Same Sex Attraction, Inclusivity and Acceptance
- one Conservative Evangelical View
Introduction
I am very conscious that within the constraints
of a blog article such as this there is much scope for misunderstanding to
occur, due to a host of reasons, such as the inability to fully unpack the
meaning of words used, the lack of space to explain and support all one says,
and particularly the very sensitive nature of the topic. I recognise that
before I begin, even the words of the title could be understood differently to
that which I intend. However having highlighted that very real factor, I will
proceed and try to be as clear as I can within the constraints present.
I would first say that in describing myself as
'Conservative Evangelical', I mean that I try to use Scripture, Reason,
Tradition and Experience to reach conclusions about how I should believe and
behave, with Scripture holding the preeminent position among the four. I would
also say that I recognise my total dependence on the Holy Spirit to guide my
deliberations and conclusions, but I do not therefore believe that all I hold
is affirmed by him. I trust him to continue leading me onwards.
By 'one ... View', I mean that it is the view
that I have come to hold, and it may or may not coincide partly or exactly with
that held by other Conservative Evangelicals.
My Framework
The basic framework I work with is as follows:-
1 God made human beings male and
female, and his intention was that sexual intercourse was only to occur within
the bounds of a marriage relationship between one man and one woman.
2 Due to the entrance of sin
however, we are all born damaged, in some way shape or form, in every area of
our lives, and so we are far from his originally perfect creation, and in need
of salvation.
3 When we receive the salvation
purchased and provided by our glorious Triune God, we commence traveling the
road of recovery, and though we make progress in this life, return to
perfection awaits the coming of the new age in its fullness.
4 The damage caused by sin has
damaged us all sexually, though our individual experience of the nature and
extent of damage will vary.
5 The fact that we are damaged
will mean that our present natural tendency will be to act in accordance with
our damage.
6 Same sex attraction is one
amongst a number of 'types' of damage, but I would again stress that we are all
damaged in some way or another. And let only him who is without sin, throw the
first stone.
7 Whatever our particular
expression and experience of damage regarding the sexual aspect of our being,
God's call to all is receive his grace so that we can increasingly grow in
conformity to his will regarding our sexuality.
Consequences of the framework
The outworking of my framework means that sexual
expression should only occur within the bounds of a marriage relationship
between one man and one woman. This presents a challenge to every human being,
but for those who know same sex attraction, the challenges are of a particular
type.
However, I would again stress that the challenge
to live in a way pleasing to God regarding sexual expression applies to us all,
and whether heterosexual or homosexual, some will experience greater challenge,
pain and difficulty than others. Also, we can all fail in the damaged area that
is particular to us, but we can also all know ongoing forgiveness.
End Part One
Bernard Martin
Former UKT
13 comments:
I agree that we are all born damaged as far as sin is concerned, but at the risk of seeming naive, I'm not too sure what is meant by the statement 'we are all damaged sexually'.
Uk Territory.
Bernard, I have been in relationship (committed and monogomous) to the same person for 29 yrs. We are in same sex marriage, that blessed event occuring in 2009. God has blessed our marriage, our committment, our love and devoton to God and each other. We are Christians living in a God blessed marriage. I am not sure where we fit into your definition of God's plan for marriage....but I know I am a child of God. I am saved, a Christian, and blessed to have a Christian spouse who also believes as I do. We believe in God, Salvation through Jesus Christ, and acceptance in His family. Our families support us, and we strive to be Christ like in our lives and love for our fellow humans. Blessings as you seed to sort out the totality of God's love and the extent of His family of Christian children. Blessings.
Bernard, maybe you could unpack your conservative evangelical understanding of the biblical meaning of sexual attraction and sexual expression a little more.
I know and respect that this is an extremely loaded, and laboured, subject especially in your circles. I would say as obsessively held as others hold theirs.
But what exactly is the so sinful forbidden 'sexual expression' especially in same sex unions. Where does the boundary lie with anticipated and expressed love in a faithful and committed same-sex legalised marriage or formal civil partnership that is also deemed to have been accepted as blessed by God?
What is biblically, morally and ethically acceptable and at what point does it suddenly become unacceptable? What or where is the defining 'line in the sand'?
From my non-conservative, progressive but non the less as committed Christian discipleship angle, this could give me a different perspective on reason, scripture, tradition and experience.
nuff said....
ACTIVE UKTI
Anon......I for one have great difficulty with the theoretical concept of being born damaged in sin (falling short to live up to whatever divine expectation before having had the chance to be otherwise). What I do believe is that it is possible to be born damaged by or through 'sins' of the parents. There is plenty of evidence of that around.
Sexually damaged people are all around us but that does not mean that we all are! It is the obsession of the institutional church with it that is doing far greater damage to individual believers.
One classical, long held understanding is of course that any sexual contact is sinful (not of God), hetero or same sex, definitely not to be enjoyed as it depraves and degrades, can make you go blind, best done in the dark in one single position, essentially just for procreation and then as quickly as possible, finishing off with a scripture reading and prayer.
Ps I have lost my white stick, anyone found it?
ACTIVE UKTI
We are all sexually damaged as a result of the Fall!
There are so many assumptions in this article that it is difficult to read it without feeling one's intelligence being insulted. Here we are living in the twenty-first century and being asked to believe that six thousand years ago a man was created out of the dust of the earth, and a woman from one of the man's ribs. The two of them lived in paradise until one of them ate some forbidden fruit with the result that everyone since has been totally depraved, but all in different ways sexually.
If one has been so lucky to have been born as a heterosexual, hopefully the testosterone levels won't be too high lest one might sin by lusting simply while admiring the beauty of someone, or the handsome features of another, with the result if one is single of committing fornication, or if one is married adultery with a consequent divorce. One also has to struggle with whether or not sex is just for the purpose of procreation, or for pleasure, or for both. Is birth control part of God's plan for the universe, or is the rhythm method the only option? What is one's attitude about other forms of sex practiced by homosexuals, but also by some heterosexuals?
Hopefully the sin of Adam and Eve will not have damaged one by being so unfortunate that God makes one a homosexual. One then must just accept one's lot without question. Moses is told that it is God who is the One who makes man dumb, or deaf, or seeing or blind; at least that is better than being told that such damage is a matter of choice. What a burden one must carry through life pretending that one is not a sexual being, or if one is open about it facing a life of discrimination, inequity, and in some cases imprisonment, torture and possibly even death by Bible-believing Christians. One is supposed to remain celibate, like the castrated eunuchs of old who weren't even able to practice masturbation. As for adopting children that is completely out of the question. What a cruel God.
Then there are those poor sods that are neither fish nor fowl, they spend their whole lives not knowing who they are. Sometimes they are attracted to the opposite sex, sometimes to the same. Their lives are a constant quandary. Their damage causes them to feel the pressure of being married to someone of the opposite sex, which most of them choose, and then end up having secret relationships with people of the same sex, with the result of contacting sexual diseases and passing them on to their wives or husbands. They live a life of dishonesty and unfaithfulness, often making love to the one to whom they are committed, while at the same time fantasizing in their minds making out with someone of the opposite sex. Who on earth would choose that kind of a lifestyle?
Let's not forget the transgendered person, despised and the curse of all the other varieties of damaged persons. Surely they have the hardest row to hoe. Even born-again believers hope they won't make an appearance in church of all places. Imagine having to live in a body that has the apparatus of one sex, while feeling in one's heart and mind that one is really the opposite. Imagine not knowing how one should dress, or what washroom one should choose, or what other damaged person could be one's spouse. And to think that this is something one has to endure with grace, all the time trying as a Christian to be Christ-like, knowing full well that one's fellow believers look upon one as the most to be pitied of all damaged souls.
OK Bernard, are you still convinced that all these damaged souls are the result of two mythological creatures in an imaginary garden six thousand years ago, eating some forbidden fruit, who got his whole world in this damaged mess? And that God was angry about the result, later sending a Flood that wiped them all out save Noah and his family, who no sooner had they got out of the Ark when the whole thing began all over again?
Bernard, I must admit that I read your posting and thought...what? - all of us have sexual damage because of sin?? I have never heard such a view before.
Really I think not. People asked Jesus if the man born damaged was because of his own sin or his parents' sin and Jesus said no. What we are born with is not a result of our sin or our parents' sin. It's the result of genetics, granted genetic material can be damaged ex fetal alcohol syndrome, but I don't think there's any evidence to support that we are all born genetically damaged sexually. We are just born the way we are, period, and by God's grace have to live with what we are. Oh there's some cosmetic improvements we can make and certainly nurture/learning can modify behaviour, but I don't think there's any evidence at all to support that we are all sexually damaged. ???
Perhaps you need to explain this more. I for one have never felt sexually damaged - such a thought has never occurred to me.
Canada
Comment 1
UK Territory
What I meant by the statement 'we are all damaged sexually', is that we are all imperfect in every area of our lives including our sexuality, whether this touches our sexual orientation and/or our sexual practice. All of us have sinned sexually in some way or another, to some measure or another due to the fact that we are all damaged.
Comment 2
Anonymous
Thank you for sharing. I particularly feel the limitations of this form of communication in responding to you. I would much prefer to talk face to face, but I would still say that I believe that whatever deep and very real relationships we can and do have with those of the same sex as ourselves, God's will for marriage is that it can and should only occur between a man and a woman.
Comment 3
Active UKTI
I trust I'm understanding you correctly, but my 'line in the sand', is that any sexual activity should only occur within a marriage between one man and one woman.
Comment 5
Anonymous
I'm sorry you felt your intelligence was insulted, but you highlight a very important point in saying that there were many assumptions in my article. We all work with our own fundamental assumptions or frameworks. If we recognise this then we can at least understand why someone believes what they believe even if we disagree with them. I believe it is vitally important for us all to identify our assumptions, and then ask, thinking of what Jesus said in Matthew 7v24-27, are they assumptions of sand or rock. Obviously, I believe my assumptions are of rock, you think them to be of sand. Our mutual responsibility is to try and understand each others assumptions, and challenge each other to examine whether we are built on rock or sand.
And yes, I am still convinced that all damaged souls (including myself) have come from our first parents, Adam and Eve, but by putting our faith in the Second Adam, the Lord Jesus, we can know restoration partially in this age and fully in the fullness of the next.
Comment 6
Canada
I agree that in the incident of the healed blind man in John 9, Jesus was saying that the man's blindness was not due to a particular sin that either the man or his parents had committed. However, I understand the Scriptures to teach that through Adam's sin the whole of creation fell from perfection, and so it is true to say that all imperfection, or all damage, is ultimately due to the principle of Sin, which was given entrance to the world because of Adam's sin. We are all imperfect and damaged in every area of our lives including our sexuality, though how it affects individuals differs, and it may well be for you that the damage is less than for many others.
Thanks for the comments. Trust the above helps/clarifies and apologies if it does not.
Regards
Bernard
Bernard
It's another topic, but this concept of Adam and Eve's sin causing a totally fallen creation is something which I must admit I have only heard in recent years. I have always regarded the Genesis account of the fall as revelation in parable form of eternal truth about life. The fall story I believe teaches that the development of human beings to spiritual and moral maturity is dependent on the right exercise of their freedom of choice throughout life. So what is lost by the wrong exercise of this freedom of choice?
I would say fellowship with God which is a spiritual loss, depriving a human being of blessings that come from fellowship with God - the mind/thinking is affected, the will is weakened and moral powers are impaired and there is bondage (habit forming). This is a state of spiritual death and because we are social creatures this individual spiritual death has an effect on our communities.
I don't see that this spiritual loss means all of creation has lost something, including damage to our sexual functioning. Let me guess Bernard - do you think animals didn't die before people sinned - that the fall of human beings caused death in the world of nature?. I believe the story of the fall teaches about a loss that human beings bring upon themselves by the wrong exercise of freedom of choice - a spiritual loss of fellowship with God. I must admit this notion that the fall described in the Genesis account has somehow damaged our sexuality, is very new to me.
Canada
I found the 5th comment quite appalling, that someone on a Christian website can call into question the Creation. This is the beginning and bedrock of our faith. If one doesn't believe that, what hope is there for that person to love God, who is the author and finisher of our faith - the Alpha and Omega - the beginning and ending. If he/she does not believe He was at the beginning, where exactly is He supposed to have put in an appearance? and how, thinking this way, can they interpret or even trust Scripture for moral guidelines?
And the phrase 'poor sods' - I think that's an insult to the group of people referred to. We are all human, whatever our orientation, and do not deserve to be referred to in this way.
UK Territory
Canada anonymous I am with you with regard to your interpretation of Creation and the Fall stories. Talk to any Jewish rabbi and one will discover the Fall per se never entered into Hebrew thinking. For the Jews the Creation story is an affirmation that everything God created is good.
The Fall as it is portrayed in these posts originated with St. Augustine and his doctrine of original sin and was amplified by Calvin with his doctrine of total depravity. A large group of present day theologians accept neither but affirm the concept you have elaborated that sin comes into the world when each one of us misuses our freedom.
I don't think for one moment that the poster of comment five doesn't believe in Creation. What the poster I am sure is questioning is the assumption that the whole creation has become depraved because of a literal understanding of the Creation stories.
The literalist fails to see how the dilemma that his view of a universal "damaged sexuality" causes a poor reflection on a loving God. Imagine the cross a bisexual man or woman faces constantly in making choices. They are the folks with the heaviest burden.
Any officer or minister who has been privy to the confidences of their soldiers or members knows the pain in which those who do not have the good fortune to be heterosexuals live with every day.
Quoting doctrine that really is man made rather than God-inspired can ruin people's lives.
ACTIVE UKTI:
But what exactly is the so sinful forbidden 'sexual expression' especially in same sex unions. Where does the boundary lie with anticipated and expressed love in a faithful and committed same-sex legalised marriage or formal civil partnership that is also deemed to have been accepted as blessed by God?
What is biblically, morally and ethically acceptable and at what point does it suddenly become unacceptable? What or where is the defining 'line in the sand'?
BERNARD:
Comment 3
Active UKTI
I trust I'm understanding you correctly, but my 'line in the sand', is that any sexual activity should only occur within a marriage between one man and one woman.
But what exactly is the so sinful forbidden 'sexual expression' What expression is interpreted as deemed unacceptable?
In some conservative evangelical but also within the parts of the reformed church tradition, simple things like courting, holding hands, looking at each other in the eyes, kissing, walking out together without a chaperone, wearing certain unacceptable items of clothing, especially for women. All this is deemed to be a form of sexual activity.
So what is so practically offensive and therefore unacceptable to a 'true' bible believer? From my own experience, many longstanding and committed hetero, and same sex relationships for that matter, I have come across are not pro-creational sexually in nature at all but based on deep respect for and friendship/ companionship/ meeting of minds.
The greatest damage to individuals caused by parts most fundamentalist part of most religions is the obsessive denial and placing the yoke of institutional guilt on often already vulnerable people. There is the hiding away from that we are all beings with God given feelings, emotions sexual inclinations and identity.
It is amongst such church membership, including some SA settings, to our great shame, that we find the greatest incidence of depressive/oppressive, guilt ridden folks because they just can not reach the level that is expected of them by exalted leadership.
And then suddenly..... those who had most to say about it, most vocally vehemently against and were looked up to as wonderful examples tumble down from grace big time sexually and morally themselves.
So, where is the line drawn?
ACTIVE UKTI
Comment 8
Canada,
As you say, the concept of Adam and Eve's sin causing a totally fallen creation, in one sense is perhaps another topic, but you have highlighted that all topics are related in some way or another as our views on one impacts our views on another. I am in general agreement with what you say in your 2nd para about what the Genesis account teaches us results from wrong exercise of choices. But I also understand the Scriptures to teach that physical death as well as spiritual death entered the created order as a consequence of Adam's sin. And the 'seeds' of physical death and damage are present from the commencement of each person's existence.
Comment 10
Anonymous,
Whether the Fall as I have portrayed it in these posts originated with St. Augustine and his doctrine of original sin and was amplified by Calvin with his doctrine of total depravity, is possibly open to debate. My view would be that the portrayal finds its source in Scripture, and Augustine and Calvin have contributed to how the teaching of Scripture is best expressed in its various aspects. However, I recognise that there would be other theologians of the Church that would see things differently.
Comment 11
Anonymous (not sure if you are the same anonymous as above),
Regarding the 'literalist' view and its reflection on a loving God, I think whatever our particular beliefs, we inevitably end up with a fair measure of mystery and dilemma, and loose ends that we can't quite tie up. Personally, I believe that Scripture teaches that Adam's sin not only resulted in spiritual death for us all, but physical death also with all its associated effects. But I see God's love in the fact that, whatever the reason was that he allowed sin and death to occur, he also provided a way of salvation through Jesus for all who will put their faith in him. I agree with you that doctrine which is man-made can ruin people's lives and so our responsibility is to examine our beliefs in the light of Scripture to ensure that as much as possible we are in line with its teaching.
Comment 12
Active UKTI
My focus in using the term 'sexual expression' has been on intimate sexual expression. The areas of courting, holding hands etc that you mention, are not aspects I have been thinking of.
Thanks again for all the comments
Regards
Bernard
Post a Comment