The Simplifire

Where young professionals go to get paid to talk

Monday, October 02, 2006

Gay People

So I've decided to start reading the Bible to find out what it says about gay people. I'm going to try to find out what really seems God-inspired and what could have been forged by the leaders of the day.

I have an uncle who's gay, and one of my wife's best friends through high school was gay, and our conversations about these two people have made me want to find out how I and Christians/the Church could more fairly approach homosexuality.

One feeling I've had lately is: Let them come to church.
I've gotten the impression from the Net that if an attendee was blatantly gay and chose to keep coming but not repent and start living non-gay, he/she would be asked to leave or change. That is a problem for me. Some might say because of this "blatant sin," that person probably can't even meet with God anyway. But we're all human, and God is gracious. So I've been thinking that if that person was really trying to pursue God, and not any self-interest besides that, that God will reveal Himself, and we shouldn't create a time limit. And if homosexuality is wrong, then God will eventually find some way to convict that person so that they understand.

(Note: Remember that I'm just starting my investigation, I'm not actually stating whether I feel homosexuality is 100% sin or 100% permissible)

I think we need to learn to have peace between Christians and homosexuals, just like we need to learn to have peace between Christians and Muslims. You would invite a Muslim to stay in church, why not a homosexual. But I think for peace, we also need to think about things from every viewpoint. I'm sorry that homosexuals are often turned away from Churches, and I can only imagine how frustrating it would be to try to get involved, in a volutary or paid, low or high position and be told that I'm not allowed. If you were gay and you believed that it was all genetics, you would probably feel as discriminated against as a black person [in some situation that black people have been left out]. That's how you would feel. The truth is, it's not the same. If they eventually prove that it's genetic, and not just a genetic tendency, but actual predestined homosexuality, then it may be the same.

Here's something I can compare it to. Swearing. I honestly don't have a problem with swearing. I know the Bible talks about not cursing or taking the Lord's name in vain, so I don't say "D*** you" (cursing), or "oh my god" (taking the Lord's name in vain). And I don't say f*** because it sounds bad, and it actually annoys me a lot when it's used constantly in movies. Also, "f*** you," could probably be called a curse. I just don't use those because I have no reason to. Here are the funny ones though:
s***
a**
dick
piss
etc. etc.
this list could probably include a bunch of other "dirty" "curse" words that are "bad."
Ok, they're dirty words, but they're just things.
Jesus said the thing about whatever is pure, noble, right.......I forget what else...
I'm sure someone will say that that makes these words bad...

Well they're just words.
Jesus called people "vipers."
Is that really much different from calling them dicks? Haha, maybe it is, but you have to admit that that's funny to imagine.
Maybe "vipers" could be compared to my dad calling anyone who p***es him off, "jerks"
And so is "craphead," "s***face," or anything else like this really that bad?
Now this is not about me,but this might make some good sense. The reason I don't use these words, at least the more offensive ones like s*** and a**, is that I don't want to offend people. And I don't want people who, 1.) Assume these words are bad or 2.) Assume that I should think these words are bad to call me a hypocrite. I think they're wrong in calling me a hypocrite, but I'd rather avoid the issue. I don't want those people to nullify everything else that I say/believe just becuase of some stupid dirty words.

Well that may have seemed like an aside, but this is going to end up being a very simple comparison. Let's say the Net (that's the church I've always gone to, if anyone doesn't know) has a speaker who insists on constantly using these "dirty" "curse" words (barring what I defined as cursing or taking the Lord's name in vain). Now a ton of people in the church think those words are wrong and maybe even "sins." If they don't think that, then at least maybe they don't want their kids to start saying them. Well whether or not these words are bad, that speaker would be asked to change or to stop speaking. Leadership would be worried that people would be offended, maybe some even leaving the church because the new lack of "morals," and therefore missing out on the true purpose of church. Plus it's just a distraction.
Now compare that to having a homosexual pastor or usher or group leader. We don't even have to decide right now whether gayness is a sin or not, the point is, homosexuals should try to understand where the church is coming from when they don't want them in a public position. Leadership doesn't want it make it look like this behaviour is condoned or overlooked. In response, many people from the Net would leave, I know that (or else start some fuss until the person leaves). If a homosexual loves God, they should try to see that this would distract from what church is really about.

I think that church leadership should be able to tell a homosexual who is interested in a public position that they simply think this would be distracting. You don't have to start an argument, just make it clear that a lot of people would have a problem with this, and you want to ensure that the church remains a place where everyone can feel comfortable and welcome. BUT, you are welcome to attend services.

14 Comments:

  • At 12:31 PM, Blogger Chris Trumble said…

    I think someone would have to give a more moral reason for not allowing a gay person in church rather than naming them a distraction. Someone could come to church wearing some REALLY crazy pants or short shorts all the time. It would be a distraction, but not necessarily wrong. Let's say someone always yells "There Ya Go!" from the right side of the room facing the stage. Distracting, but not a good excuse to exclude. I think that the Christian church has made it's position on homosexuality so blatant, that a gay person would have no desire to ever come in the 1st place.

     
  • At 10:41 AM, Blogger Jason Zito said…

    A Christian can't avoid the fact that this is a tough issue. If a Christian does imagine it is simple, saying, "Gay people be damned", then it is hard to imagine the love of Christ being the motivation of their actions. If it seems simple in that homosexuality should be ignored completely, we run the risk of believing in "Cafeteria Christianity".

    But, the intensity of the Christian reaction makes me suspicious. Remeber, Jesus only got that mad at religious people. Could it be that people who hate homosexuality so much are actually just uncomfortable about it, and they "purify" their un-Christ-like disgust by making it look like righteous indignation? Sure I am being a little presumptuous, but if it were something markedly unsexual and more...comfortable for most heterosexuals, like a psychological bent toward drawing skyscrapers, and Paul said angrily, "no skyscraper-drawing because it represents the tower of Babel", I am sure most modern Christian architects would find a way out of it.

    Yes, there is a clear moment in Romans where Paul directly calls homosexual activity perverse, then goes on to say that God basically gives up on gay people. Personally, I can't help but wonder if Paul had some lingering Pharisee-legalism that influenced his writing. He draws a very hard line. He also does this with women, something we tend to ignore nowadays as well.

    Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, and I don't blame him.

    So I won't either. There is no reason in my mind why I can't serve God alongside a homosexual. I should trust that this person is dedicated to following Jesus as much as I am. God will work out the rest.

     
  • At 10:54 AM, Blogger Jason Zito said…

    Although I guess drawing skyscrapers is not markedly unsexual. Curse you, Freud!

     
  • At 11:17 AM, Blogger shawn said…

    Chris-
    I'm glad you brought that up here. Because crazy-panted people should NOT be allowed.

    No, but I wanted to make it clear that I don't think any gay person should be turned away from being in any church. Just that I understand the dillema that heterosexual church leadership would be in when a gay person asks to be employed in some position in the church, like as a speaker. I can also imagine how painful that would be for a homosexual who thinks he's in-the-right. I also understand that for the sake of the rest of the congregation staying and learning, church leadership may want to keep that person off the stage.

    But that's a very tough issue. Let's say we had a gay person wanting to be on the worship team. Do you/should you tell them no? Should you just ask them not to broadcast it? I mean I don't have proof that members of the worship aren't having pre-/extra-marital sex. If someone was doing that, would we tell them not to play? Is there a difference between doing something:
    1.) you know is a sin and you shouldn't be doing
    2.) you are not sure is a sin, but most of the church believes it is?

    Thoughts?

    Jason-you've unwittingly encouraged my next post to be about phallix.

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger Chris Trumble said…

    Phalluses

     
  • At 12:45 PM, Blogger shawn said…

    phallix was my shorthand for plural phallic, since I don't know how to spell it. I went to wikipedia to find out what word I should be using (since I've heard -US and -IC). I'll open my next post with definitions (for the LAY-person, HA).

     
  • At 6:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Early Christianity had no problem identifying homosexuality with sin. I'm quite sure Jesus would have considred it so. So would Moses and his Torah. Today's dilemma really stems from a Christianity that attempts to go beyond the constraints of dogma and to establish itself on reason. However, instead of openly accepting the limitations of an ancient text in dealing with the intellectual and temporal circumstances of the 21st Century, Christians are doing the reverse -trying to read the modern day into a 1st century document.

     
  • At 6:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    A word on swearing: "Nice" used to mean "of loose morals". What matters is not what one says, but what he/she means. If there's a God and he/she's as omni as many seem to think, then I would seriously doubt that a collection of letters would bother him/her very much.

     
  • At 7:00 AM, Blogger shawn said…

    Thanks Gat, for your input. What you said about "nice" was a perfect example.

    About Jesus considering it a sin. I'm not sure if it was mentioned here or in a previous discussion on christianheresy.blogspot.com, but someone claimed that Jesus didn't directly address homosexuality. What is your response to that?

    The old testament seems pretty clear about calling it absolutely wrong. The story about Sodom and Gomorra is also used as "evidence" against homosexuality. Whether or not it was an old-testament-parable or true history, couldn't you imagine God punishing any society that had a majority of people involved in extramarital, sloppy, pleasure-seeking-and-ignoring-the-beauty/intimacy-of-sex sex? Regardless of genders involved?

    So my conversation starter here is:
    Is it true Jesus didn't bring up homosexuality?
    If he didn't, could that mean that it was something God wants society to figure out for themselves?

     
  • At 7:38 AM, Blogger Jason Zito said…

    Gathara: Why do you think Jesus would have felt this way? I understand it was an accepted Jewish point of view, but Jesus contradicted a lot of accepted Jewish points of view. I am not saying that Jesus thought being gay was great, but I don't think its honest to suggest that he felt a certain way when there is no evidence for it.

    Personally (and I am totally theorizing here), I don't think that primitive Judaism was ready for an openmindedness toward homosexuality, and if God had revealed a sort of acceptence before the right time, humanity of that period may have been even less inclined to accept his message as true. I believe that God tends to speak the language of the culture (because if he spoke his own "language" I think he would blow our minds), and gives us truth that we can handle.

    Perhaps in the same way that He was open to barbaric genocide when the culture could see no other truth, maybe he was open to anti-gay sentiment when it was hard for a primitive person to understand open-mindedness toward people who cannot control such inclinations. Maybe he is generous to and forgiving of our own stupidity in this way.

    Maybe Paul was actually very progressive. In the Old Testament, killing "sexual deviants" was the right thing to do. Paul does not condone this, he does not call for action, he just calls it like he see it. It sounds hateful to us, but as part of the progression of truth, it may have been very forward-thinking.

     
  • At 12:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Tranchiturn,
    I accept that Jesus didn't address the issue of homosexuality. However, there are many other issues that Jesus did not comment on. Doesn't mean he agreed with them. Slavery is just one example. It was widely practiced in his part of the world but I have not come across any quotes of him condemning the vice.

    Jason Zito,
    Since Jesus upheld the Torah as perfect law, does that not indicate that he would have had to consider gayness a sin?

     
  • At 12:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Tranchiturn,
    I accept that Jesus didn't address the issue of homosexuality. However, there are many other issues that Jesus did not comment on. Doesn't mean he agreed with them. Slavery is just one example. It was widely practiced in his part of the world but I have not come across any quotes of him condemning the vice.

    Jason Zito,
    Since Jesus upheld the Torah as perfect law, does that not indicate that he would have had to consider gayness a sin?

     
  • At 5:24 AM, Blogger Jason Zito said…

    I believe that Jesus upheld the Torah as perfect law, but also reevaluated it for needs of his own time. He took a lot of stances that were contrary to the "perfect law". If he was completely hard and fast about things, he should have killed the prostitute.

    I can honestly say I don't know what he thought about the issue. So I will not make such a big deal about it.

     
  • At 2:00 PM, Blogger FosterAbba said…

    I thought you might be interested to know that I finally made a post in response to your comment on my blog about this very subject. If you'd like to read it, it can be found here.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home