That is not how we understand God's plan; we are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God for his purpose and as one of his gifts to the church.
Still, when we own that we are gay, we discover a freedom and a wholeness that we are aware has been missing. We do not stop being who we were before we came out, but we do become a more whole expression of ourself.
I cannot stress enough that we mostly knew we were gay before we had any sexual relationship with another person of the same sex. Some of us have never had a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex and still know we are gay, just as you knew you were attracted to the opposite sex before you entered into any kind of a relationship.
Some of us remain celibate, we know we are gay just as you know you are straight. We know it with the same intensity and certainty. It is not sexual activity that is the defining factor but sexual orientation. Some recognise that they are gay, but conclude celibacy is the only option for them. Others conclude that God wants them to experience the fullness and intimacy of a committed monogamous partnership for life. Still others are open to what God has in store for them whether single or married, but it is orientation not activity that determines our sexuality.
In common we have that we have come to understand that being gay is not a sin, or fundamentally disordered, but God's gifting on our life.
We have come to understand that gay and straight alike may sin, but neither being gay nor being straight is, of itself, sinful. Our orientation is different to any action we may take in relation to the physical expression of our relationship.
You wrong us, and sin against us, when you assume we are preoccupied by sexual activity or presume that we are promiscuous, unfaithful or unstable. There are long term couples, short term couples and one night stands in the gay community just as there is in the straight community. Our morality is a choice, our sexuality isn't.
It is not the case that we could "fix" this by simply marrying someone of the opposite sex. Heaven knows too many of us have tried on the basis of counsel from other Christians who are sure that the “right” woman or the “right” man will “fix” us. We have caused untold harm to straight partners as a result.
It is, in fact, unloving, wrong and sinful for those who are gay to enter into relationships with those of the opposite sex, because we cannot offer the level of intimacy, completeness, knowing and being known that is required in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. We are designed for intimacy and oneness with someone of the same sex. When we try to move outside that plan we cause real harm and damage to the person with whom we enter into a relationship.
When we meet God's planned partner for us we know, just as you each knew when you met the partner God had planned for you. God formed us for relationship -there is a meeting of the minds, a melding of the soul and a release of ministry, perhaps not as you see ministry, but ministry nonetheless. Our partners are God's gift to us, just as your partners are God's gift to you.
Those of us who follow Jesus want faithful committed monogamous relationships with our partners, not lives of illicit, secretive behaviours. We make promises to each other that God sees and blesses. We live in covenant. This is God's plan for us. But the message from the church is that this covenant, willingly entered into between two believers in the presence of God, is fundamentally flawed and invalid on the basis of a few verses which do not, in any way, speak about the experience of a faithful, monogamous couple.
Let us consider this in another way. If I was to enter a marriage with a man, the covenant would be invalid because I could not keep my vows, not because I was unfaithful, but because I am not constitutionally equipped to make those vows to a man. I cannot cleave to a man. I cannot be one with a man, because that is a spiritual and psychological bond not just a physical bond.
Messenger of Hope
Former Officer
Australia,Eastern
3 comments:
Sixty years ago there were a number of women officers who spent their whole careers together as couples. Some were Corps officers, and some served on Headquarters.
We knew them by their hypenated names. If anyone was aware of their relationships, no one spoke about them, and obviously headquarters turned a blind eye.
It was a different world then. The Salvation Army was still very Victorian in its thinking, and the top of sexuality was never discussed in polite company. The only time it arose was as a topic of gossip. Should a heterosexual officer be unfaithful, the whole territory would know about it.
Graeme Randall has been open about his relationship and share his knowledge about the most up to date liberal exegesis of the relevant texts. It is helpful now for a woman to share her testimony.
In my denomination this issue was settled nearly three decades ago. Gay people are welcome to become members, and there are gay clergy couples, some having adopted children.
Who knows, perhaps the day may come when the kingdom of God will come to The Salvation Army
Former
Canada and Bermuda
Former Canada and Bermuda,
It is very interesting that you should bring up the subject of single women officers of a bygone era who spent their whole career as officers together. 40 to 50 years ago was actually the tail end of those official arrangements as a prominent feature in SA life as I recall. I was only a kid back then but I always couldn't help but notice that more often than not one of the two came across as a very masculine, strong dominant type while the other would be traditionally feminine and submissive. When sent to corps appointments together the first one was always the C.O. and the second one was always her assistant---never becoming a C.O. in her own right. Of course many of the arrangements might have just been "Boston Marriages" where two women complemented each other, worked together well and depended on each other emotionally like close sisters without any sexual intimacy.
I suspect that that's what the Army's leadership just assumed since traditionally if anything else might have been going on with some of the couples, as long as the women kept their traps shut about it the patriarchy never really cared all that much what women did among themselves anyway. It was a reflection of the whole of society at the time.
The story is of course different for men officers who might have been gay. There were no such arrangements after a first appointment or so and they were expected to get married no matter what. (It was probably easy enough to find a girl with a low sex drive back then----especially if she went through a life time of altar calls and six years of corps cadet lessons. lol!)
Anyway, I also find it interesting to note that Evangeline Booth found a single, never to marry male officer in his mid 30s in Canada and made him her aide de camp (lee or lei servant?)forever, eventually rewarding him with the rank of Lt. Colonel.
Though later at least one SA historian has suggested that they may have been secretly married somewhere in upstate New York, it sure does sound an awful lot like a modern day celebrity and her trusted, always at her beck and call gay male social secretary situation to me! But then again, who knows for sure? Unlike today people rarely expressed such thoughts back then even to theirselves and even when they may have actually been thinking it!
Daryl Lach
USA Central
Thank you for writing this article. I hope for many it puts a face on who the gay community is. And that is people. Just like the straight community who we never label. I long for the day there will not be a gay or straight community but only a community. Of people. Period.
Post a Comment