Once you've boiled away all the bagillion things Christians of all sects have to say about homosexuality, you are left with a single question: is homosexuality a choice?
The reason it all comes to this questions is that if the answer is no, the theological wall of Truth crumbles, and Christians do not want to find themselves sifting through the pieces of their broken understanding - that's scary, and unfortunately, Christians on mass don't have a great track record (aside from, you know, Jesus) of wading through and wrestling with ideas that scare them.
If homosexuality is a choice, then Romans 1:26 is not something to be wrestled with, it is just something to accept and act upon. Christians can point to the infallibility of the word of God (when it comes to women and slaves it's OK to put on the reading lens of "cultural context" on the word of God) and Roman's 1:26, and close the subject as a done deal. Good, now we know, homosexuality is a sin to be cast away and rebuked, those who engage in homosexual acts are rejecting God's truth and indulging in depraved desires. They are willfully sinning even though it is written in no uncertain terms that what they are choosing to do is wrong and therefore can be held accountable to God judgment and wrath. So why is there so much debate amongst the Christian community? Should this not be a open and close case? It would be a simple matter of right and wrong, if it were not for those pesky gays that claim their sexual orientation to be biological, beyond their control, beyond their choice.
Shit. What then? What if homosexuality is not a choice? Non-Christians never seem to get why this question is so problematic for us Christians. Across the board, non-Christians ask us Christians with puzzled faces, "So what? So what if it's biological?" The confused looks we Christians are faced with is a product of these non-Christians not understanding the theological weight of that question and the consequences that follow if the answer to the question is "no, homosexuality is not a choice."
Here's the dilemma (in simplified Sunday school format): God created man and woman in His image; our human bodies, our biology is God's design - a gift, a blessing. With our bodies acting as agents of our soul, God gives us the opportunity to follow him as an act of free will and live as He created us to be: in communion with ourselves, others and God through the door that is Christ's sacrifice on our behalf. The Word of God ( the B-I-B-L-E, yes that's the book for me! I stand up-on the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E! Bible!), in addition to the Law being written in our hearts (a product of being a part of God's creation that contains the touch of the divine), is the tool by which God has given us to follow his Law and His ultimate call for our lives. Words that, although they were physically written by man, were the inspired Words of God (Again, when it comes to women, slaves and other such obvious things, we can fix that by pointing out that the men writing the Bible were writing within a cultural context of their time, so we'll just rely on the Holy Spirit to helps of discern through that - phew!) that lives and applies throughout the ages. Based upon the Word of God, we are empowered to not only follow God's Law, but we are given the authority to hold others' accountable for their rejection of His Law (and where they do not know it, we are called to share the way of God with them - for how could they choose to do what is right if they had never been told the Truth?). Now the monkey wrench:
Because our bodies and physical world were designed and created by God, both our bodies and the world around us follow what we call, God's natural law, meaning the way we were designed has God's stamp of approval on us, and our design is in accordance to His natural law. This is why we can even state whether or not something is natural or unnatural. Unnatural is by definition, outside of God's intended design. This is also why Roman's 1:26 notes that homosexuality is a sin by nature, because it is unnatural - inherently outside God's design (sin is the term given for reality that is broken, or not what God had intended). As human beings with an eternal soul, God has set up the system of free will (because true love can only exist in the context of free will, and God is love and God shows us love, but it would not be love if we could not choose to accept it - because the nature of love is an interaction and there is no interaction if something just is), where he gives us the tools we need to follow His design (for that's what is good), and join in communion with Him, and if we choose not to follow His design, we will suffer the consequences of being in a state of brokenness and separation from his love (Hell). Our choice - the crux of the matter.
If God's design is right, and we are His design, how could it be that He would design something that is inherently unnatural, and therefore sinful? Yes, yes we all know that because of original sin, we are all born broken and need to choose to follow God (be saved, or born again) rather than just naturally following Him, but what about our bodies? Straight people don't have to choose to be straight in order to follow God. They just are. Would a just God design some human bodies to be natural and others to be unnatural? Of course not. So homosexuality must be a choice, otherwise someone could not possibly be held morally accountable for being "unnatural."
But what about those people who claim that being gay is biological (a part of our design)? If this is true, engaging in homosexual acts is a product of someone's natural design, and therefore has God's stamp of approval (and we know God does not make accidents - He knew us before He made us in our mother's womb). How could it be a sin for someone to act on God's design? It's can't. But then, what about the Bible calling homosexuality unnatural, is the Bible wrong if being gay is biological? No, the Bible is God's inspired Word, it can't be wrong. Conclusion: being gay cannot be biological, and therefore as a Christian, I will reject all evidence pointing to the contrary of this conclusion. And although there is a giant host of studies by reputable scientists,
http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/
we have no choice but to reject it, right? Because it we accept it, that means that either God is unjust or the Word is fallible. But God has to be just, which means that the Bible is fallible, and if the Bible is fallible, on what Rock can we stand? So Christian's caught in this dilemma point to failings in the evidence that being gay is biological. OK fine, those points are often valid, but lets get out of the lab and just look around, shall we?
Now, I am not a man, nor am I married, but I know my way around a hard dick. I would say that the vast majority of humans can say the same thing (with maybe the exclusion of some lesbians and sexually inexperienced straight women) so it can serve as a helpful observational example. When was the last time you saw a man's dick get hard over something that did not trigger a basic, biological arousal mechanism? Straight men, when was that last time your dick got hard thinking about another man? Straight men, would you agree that the blood that flows to your dick when you see a women that you find attractive, is something biological, seemingly natural and more importantly, something beyond your control (other than looking away)? How the fuck can anyone claim that being gay is a choice? If a gay man's dick does not get hard when he sees a woman but it does when he sees a man that he is attracted to, what part of that is a choice - beyond biology? Exactly, there is none.
***And silence to all those Christians that say "well, maybe it is biological, but then it is that gay person's moral responsibility and moral cross to bear to remain celibate in order to not act sinfully." That's bullshit, and we all know it. Wasn't Christ the one who said if a man has sin in his heart he has sinned?***
Christian's it is time to stop being terrified of our wall of Truth crumbling and maybe consider that God is bigger than that wall (our mortal minds of understanding). Let's get ourselves a little dirty and wrestle with the things we can't quite reconcile. Who knows, it might teach us some humility and grace in the meantime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For a serious, well-thought-through discussion of homosexuality in the familial and societal context (the elephant in the room when discussions focus solely on personal liberation and choice), go to: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, making a "natural law" argument that something is moral based on its ability to induce a physical response, without considering whether that response is "disordered" (see Romans 1), is flawed, especially when considering male sexual arousal. Taken on its own terms, it argues for the absurd, including pedarasty, paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc. On that argument, a person can be "in love" with tight shorts or a stiff breeze. The Church has always made a distinction (since long before the Schism or the Reformation) between appetites (which can be affected by human fallenness) and loves. I would venture so far to say that homosexuality is just that: an appetite to engage in coitus with someone of the same sex; it is not a "love" as that term has always been interpreted by the Church.
"Now, I am not a man, nor am I married, but I know my way around a hard dick."
ReplyDeleteLove that.
pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are irrelevant because in all of those relationships one party is not able to give consent - therefore, they can be considered "disorders." Not the case for two, same sex adults.
ReplyDeleteSo what makes an action moral is whether all parties (assuming legal capacity), particularly the recipient, give consent? That's a "unique" view. Would necrophilia or bestiality be morally upright and perfectly respectable--even a redeeminng social good--provided one had obtained prior written consent (in a last will and testament) or a "sheepish" come-on stare? You hear that creaking noise? That's the supports for your argument collapsing.
ReplyDeleteYou also haven't rebutted the societal objection. Untl homosexuals add a (no doubt color-coordinated) uterus to their accessory kit, they fail to provide human capital to society. Despite what modern day Malthusian chicken-littles have to say, the greatest threat to a society has always been, and continues to be, insufficient population growth. What is the Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Health Insurance problem but the come-uppens the hippies deserve for going gay and aborting a share of the population? The only reason we're not in the same spiral Europe faces is because Latin American immigrants haven't guzzled the Malthusian kool-aid.
Even assuming that every part of your argument above is correct, that would merely militate for homosexuality to be permissible, not the social good that heterosexual marriage is, which is why the latter has traditionally been endorsed by the government BTW. Therefore, even if homosexual conduct were not a clearly-prohibited sin, you still haven't put it on equal footing with monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Right?
So I read your blog and I've wrestled with how to respond with grace and truth. Obviously this is a very personal topic from the passion that you put into what you have written. I remember how deeply and passionatly you believe in things from our childhood. And I would definitely agree with you that homosexuality is an issue that the church has not dealt well with and our response at times has probably become a shame to the church. But as I read your blog, I have to say that I don't agree with your conclusions let alone the assumptions that you base your arguments on.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, we too often approach the issue of sexuality in the church from the perspective that really God cares simply about who we're doing it with and that if we just do it with the right person then we can navigate this issue of sexuality. We also make the issue of sexuality something that defines our spirituality rather than an outflow of our faith. Having been in youth ministry now for 7 years I know we tend to make false, easily measured standards about sexuality. But Matthew 5:48 tells us that we should be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect and that really becomes our standard for all of life, not just our sexuality. Our sexuality should flow out of our pursuit of God and holiness and it should be a reflection of that pursuit. So the way that we express our sexuality really shows our heart and our character. In that light homosexuality becomes no more a sin than a heterosexual couple that are living together unmarried and having sex because purity is the standard and God lays out pretty clearly his standard for purity. As we pursue God and holiness our lives reflect that pursuit and our obedience or lack there of show where our heart really lies. God is a holy God and we can't shirk obedience because we might not like what he asks us to do.
Now we can debate all day long an issue like nature vs. nurture when it comes to homosexuality because we don't like God's standard, but the truth is is that its God's standard and until we're powerful enough to create our own universe then we need to reconcile that somehow.
To say that denying our natural sexual tendencies because they may be sinful is a terrible option just might be making a little too much of sex. Ultimately our deepest and most intimate relationship, our most fulfilling relationship isn't supposed to be found in sexual expression, but in Christ and Paul testifies to the fact that he gave up marriage in order to stay primarily focused on Christ and calls that the better way. So it isn't that far fetched or ridiculous to in sacrificial obedience commit your deepest longings and desires for relationship to Jesus and be most satisfied in him. Obedience is supposed to be or at least we're supposed to learn to find joy in obedience.
I definitely believe that we need to learn how to respond with love and that we can't keep seeing homosexuality as some extra level of sinfulness in the church like we often do. But we can't go the other extreme and sugar coat it and stop calling sin sin. Just like we can't look away from so many other sins that we do in the church - pride, injustice, vulgarity, gossip, and a whole host of others we look the other way at because ultimately we've forgotten that we serve a holy God. - Nate