saying so. It seems to me that what you may be inviting is a kind of moral (actually immoral) exhibitionism. A self revelation of one’s darkest and most broken self in an indiscriminate fashion in the public context of the faith ‘community’. I don’t see any Christian virtue in that. I see tremendous potential for harm and abuse in that. Matthew 18 seems to indicate that there is a place for keeping private (if you will) sins private if possible. I agree that we should not hide our sins from all our brothers and sisters — confession and reconciliation are at the heart of the Gospel. But not all confession and reconciliation etc needs to take place in the context of the “faith community” as a whole does it?
Let us say, for example, that I as a Christian pastor, struggle with a temptation to a particular sin, one that most folks in the pew would find deeply distasteful or shocking. Do I really need to stand up before that congregation and confess said temptation? Is that really the best (most faithful) recourse I have?
Given that part of our sinful makeup as humans often entails gossip and the will to power, I would think that there is more discernment necessary than simply a “no closets” throwing all caution to the wind?
October 26th, 2011 | 1:49 pm | #8
A couple of comments on this post (including one off site) have worried about moral exhibitionism. That is a real problem as anyone who teaches at a Christian college knows. Sharing in groups can become bad in this way.
Still may I point out that I am not the one that said we should confess our sins to each other? That is (after all) in the Bible. Of course, some sins are best shared with a limited group and others with a large group. I am sorry if my post failed to point that out, but I thought it was a given.
Second, an external critic wondered if X was attracted to Y’s wife, if he needs to tell his wife? I would argue that X should tell his wife. X may need to tell his wife in a pastoral setting . . . but if X is going through a period of coldness to his wife, then talking about it with the spouse seems necessary to me (in most cases). Again, it might be wise to bring in a third party.
Hidden things are, in the Bible, often said to be revealed.
Now I do not think (in most cases) that private sin needs to be confessed publically, but I do not see why someone without attraction to women in a Church (who is celibate and plans to remain so) should hide that fact or put up with endless attempts to set him up. Why can’t he say if repeatedly asked or is the constant subject of banter from his friends?
(I am told by people who should know that this gets very tiresome.)
Why not this in private to the person:
“Sadly, I am not attracted to women and am living a celibrate life. Thanks for thinking of me. Do pray for me, but don’t set me up or joke about this any more.”
Something like this is what my friends who cannot drink will say if pressed to have “one.” “I am sorry, I don’t drink.”
A person who struggles with misuse of the computer (and there are many ways to do this) might say when staying over at a friend’s house:
“Can you move this computer? I struggle with the Net and need this in a better space.”
Of course, I can see reasons not to “tell all,” but this doesn’t seem too much.
October 26th, 2011 | 3:16 pm | #9
Hmm, find me the place where JMR called homosexuality a “guilt-free identity.” Currently, I don’t see it.
Then what does it mean to “come out of the closet”?
October 26th, 2011 | 4:22 pm | #10
“Come out of the closet” just means to acknowledge one’s sexuality. As with our discussion on the other blog post, that does not mean that person is immune from moral judgments. I don’t see how that’s necessarily the case. Yes, some will make a positive moral judgment, but many won’t. “Coming out of the closet” is not a moral argument in favor of homosexuality but instead letting homosexual people acknowledge who they see themselves as. Not the same thing as a moral judgment.
October 26th, 2011 | 4:32 pm | #11
JMR,
The common meaning of “coming out of the closet” is to publicly, proudly, without shame nor guilt declare ones sexual orientation to the world. Coming out involves telling that which was formerly secret to anyone and everyone. It is the general revelation of information formerly held private, or revealed only to a select few. It is most decidedly not considered information that should be “shared only with a limited group” — rather the opposite in fact. Thus the image/language you chose for this simile to confession is confusing and inapt — not nearly as self-evident as you seem to think.
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed:
– that we keep too many secrets
– that we tend to harshly judge certain sins while ignoring or downplaying others
– that confession provides an opportunity for grace and true freedom to be released
all of those things are edifying realities that deserve our attention. Like blake (and Inigo Montoya to Vizzinni) however, “I am just not sure that word (phrase) means what you think it means…”
October 26th, 2011 | 6:30 pm | #12
David C.,
Yes, it is generally true that those who “come out of the closet” are not ashamed of their homosexuality. Not denying that. However, it is not the case that by arguing for more people to come out, that we are not allowed to make moral judgments one way or the other about the result. It seemed that Blake’s conclusion was that by suggesting that homosexuals should come out of the closet, that JMR was implicitly approving of homosexuality to some extent, which I think is an incorrect interpretation.
October 26th, 2011 | 8:30 pm | #13
Nikolai,
Didn’t mean to be appearing to defend Blake’s interpretation of what JMR wrote — I haven’t really thought about his take on it. My point was that JMR’s simile is, well, confusing and inapt. Blake read it one way, I read it another, and you clearly read it a third way — you seem to read it as an invitation/exhortation by JMR for more homosexual persons to come out…. which I think JMR would probably say is not his point at all.
Like I said, confusing. But I agree (somewhat) with your other point — that an invitation to openness does not imply approbation. However, there is in my mind a question of “normalization” or “defining deviancy down”. It’s an ongoing discussion/dispute. By normalizing discourse over previously forbidden (in public) topics, are we in fact, running the risk of increasing that behavior?
October 27th, 2011 | 3:27 am | #14
No.
We are not going to increase a behavior by telling the truth.
Why should a man keep having well meaning friends set him up?
Why fake it?
Lies stink. I am urging that people admit their downside when they must….
October 27th, 2011 | 3:35 am | #15
I certainly commend John Mark Reynolds call for emptying the closets. All people are equally important, and God loves everyone equally.
I don’t believe that homosexuality is a disorder, since there’s no scientific evidence to support this notion. The APA has rightly concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Certainly many homosexuals go through tremendous mental anguish, but this could be a consequence of the bigotry and hatred that they’re subjected to.
Homosexuals certainly could not be blamed for staying in the closest, considering that when they left it, throughout history, they may have a brutish fist waiting for them, or a jail cell, or even death.
And, who could also blame them for not wishing to disclose this to their fellow Christians? After all, some of the less enlightened ones would suggest that they get some sort of quack “reperative therapy”, or even give up a beloved girlfriend or boyfriend.
Which brings me to the problem, that currently exists within at least conservative Christian circles: the notion that, although having a homosexual orientation is not sinful, but the homosexual activity is, EVEN WITHIN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP, any gay or lesbian couple, to be “good Chrisitains”, would have to give up this relationship. Easy for for the heterosexual person, who has someone to love, to say.
October 27th, 2011 | 11:43 am | #16
JMR,
You wrote: “Lies stink”. Agreed. But so does your analogy as evidenced by the number of people (now including Bret) who have misread it.
Lies DO stink. But that does not mean that all truths must be proclaimed from the housetops, as you yourself have acknowledged.
Your real life example of a closeted gay man being constantly “set up” for dates is interesting, but I can think of several honest answers that would turn away the problem without exposing what is, for many people, a private matter. Why not simply say “I believe that God has called me to a life of celibate singleness?” It’s not a matter of “faking it” — it is rather a matter of discretion. I know you do not mean it this way, but I think that some might read your post as urging the replication of a Jerry Springer-like “tell all” ethos within the community of the church.
October 27th, 2011 | 11:53 am | #17
@Bret,
And yet in conservative Christian circles, heterosexual activity is also sinful, when it takes place outside the bonds of marriage, committed relationship or not. So your argument doesn’t really hold.
Can you explain how participating in a homosexual relationship, even a committed one, glories GOD? How doing so leads one to holiness?
Isn’t that what we have been exhorted to strive for? To “…not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”” (1 Peter 1:14-16)
Leaving homosexuality aside for a moment and discussing orientations. One might be possessed of a certain nature; that nature may very well be innate to the individual: inborn, genetic, integral due to the environment or the family in which the individual was reared. However, one of the doctines taught over and over again in Christianity is that through Christ we are not slaves to that nature. That we have been set free from the sinful nature that once possessed us. Christ is to be our master not the sinful nature we once possessed or the temptations of this world which call to us.
October 27th, 2011 | 12:17 pm | #18
Bret my friend:
“I don’t believe that homosexuality is a disorder, since there’s no scientific evidence to support this notion.”
Well sure. Denying the Word of God as you are wont to do except when it comes to your personal salvation, you see ‘Science’ as the god to whom honor and glory should be given.
Remember, my friend, Scripture is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb. 4:12). It is not only the act that is sinful, but the thought as well. Toddes above rightly points out that as those who have a personal relationship with Christ we are not slaves to our sinful nature; homosexuality being one of them. I fear again, as I have pointed out in my previous post which you have not answered under, Atheism, Ideology, and Behavior’ by Tom Gilson several weeks ago, that you are committing a logical fallacy in claiming that gay and lesbian couples in a committed relationship can be ‘good Christians’, when Scripture roundly condemns this practice.
October 27th, 2011 | 1:22 pm | #19
Steve Drake,
I agree with Bret on the point of homosexuality not being a disorder, but I disagree with him on the morality of it. Homosexuality can still be viewed as morally incorrect without it having to be some psychological disorder, which it isn’t.
October 27th, 2011 | 1:33 pm | #20
Nikolai Volk,
We must then redefine any sin, in terms of whether it confines itself to psychological disorder, shan’t we? Sins can be psychological, sociological, pathological, etc., they’re still sin according to Scripture. Does Scripture confine itself to whether the sin is psychological or not?
October 27th, 2011 | 1:56 pm | #21
Nikolai,
Your implication is that homosexuality as a percentage of the human population is part of normal human behavior, no? Would you then agree that rape as a percentage of the human population is normal human behavior, child molestation as a percentage of the human population is normal human behavior, necrophilia as a percentage of the human population is normal human behavior, bestiality as a percentage of the human population is normal human behavior, wife abuse as a percentage of the human population is normal human behavior, thievery as a percentage of the human population is normal human behavior, murder as a percentage of the human population is normal human behavior, etc., ad infinitum?
October 27th, 2011 | 2:11 pm | #22
I do not think my analogy stinks, but your sense of smell may vary.
First, I do not think science can tell us what ought to be.
Second, sexual behavior is a matter of ethics. We ought not to separate sex from the image of God pictured in the union of male and female. Many things we do or wish to do are wrong.
Third, I see no reason my friends should be more ashamed of particular sins than others. I can tell a person about myself without being proud of who I am in all respects.
Fourth, if I see I am the chief of sinners as I often do in prayer why is that better than saying what my particular temptations are in some circumstances? If I say, “given my problems with gluttony, I cannot go there to eat,” then it will help humble me and the community to hold me accountable.
Fifth, I could multiply real world examples endlessly of people who would be helped by being able to candidly state why doing x or y would be inappropriate for them. For example, for man A certain housing arrangements at a church retreat would be appropriate for but for B inappropriate.
People struggle with different things and knowing what those things are help us.
To believe that the Biblical idea of confessing our sins to each other leads to Jerry Soringer strikes me as the slippery slope fallacy. I see far more deceit than candor in our society.
I stand by my post and traditional Christian morality.
October 27th, 2011 | 5:21 pm | #23
JMR,
First, I apologize for saying it stinks. It was unkind.
Second,third, and fourth, agreed as you have already conceded the point that sometimes confession means less than a full public disclosure.
Fifth, agreed.
Sixth, I disagree with you characterization of my concerns as somehow a slippery slope fallacy and outside “traditional Christian morality” but really don’t have a lot of stomach left for this discussion so we’ll just have to leave it there. Thanks for providing us with something to think about.
October 27th, 2011 | 5:43 pm | #24
Steve Drake,
Yes, some sins are different than others. Some people have mental problems that lead them to perform acts of violence. That is psychological, and it is a sin. Homosexuality, I believe, is not the moral picture of a romantic union. That does not mean that it has to be psychological. That is all I am saying. I can find it morally wrong but also realize that it is not a psychological disorder.
But to this second post of yours, homosexuality is NOT, I repeat, NOT analogous to: rape, child molestation, bestiality, necrophilia, wife abuse, thievery, and murder. Whatever point you’re making there won’t be salient because those are nowhere near analogous actions.
And, just so we’re clear, all of those actions are normal human behaviour. If Christianity holds to original sin, then it seems that sin is a natural byproduct of the fall…
That doesn’t make the actions right, of course. But we shouldn’t be surprised when people sin.
October 28th, 2011 | 2:35 am | #25
Hi Steve,
It’s good to talk with you again. I understand your position, and I respect it, but I just don’t agree with it.
There’s no place in the Bible that homosexual activity, WITHIN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP is condemned, explicitly. If God ensured that every word of the Bible is from him, then he would not have made this unclear. But, (assuming for the sake of argument that every word of the Bible is from God, and hence true,which I’m skeptical of, for the reasons that i listed in my comments regarding ATHEISM, IDEOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR, by Tom Gilson) if every word of the Bible is true, the only conclusion that one can come to, vis a vis passages concerning homosexuality, unless one makes, in my view, extravagant and unwarranted extrapolations, is that, this activity, is condemned in a promiscuous context. No where does it state that two people, who have devoted their lives to each other, in a monogomous relationship, are condemned.
This is not to say that I condone sinful behavior. But I would challenge you, or anyone, to provide an unambiguous biblical passage that condemns homosexual activity, within a monogomous, committed relationship.
I also disagree with your claim regarding thoughts and actions, in the context of sin. Thoughts are not necessarily sinful, unless one is intending to think sinful thoughts, or one does not attempt to rid oneself of sinful thoughts, when they emerge. If one intends to think sinful thoughts, or one cultivates them, then yes, they’re sinful. But if thoughts arise, in a person’s mind, spontaneously, as it were, then that’s not sinful. And there’s an essential distinction between thoughts and actions. To deny this, (and I’m not saying that you are, Steve) is to commit the logical error of “thought/action fusion.” Since there’s a distinction between thoughts and actions, the warrented extrapolation from this, in conjunction with thoughts that are unintended, is that unintended (since these are beyond one’s control, and only something that’s intended can be sinful) thoughts are not sinful, whereas intended actions can be, depending on their moral context.
October 28th, 2011 | 2:49 am | #26
Steve & Nikolai: I think that it’s essential that we’re on the same page with respect to what constitutes sin. Something can only be sinful, if the activity in question is intentional. If a person cannot help something, then it’s not sin. Now, many actions that are unintended can be harmful, and we should do all we can to stop them from occurring, but they cannot be sinful.
Consider this analogy: a person has an epileptic seizure, while driving, and crashes his car into another car, and kills the passengers in this other car. Let’s assume as well that, this driver has no idea that he has epilepsy. Certainly the deaths of these passengers are horribly tragic, and we as a society, should do all we can from preventing this from occurring again,as should the driver, now that he knows what disorder he has, but one could not, coherently, conclude that the driver committed a “sin” here. He has no control over his neural biochemistry.
So, do we agree that something can only be sinful, if the actor intends to do it?
October 28th, 2011 | 2:57 am | #27
Bret,
“There’s no place in the Bible that homosexual activity, WITHIN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP is condemned, explicitly.”
What I think our collective problem with this argument is to those who have had this debate on this blog in prior posts is that this distinction between “gays who aren’t in monogamous, committed relationships” and those who are, is one you’re imposing on Scripture, not one that you’re drawing from it. You are correct that the Bible never explicitly says, “Even homosexuals who are in committed, monogamous relationships are committing a sin.” But, when the Bible condemns homosexuality, it doesn’t make any distinctions based on how the relationships are structured. The fallacy you’re committing is that of appeal to ignorance; just because it isn’t explicitly stated in the fashion that you want it to doesn’t mean that your side of the argument is suddenly right.
But this brings up another important issue, one that I feel undermines this debate in many ways. When people criticize so-called “traditional marriage,” they point out that, “Well, marriage has always been a social construct that has changed. For instance, marriages have been arranged, marriages have treated the wife like property, marriages have been set up out of economic advantage and not out of love. But we’ve moved past that.” It’s a fairly common refrain, that unfortunately is highly disingenuous.
When society changed the way marriage was structured (for the better; I do think that marriages should be out of love, nor should the wife be treated as property), the question that was being asked was, “How do we best marry a man and a woman?” The question those who argue for committed relationships between gay couples are not asking that question; instead, they are asking, “Who do we marry?”
October 28th, 2011 | 3:04 am | #28
I also see where you’re going with the intentionality of sin, but I think this sidesteps a critical issue in regards to the Fall. With the introduction of sin into the world, it is not just that the choices we make are corrupted; it is our wills as well. We want bad things. So while it is true that someone who feels a certain way isn’t necessarily wanting to do it by choice, it is not the case that feelings are inherently good or neutral on the basis that the person didn’t choose those feelings.
Moreover, while I understood the analogy of the car wreck that you used, epilepsy and homosexuality are far from a close match. Epilepsy can be traced to neurochemical reactions; homosexuality cannot. Science has proved that there is not a “gay gene” and that such a notion is ridiculous. As much as Lady Gaga would like to insist that some are “born” straight or gay, I don’t think that one could take a phenotypical analysis of a newborn’s sexual preferences.
It is very much true that homosexual feelings are not a choice. They are not a disorder. However, those facts do not mean that acting on those feelings (which is a choice; heterosexuality is just as much of a choice as homosexuality is) is morally justified.
October 28th, 2011 | 6:55 am | #29
Nikolai: thanks for your comments. My analogy, of the car accident, was not intended to show the plausibility of homosexuality being beyond its possessors control. It was meant address a more fundamental issue, of what constitutes sin and what doesn’t. That is, only intentional behavior can be classified, in my judgment, as potentially sinful. I sometimes get the impression that, at least among some evangelicals, that sin is so pervasive in our lives, that it’s not profitable, or sensible to distinguish between intentional acts, and other acts, in the sin realm. So, i was just trying to ascertain if we’re all on the same page, or not. I get the impression that you agree that only intentional acts are sinful, but you seem to also consider original sin’s effects to be greater. Perhaps you could clarify on this.
I was not arguing that the ambiguity of scripture, concerning whether homosexual activity within the context of monogomy, and commitment PROVES that God approves of this; if I was, that would indeed be fallacious. What I was asserting, and am, is that, it’s suggestive. It, in conjuction with other forms of evidence, could indicate that God approves of homosexual acts, within a committed, monogomous relationship.
October 28th, 2011 | 7:12 am | #30
Nikolai: also, I too don’t believe that homosexuality is entirely genetic. I believe, like most human traits, that it’s an amalgam of genetic predispositions, and environmental factors. This is distinct, I might add, from whether it’s a choice. Something can be shown to not be entirely genteic, and still not be a choice. If a child is brought up in an environment that introduces him to classical and operant conditioning factions that sculpt his thinking, emotions and behaviors, these things aren’t controlled by his free will. He has no control over these environmental factors.
Since the homosexual orientation is likely a result of a complex interaction of genetic predispositions, and environmental influences, (e.g., classical, operant conditioning) he/she doesn’t “choose” to be homosexual. And for some conservatives to argue that it’s a choice, is outrageously unfair. (one might also ask why a loving God would subject innocent humans to a homosexual orientation, then require them to be lifelong celibates. Seems a little unfair). Certainly, whether to act of one’s homosexual inclinations, as with heterosexual inclinations, are matters of choice, as you correctly point out, Nikolai, even though it may be very difficult to abstein from doing so. But at least heterosexuals don’t have a deck stacked against them: they can look forward to marriage. Not exactly fair, is it?
October 28th, 2011 | 7:30 am | #31
Hi Toddes, I missed your comments, until now. Sorry about that.
I don’t see why two consenting adults, who love each other, are entirely committed to each other, cannot glorify God? could you explain why this couln’t be the case?
I agree with you that we are not slaves to our natures. Just because something is natural, obviously, in no way, necessitates it being moral. If something that’s natural, is judged to be immoral, then it should not be done. But I don’t see any evidence that two consenting adults, who are committed to a life of love, monogomy, and companionship, in any way constitutes something sinful, or immoral. How does it?
October 28th, 2011 | 8:20 am | #32
Nikolai,
“And, just so we’re clear, all of those actions are normal human behaviour. If Christianity holds to original sin, then it seems that sin is a natural byproduct of the fall…”
If rape, child molestation, necrophilia, spousal abuse, bestiality, murder, and thievery are all normal human behavior, what would be abnormal human behavior?
October 28th, 2011 | 8:54 am | #33
Bret,
“I think that it’s essential that we’re on the same page with respect to what constitutes sin. Something can only be sinful, if the activity in question is intentional. ….So, do we agree that something can only be sinful, if the actor intends to do it?”
No, we are not on the same page and not in agreement here. There are sins of commission and sins of omission. There are sins of both thought and deed. Scripture talks quite a bit about self-control, Bret, and while it does give recourse to the unintended manslayer (the safe cities of Deut. 4), God’s instructions to observe to do all that He has commanded, not turning from the right or the left, walking in all the way which the Lord God has commanded, that we may live and that it may be well with us, are unambiguously clear and not parsed with whether they are intended or unintended.
But I recognize that this is not an argument that will have persuasion with you because you reject major portions of Scripture, so what good is it to argue the point?
October 28th, 2011 | 10:24 am | #34
“Come out of the closet” just means to acknowledge one’s sexuality. As with our discussion on the other blog post, that does not mean that person is immune from moral judgments.
Actually there is a correlation between the abolition of all distinction between private and public, on the one hand, and immunity from moral judgments on the other.
If homosexuals come out of the closet, the first thing I am concerned about is, unless there is some distinction between homosexual behavior and other sexual deviance that I haven’t yet heard, it stands to reason that every other “sexual identity” will want – and demand – the same rights. We are already seeing this with polygamy and incest.
So it isn’t just homosexuals, but the question of the entire notion of the distinction between public and private. It is to be the abolition of private information. Nobody should be ashamed of what is inherently beyond their control, and all desires are inherently beyond someone’s control, so nobody should be ashamed of their desires.
And nobody should be shamed for what they can’t help. Shame and stigma are inherently bad.
The problem is that it is not possible to have socialization without shame and stigma – as evidenced by the fact that the gay rights activists themselves draw heavily on shame and stigma in their attacks on people who feel disgusted by homosexuality. The expectation is that people who feel disgust are bad people for what they feel. Of course nobody chooses their feelings, but so what? They need to be shamed into hiding and repressing those feelings of disgust.
You can’t have socialization without stigma and shaming. The only questions are who will be on the receiving end, and based on what logic – whose ideological conception of what does and does not threaten society.
October 28th, 2011 | 10:31 am | #35
However, it is not the case that by arguing for more people to come out, that we are not allowed to make moral judgments one way or the other about the result.
If people are to “come out of the closet”, then they must be able to do so safely. If they “come out” and face moral judgment, then they do not perceive themselves as free to “come out”.
That is what the closet analogy has always been about. If you try to remove that element of the analogy, it stops making sense. The freedom to “come out of the closet” means the freedom to do so without being judged. There has never been a time when people were not “able” to “come out” if “coming out” does not mean to come out safely – that is, free from consequences (including judgment).
October 28th, 2011 | 11:02 am | #36
Blake,
Yep. That’s what I was trying to say with my comment about the “Jerry Springerization” of discourse.
There is a long and honorable tradition of Christian moral/ethical reflection on the social and religious utility of shame…. but apparently all of that is just a slippery slope to advocating that Christians lie to one another…
October 28th, 2011 | 12:09 pm | #37
Sorry Bret but, at least in Reformed circles, “willful violation of the revealed Law of God” does not adequately define sin. There are sins of omission, for instance.
And, as Steve and Nikolai have both pointed out, just because Scripture does not explicitly condemn something does not therefore make it right. If you follow the argument that Jesus makes about marriage and divorce (Matthew 19:4-6) you will see that he grounds marriage in Creation — ie as being between a man and a woman. The only “lawful” (if you will) Christian context for full sexual expression is within marriage (defined as between one man and one woman). You see that as unfair, I know. But your argument in that case is not with Nikolai or Tom or even the apostle Paul. It is with Jesus.
Nikolai, I think that perhaps you may be confusing the language of disorder between psychology and Christian theology. Psychology speaks of disorders as outside psychological “norms”. At least some traditions in Christian theology speak of sins as “disordered desire”. Thus homosexuality is “disordered” in the same sense that adultery and fornication are “disordered”.
October 28th, 2011 | 12:29 pm | #38
Hi Steve,
It’s possible that we’ve hit an impasse on this particular issue. But, I do want to address a few more things, here. I would not disagree with you that sins of omisson exist as well. But, these sins are still inextricably linked with intention. That is, if someone sees someone on fire, and doesnothing to help this person, even though he’s fully aware that it’s the right thing to help him (e.g., put water on the fire, call the fire dept.) he has intentionally failed to act in a proper fashion. Assuming that he’s of normal intelligence, he should know right from wrong. Now, let’s say that, someone with a mental handicap (e.g., Down’s Syndrome) sees the same man on fire. He does nothing to help. Not because he knows that he should, but chooses not to, for whatever reason, but, because of his mental handicap, is unable to know that he should help. This was an omission, as well, but we both (I hope) can agree that he’s not behaving sinfully, in not helping.
Similarly, if a person of normal intelligence fails to act not because of malice, but of ignorance, that he couldn’t help, it would be unjust to argue that he’s guilty of “sin”.
What is your criteria for determining sin, if it’s not bound up with intentions? Do you believe that any act against God, regardless of whether the person acted in a way that he could not help, is “sinful?” Do you regard all sins as equally reprehensible, or do you allow for gradations?
October 28th, 2011 | 12:38 pm | #39
Hi david c.,
the quote that you provided , from Jesus, in no way indicates that homosexuality, within the context of a committed, monogomous relationship, is forbidden. It only states what is the normal state of affairs. Certainly, for most humans, heterosexuality is the norm. He was pointing out the importance of a heterosexual relationship, for those that it applies, namely, heterosexuals. One must make an unwarranted extrapolation from this, to conclude that Jesus is prohibiting homosexual relationships. Also, Jesus, at least according to the three synoptic Gospels, and John, never mentions homosexuality. What can be extrapolated from this is uncertain. But it must not have been something that the Gospel writers felt the need to record, if he did mention homosexuality. So,in the passage you quote from, Jesus is pointing out the importance of male female union, which in no way necessarily implies that he bans homosexual union. He was pointing out the need for marriage, its importance, for those who could marry. I highly doubt that he would be commanding homosexuals to become heterosexuals, and marry, especially when he doesn’t say this. Interestingly, many Protestants have ignored what seems to be a clear prohibition of divorce in this passage.
October 28th, 2011 | 12:54 pm | #40
Hi Bret,
I will repeat what I said above:
October 28th, 2011 | 1:04 pm | #41
Bret,
You are missing the point. When asked about marriage, Jesus does not argue from the Law, he argues from Creation. He locates human sexual behavior within the order of the very way we are made. There is for Jesus only one kind of marriage — that between a man and a woman. He says, in fact, that the union of two people in marriage is such that even if they are divorced they remain in an important spiritual sense “one flesh”. This “two becoming one flesh” spiritual reality is reflected in the very complementarity of the bodies given to man and woman. Thus, in Scripture, there is ~no other kind~ of lawful (if you will) sexual/marital relationship. The standard of “loving, committed monogamy” is one that has simply been constructed from whole cloth to try and shore up a weak argument.
Jesus is not simply pointing out the “importance of male female union” he is affirming it as the ~only~ sort of union that is blessed by God in Creation. He is not ignorant of other sorts of unions, he understands human brokenness and sin perfectly. Jesus understands disordered desire and his response when confronting it is always the same: “My grace is sufficient, you are forgiven, go and sin no more….”
October 28th, 2011 | 1:12 pm | #42
Hi Steve,
I guess we have reached an impasse, on this particular issue, which is fine. We can discuss issues again, regarding another topic.
October 28th, 2011 | 1:22 pm | #43
Yes, Bret, I am withdrawing my counsel to you on this topic but reserving it for other topics. My fear and assumption since you advocate so vociferously for the homosexual position is that you must have very dear friends caught up in this sin, and are seeking to protect them and their lifestyle. I realize you love them, Jesus loves them, and those of us who are followers of Christ love them, yet Scripture is clear when it comes to the sin of homosexuality. It is condemned alongside any other sin. You can have the last word, Bret, and I will engage you on another subject perhaps. Blessings my friend.
October 28th, 2011 | 1:23 pm | #44
Hi david c.,
I certainly respect the intelligence, and committment that you bring to this issue, but in my opinion, you’re making an extrapolation, that Jesus was arguing for ONLY a heterosexual union, that I consider unjustified. From the text itself, I see that he is ppointing out that male/female union is the perfect union, FOR THOSE WHO IT APPLIES. If someone has a valid reason for not getting married, whether it’s that he/she is homosexual or (as rare as it may seem!) asexual, it doesn’t apply to them.
Even if he was implying that only men/women can be married, he still wasn’t arguing against two monogomous homosexuals, who love each other from having a relationship. If they cannot change, and become heterosexuals, Jesus, in his mercy, would never claim that they’re either to become lifelong celibates (something associated with an increase in both physical and mental problems, on a statisitcal level. People who are married, or have life long relationships are, in general, happier, healthier, and live longer. I think Jesus wants this for everyone) when they can be happier, and healthier, in a monogomous relationship.
Notice that I’m not arguing for promiscuity, which, whether of the homosexual or heterosexual variety, is associated with more diseases, lack of happiness, etc.
Certainly Jesus was talking to particular people, at a particular time. Since most people are similar, it would have applicability to most people, of the heterosexual variety, but not to those who are not.
October 28th, 2011 | 1:32 pm | #45
Hi Steve,
Thank you for your charity, and kindness. I certainly am grateful for the insights that you have. I look forward to discussing other issues with you.
I do have people who are friends who are homosexuals. And, perhaps I have argued this as much as I have, out of my concern for them. But, I also believe that Christianity can embrace their relationships, as long as they’re monogomous, committed, and based on love. I certainly don’t agree with a promiscuous lifestyle, which is not associated with happiness.
I know that you love them, as Jesus does, and I do. And I know that you argue for the position you do, because of that love. Blessings, to you, too, my friend.
October 28th, 2011 | 1:39 pm | #46
Bret,
We simply disagree my friend. And in the absence of any (and I do mean any) Scriptural support for your “loving monogamy regardless of orientation” position, it seems to me that the burden of proof rests with you.
If you can make the case from Scripture, or theology rather than from psychology, sociology, or sentiment I will be more than happy to listen. But if you can’t, well, I am afraid that at least on this point we are at the same impasse you have reached with Steve.
Be well and have a great weekend….
October 28th, 2011 | 2:36 pm | #47
Yes, Bret. Per Pastor C., make your case from Scripture please!
October 28th, 2011 | 5:06 pm | #48
On the topic on which I wrote:
I do not think coming out of the closet entails a demand for acceptance. I do think it usually has included it in this era on this issue of homosexual desire.
However, the two things, the relief of being open and a demand that the confessor now get to act on the revealed action, need not be linked. In fact, they are not always linked.
Many feel there are inclinations they must hide. They feel shame for mere desire. Publically admitting the battle helps. People are better able to respond in love. The person with the struggles finds love in the Body.
Of course, this might lead to coarse talk or pride, but many good things have a downside.
We should, with care, confess our weaknesses one to another.
I stick to that contention.
October 28th, 2011 | 5:11 pm | #49
I also don’t agree that I must shame a person inclined to a sin in order to condemn the sin. I don’t like gluttony, have been a glutton, and have never been helped to stop by a stigma.
I feel only pity for any urge to sin, at least at my best. I feel disgust for sin and try to reserve my disgust for sinners to the sinner I know best: me.
October 28th, 2011 | 6:21 pm | #50
david c.: Thank you, for your respectful comments and tone. Be well and have a good weekend too!
October 29th, 2011 | 3:29 pm | #51
But to this second post of yours, homosexuality is NOT, I repeat, NOT analogous to: rape, child molestation, bestiality, necrophilia, wife abuse, thievery, and murder.
Whether homosexuality is or is not analogous to these things depends on the analogy.
I know the homosexual rights movement absolutely requires pretending that homosexuality is somehow different in kind from other deviant behaviors, but there’s no real grounds for that – other than peer pressure and opinion, I mean.
For instance:
How do we divide the acceptable from the unacceptable, when it comes to determining what types of sexual desire are okay? If you cite the “consenting adults” rule, then homosexuality is in fact like necrophilia: they both belong to the category “victimless crimes” (assuming that the necrophile is using a corpse that gave permission before its death).
Likewise, if molesting children is bad because it harms children, then gay marriage is too: the act of coercing a child into pretending that having “two fathers” is the same as having a mother and father is harm to the child in at least four ways:
1) by robbing them of something of value (in this case a precious relationship and all the experiences that go with such a relationship)
2) by forcing them to lie (doing violence to truth)
3) by pressuring them to hide feelings
4) by pressuring them into a “parentified” relationship – that is, putting them into situations where the child is required to meet the adult’s emotional needs rather than accepting that it is the adult’s role to meet the child’s needs. The act of prioritizing the parent’s emotional and sexual needs over the child’s inverts the normal patterns of responsibility. Children are thus are not allowed to “be selfish” or “be thoughtless” but must always be concerned with what might injure the parents. The parents’ needs are made the child’s concern in a way that children should not have to be concerned over their parents’ problems – because they, the child, must put up with everything from mother-loss to school bullying because their parents need them to.
Of course, we’re splitting hairs here, since it is not homosexuality but the lies out of which homosexual marriage are built of that cause this problem for children – and likewise this is how ‘gay marriage’ is also like thievery, since the goal of ‘gay marriage is to appropriate for gay couples things that do not rightfully belong to them and are only “theirs” by virtue of telling lies.
So I don’t think we can make a blanket statement that homosexuality “isn’t” like this or that, as if it were true in all times and places and under all circumstances. Homosexuality is not “the same as” bestiality, but there are people out there who argue that animals are in fact capable of giving consent, and if this were deemed to be the case legally, then homosexuality and bestiality would have a lot in common, as far as ethical and legal arguments go – and both fall into several identical categories together.
October 29th, 2011 | 9:00 pm | #52
Finally, I get at least some argument from you in regards to how they’re similar. Each in turn:
“Homosexuality is not “the same as” bestiality, but there are people out there who argue that animals are in fact capable of giving consent, and if this were deemed to be the case legally, then homosexuality and bestiality would have a lot in common, as far as ethical and legal arguments go – and both fall into several identical categories together.”
Saying “some people argue” is hardly a convincing warrant from an argument. Moreover, having sex with an animal and a human are two fundamentally different actions, so the corollary you’re trying to draw between bestiality and homosexuality hardly rings as cogent. Plus, there can be heterosexual bestiality, which makes any comparison between homosexuality and bestiality any less likely…
“How do we divide the acceptable from the unacceptable, when it comes to determining what types of sexual desire are okay? If you cite the “consenting adults” rule, then homosexuality is in fact like necrophilia: they both belong to the category “victimless crimes” (assuming that the necrophile is using a corpse that gave permission before its death).”
First of all, the question I’m asking is how homosexuality and necrophilia are alike in action, not moral rightness or wrongness. I do think that homosexuality is wrong, but I don’t think it’s wrong for the same reason that necrophilia is. Saying “they’re both wrong” isn’t getting at what I’m trying to understand of your position. Engaging in sexual activity with a dead person is not the same thing as sex with a live person, period. Moreover, your assumption that someone would consent to letting someone defile their body is a stretch. Even more than that, necrophliac sex can occur heterosexually, which makes the divide even wider…
“Likewise, if molesting children is bad because it harms children, then gay marriage is too: the act of coercing a child into pretending that having “two fathers” is the same as having a mother and father is harm to the child in at least four ways…”
Yes, molestation is wrong because it harms children, but not in the same way that you think that homosexuality does. The reasons you give
“1) by robbing them of something of value (in this case a precious relationship and all the experiences that go with such a relationship)
2) by forcing them to lie (doing violence to truth)
3) by pressuring them to hide feelings
4) by pressuring them into a “parentified” relationship – that is, putting them into situations where the child is required to meet the adult’s emotional needs rather than accepting that it is the adult’s role to meet the child’s needs.”
are things that do not both apply to homosexuality and incest. People who molest children don’t always force children to lie (though some parents who abuse their children do), nor do they make a child hide their feelings; people who molest don’t necessarily deprive the child of a relationship with its parents. Moreover, people who molest, though they do “parentify” things in some fashion by putting their needs over the child, don’t do so in the same way that you think homosexuals do. Child molesters put their needs above the child by extorting sexual gratification out of the child. Homosexual couples supposedly do this to children by implicitly having them adopt the view that a partnership comprised of two people of the same sex is equal to or better than a similar relationship with people of the opposite sex.
Which leads me to my final point. My opinion on sexual orientation aside, it is just not true that all same-sex couples put their children in awful situations. In fact, many raise their kids wonderfully. Though you may disagree with their union, that does not mean that they inherently abuse their children or provide a bad home life for them. The fact that a couple is a same-sex one does not mean that it can do absolutely no good. Such a notion is spurious and not found in evidence.
October 30th, 2011 | 5:37 am | #53
Which leads me to my final point. My opinion on sexual orientation aside, it is just not true that all same-sex couples put their children in awful situations. In fact, many raise their kids wonderfully.
I assume by this you mean they aren’t raising the kids as a gay couple, but are in fact raising the kid in intact families – the kid has both a mother and a father, and is allowed to call his father’s lover “stepdad” instead of being expected to play along with the “two daddies fantasy”?
Because that fantasy is not harmless. It involves not only lying and parentification, but overt denial of the fact that parent loss is a huge trauma – and you can’t make up for the loss of your father by pretending a “second mommy” is somehow the same. You can only repress the feelings you’re not allowed to experience – and let’s face it: in the gay community, these kids are raised from birth knowing that they’re expected to have certain feelings, and failure to feel the way they’re told to feel is a serious thing.
October 30th, 2011 | 4:50 pm | #54
Okay…
That does nothing to respond to my point.
Say, for instance, a gay couple raise a child who was carried by a surrogate. The two men or two women raising that child will be all the child knows. As a result, the child is not going to have all of these pre-conceived notions about what the ideal Christian marriage is, and won’t be thinking, “wow, because my parents are of the same sex they MUST be immoral!” If the couple raises the child properly (which they can; being gay does not mean that one is inherently immoral all around), then the child could grow up to live a perfectly healthy life while still loving his or her parents.
So yes, I do mean that this couple is raising the child “as a gay couple.” I don’t know why you took it another direction, as that is not what I was talking about.
October 30th, 2011 | 8:46 pm | #55
So yes, I do mean that this couple is raising the child “as a gay couple.” I don’t know why you took it another direction, as that is not what I was talking about.
Well, because I don’t know how you define being “wonderful” as parents – perhaps being wonderful at playing the role? – but if being “wonderful parents” includes neither biological parenting nor the act of parenting – that is, putting the child’s well-being first, and taking care of the child’s needs – then it’s hard to see in what sense they are “parents” at all, let alone “wonderful” ones.
Looking good while using a child to play a role does not change the fact that the child is still reduced to a prop. If they were really “wonderful” parents, they would provide the child with both a mother and a father.
The act of pressuring a child to pretend that mother-loss or father-loss is not the trauma that it is is not something “wonderful” parents – or even good people – do. Every child has the right to grieve their loss, and it’s criminal that selfish, unethical people are allowed to force the kid to pretend there is no grief so that they can play their fantasy that parenting is a “role”, instead of recognizing that it is a responsibility.
October 30th, 2011 | 8:48 pm | #56
Or, to put the whole thing much more concisely, “wonderful” parents do not make the children lie for them.
Any child who says having a “second daddy” is just as good as having a real mom is lying. And the whole gay community behaves quite shamefully in promoting this lie – and using the worst sorts of emotional abuse to pressure children into going along with it.
October 31st, 2011 | 5:06 am | #57
“Any child who says having a “second daddy” is just as good as having a real mom is lying. And the whole gay community behaves quite shamefully in promoting this lie – and using the worst sorts of emotional abuse to pressure children into going along with it.”
This ignores my point that children aren’t exactly aware of the differences between having a female mother or, say, a second dad. If a child was birthed by a surrogate and then immediately given to the two dads, the child isn’t going to have all of these pre-conceived notions of who should be their mom and who should be their dad.
Do I believe that those who argue for the “sameness” of same-sex and opposite-sex marriages are correct? No. I think it’s spurious to suggest that a relationship between two men or two women is the same as a relationship between a woman and a man. But that doesn’t mean that a same-sex relationship can only produce awful results. It’s just not true.
October 31st, 2011 | 10:23 am | #58
This ignores my point that children aren’t exactly aware of the differences between having a female mother or, say, a second dad.
What on earth makes you think such an ignorant thing?
There is ample evidence documented that motherlessness and fatherlessness harm children. What cause do gay people have for thinking a second male in the home will somehow take away the problems of motherlessness?
Or, if you prefer concrete examples, consider : the forms of harm described by a book called “Motherless Daughters” – a book that includes children abandoned by their mothers in the discussion (which is what a child with “two daddies” really is) – describes gendered identity and loss issues that having five more men in the household wouldn’t affect.
October 31st, 2011 | 10:28 am | #59
But that doesn’t mean that a same-sex relationship can only produce awful results. It’s just not true.
Yes, you’re saying that gay couples can be wonderful parents – as long as the child’s needs aren’t in conflict with their ego-needs.
The problem is, the “child’s best interest” standard is not a thing you can or should pick and choose: it is this standard that distinguishes adoption from the sort of transactions that are inherently unethical – the buying and selling of children for selfish reasons.
If the integrity of this standard is not preserved, then there will be no way to distinguish between legitimate adoptions (that is, the couples who really are able to provide for the child’s needs) vs. people whose motive in trading cash for baby is selfish.
October 31st, 2011 | 10:28 am | #60
Forgot the link:
Motherless Daughters
http://www.amazon.com/Motherless-Daughters-Legacy-Hope-Edelman/dp/0385314388
October 31st, 2011 | 4:04 pm | #61
Okay, but there’s also these:
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378
I am aware of the “phantom parent,” or when a child feels longing for a parent that he/she has never met. I didn’t meant to brush over that. It is real, and I do think it is indicative of the strong bond that carrying and birthing a child has, or, in the case of a father, longing for someone that you feel helped make who you are.
But even in those instances, longing for a parent does not suddenly lead to a realization of the entire Christian understanding of marriage. That is, the child doesn’t think, “I miss my mom; I never got to meet her. That must mean that the people who are raising me now are evil and are living an immoral lifestyle!” Children can still be satisfied with their adoptive parents but still feel want for their biological parents.
Nor does that necessarily mean that there will be animosity towards the same-sex couple that raised them. Moreover, straight parents can put their egos over the needs of the child; I fail to see the uniqueness of your claim.
November 1st, 2011 | 4:34 pm | #62
My recollection is that, a few years ago, one of the psychologists who was a leader in the American Psychological Association removing homosexual tendencies from the Diagnostic and Satatistical Manual as a “disorder” published his own views that, after investigation of claims of efficacious “reparative therapy”, there are indeed people who were practicing homosexuals at one point in their lives who are now living as heterosexuals and in fact feel like heterosexuals. He did not say this was easy or common, but that, for some individuals, it was possible to make such a change. He did not support in any way coercing someone to undergo such therapy, but stated that it was deceiving those homosexuals who felt discontented with their lives to not offer them that option.
The twin studies, that have shown that people with identical genetic inheritance can have distinct sexual orientations from their twins, whether raised together or apart, confirms that genes alone do not determine homosexual orientation. To tell homosexuals who feel the gay lifestyle is incompatible with their own religious beliefs, that they have no hope of behaving any other way, is very much a self-fulfilling prophecy. In an era when “choice” and the power to create of one’s own life, unbound by accidents of birth, is so much a dogma, how did the contradictory dogma take hold that the single exception to this idea is homosexual orientation?
Certainly the fact that there is an entire category of non-traditional sexual orientation labeled “bisexual” raises the question of much sexual attraction is not a single, either-or value, but rather something on a scale in which pure heterosexual and pure homosexual orientation are the endpoints, and points in between are possible. If orientation is a continuous function, as the “B” in LGBT implies, with various inputs affecting the outcome, why shouldn’t it be possible (at least in theory) to alter one’s own position on that scale, if one desires to do so, and other variables affecting this outcome are adjustable? Certainly, only those who think it is both possible and desirable will ever undertake the experiement to determine if it is in fact possible. Why deny those who volunteer for such an effort to attempt it? Why censor anyone who suggests it is a possibility for those who are committed volunteers?
November 7th, 2011 | 8:43 pm | #63
[...] Mark Reynolds says that “coming out of the closet” is a good thing. Here’s why. Share this:ShareEmailPrintFacebookTwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact