This summer, a student at my school committed suicide. He was gay, and struggling with that because the church, and our school, teaches that homosexuality is wrong.
This college has seen the homosexuality debate pretty closely; we were visited by Soulforce last spring, our psychology department does research on successful de-gayification, and there have been some well-placed pep talks by a few prominent ex-gay faculty members. Like most evangelicals, they still hold fast to the position that homosexuality is sinful; students who admit to being gay are required to have counseling.
Some evangelicals are starting to realize that homosexuality is not a sin. I really believe that the rest of them will catch on eventually and that the majority of the church will concede at some point in the future, and that thought really saddens me. It bothers me more than if I thought Christians were going to keep being stupid about homosexuality forever, because it’s one thing to be decades behind on issues likes environmentalism and global warming, but homosexuality is about people. Every year more people lose their lives because they are told that who they are is sinful.
What is going to happen when, 50 years from now, the church recognizes that they were wrong? What are they going to do about the lives they took? It’s one thing for the church to change their minds about something like environmentalism. They can start hugging trees now and nobody cares about the forests that died while they were busy scoffing at environmentalists. But what about the unnecessary deaths of gay people? Will Christians be able to accept responsibility for their lives, and tell their loved ones that they died because the church was wrong?
—————————–
Related news: tomorrow, Anglican archbishop of Nigeria Peter Akinola is speaking at Wheaton College. There are protests planned against Akinola, who is anti-gay and is leading the movement to split the worldwide Anglican church over the issue of homosexuality. According to our college newspaper:
Akinola will preach at a 10:30 a.m. worship service Sunday in Edman Chapel to members from 20 Anglican churches and will speak in chapel the following day.
And my favorite part:
Akinola was invited to speak in Edman as part of a worship service designed to celebrate global church unity.
Information on the protest is here.
What part of the Bible do you think convinced them that homosexuality was not a sin?
last comment was referring to the “some evangelicals” you spoke of…
Matt said: What part of the Bible do you think convinced them that homosexuality was not a sin?
—
As a Christian who is no longer convinced that homosexuality is a sin, what convinced me was first getting to know some gay people and second reading ongoing scientific research about homosexuality. The Bible didn’t really have anything to do with it.
I have spoken to gay people about when they first recognized their affection for people of the same gender. More than one has identified that time as puberty or even before. Some studies claim to have identified such a fixation in children as young as 4-5 years old. That would seem to eliminate the role of choice in homosexuality.
Quite a bit of study has led to the conclusion that many non-human species have homosexual populations (the number varies between 450 – 1,500 depending on the expert). And invariably, in those species that have been identified as having a homosexual population, about 10 percent of the total population is homosexual. This percentage is maintained over generations even though logic would dictate that such a population would eventually be bred out of a species (gay sex doesn’t make babies).
One might blame homosexuality on The Fall, however, I’m not sure how that equates to blaming those who are gay or leads to the expectation that they can be cured.
Finally, I know many heterosexuals whose sexual habits are harmful to themselves and/or others. It would seem to me that is the more significant issue than the gender to which one is attracted.
What struck me was that labeling homosexuality as a sin demonizes people who don’t have much choice. That doesn’t seem Christ-like or loving.
David H,
I have expounded on these ideas in more detail here, but let me summarize briefly. Are you telling me that just because someone has no choice in something that this means it is automatically a desirable state?
Let me illustrate. Alcoholism is genetic. So is heart disease, high blood pressure, some forms of emphysema, rage, Down’s syndrome, most addictions, and cancer. Are you going to also argue with me that these things, about which humans also cannot make a choice, are good?
Christianity is about denying yourself. Why would Paul say to present our bodies as “living sacrifices” if we sacrifice nothing? Remember, Paul struggled with sin constantly, too. Jesus was tempted by the devil. Sin is a struggle that we all share. Why should we declare any clear sin “OK” just because of genetics? That would mean that we’re going to have to say that rage and addictions are OK because of genetics. Then we would have to stop eating right and exercising because heart disease and high blood pressure must be good too!
Who are we to answer back to God, to suddenly decide what is good and what is right? I’d think about that, if I were you.
“Alcoholism is genetic. So is heart disease, high blood pressure, some forms of emphysema [...] Are you going to also argue with me that these things, about which humans also cannot make a choice, are good?”
Alcoholism, in its genetic form, can be fought through willpower. However, regardless of genetics or not, the desire to drink will still be present.
Heart disease can be fought through exercise, diet, and medication. But even when fought, the genetic disposition is still there. It can’t be removed.
High blood pressure can be fought through exercise, diet, and medication. But even when fought, the genetic disposition is still there. It can’t be removed.
Homosexuality can’t be fought, it can only be ignored and suppressed. No amount of willpower will cause the attraction towards the same sex to turn into attraction to the opposite. The so-called ex-gays are lying to themselves and everyone else. All they’re doing is ignoring and suppressing their feelings, and forcing themselves into heterosexual relationships. I’m straight. I could force myself to have sex with another man, but that doesn’t mean I’m actually sexually attracted to him.
Why should something beyond the control of the individual be blamed on the individual? Why would God create homosexuals if they are innately, irrevocably, permanently destined to be sinful? It’s absurd.
Hi David,
When I asked my question, I was referring to the quote in the blog post that said
Since sin is defined in the Bible, then those evangelicals must have found something in the Bible that contradicts that. I was just wondering what that was.
@Charles,
Your notion that God created homosexuals rests on the supposition that a person is their feelings. Even the most secular books on humanity in the “self-help” sections of bookstores teach that as a major paradigm that needs shifting. Great leaders of humanity that were not Christians realized that as well. Also consider Nelson Mandela’s experience in prison.
Unfortunately, some people never accept that they are not their feelings and emotions, thus living their lives as a function of their feelings. I struggle with living out my knowledge of that because it is natural for me to react according to my feelings. It takes a significant amount of willpower (or faith in God if you believe in one) to overcome feelings. That is a sign of maturity – we do the same with our children, and attempt to do the same in an honorable system of law.
The longer I go without acting on feelings, the more they go away. Does that mean I am deluding myself? No way. I used to be addicted to alcohol, cigarettes, rage, and more. I am still tempted to engage in those things and others even though they are bad for me and others. If I don’t experience daily cravings for those things because I have untrained my body to be dependent on that, then it is no delusion. It is victory.
Of course people practicing homosexuality don’t believe it is bad for them or others and something that needs to be changed. It’s not my job to change them or hassle them about it. It’s my job to love people regardless of who they are. If Osama Bin Laden were to walk into my Bible Study, I’m supposed to love him like I would treat Christ if he were to walk in the
It’s also my job to be a light for Christ, which means supporting God’s word in my life. Loving a person and agreeing with them are two separate things. That has become blurred in recent years where people equate love with 100% acceptance of both a person and their actions. I believe actions are separate from the person. Others disagree but if one of my Christian brothers or sisters starts marginalizing what is written in the Bible, it is my job to ask them why. Since you are an athiest, that’s why I didn’t ask you why you thought it wasn’t a sin – I was asking for your speculation on why the evangelicals believed that those parts of the Bible were no longer valid.
“Since sin is defined in the Bible, then those evangelicals must have found something in the Bible that contradicts that. I was just wondering what that was.”
—
Is the Bible is then just a list of things that are sin or not-sin. The Christian life is then, primarily, just avoiding the activities the Bible defines as Sin. To be righteous in the eyes of God we must a) not do those things, b) condemn them, c) condemn anyone who doesn’t condemn them. Is that what Jesus did? Sure he told some people to “go and sin no more,” but did he refuse to have fellowship with them while they were in that sinful state? Did he condemn them first?
The funny thing is that most modern American Christians don’t even know, much less follow the whole list of rules given in the old testament. It isn’t just the 10 commandments, Deuteronomy and Leviticus are loaded with do’s and don’ts that modern Christians have elected as no longer pertinent to our faith. It isn’t just the dietary restrictions (Paul said we didn’t have to keep kosher, didn’t he) but many social requirements (anyone actually Jubilee lately). Christians do lend money to each other at interest, don’t they? God said that was a no-no.
Since I am apostate already, let me contend that if modern Christians feel OK with allowing the poor to always be with us, (Deut. 15:4, God says: There should be no poor in the land) then maybe the should skip past Lev. 18:22 as well. (BTW, that verse just says its wrong for a man to lie with another man, so chicks are cool;-), but more on this later). Likewise, just as I am unwilling to allow the OT and Paul to have the final say on the role of women in the Church, neither will I simply allow them to have the only word on homosexuality.
As for gayness being just a feeling, I would suggest that it is quite a bit more. For many it is part of their sense of identity even when they hate it and/or are hated for it. They couldn’t change their sense of homosexuality any more than you can strip off your skin and put on that of another. Not everything is known about the genetic system as yet, but to equate genetic pre-disposition toward alcoholism with that toward homosexuality may not be accurate. It might be closer to the pre-disposition toward blond hair or blue eyes. That is not yet clear. What is clear is that homosexuality shows up in many hundreds of non-human species, which would seem to indicate that gayness is not UNNATURAL since it occurs quite frequently in the natural world.
No, Cory, I’m not going to argue that is good. But I won’t agree that it is simply bad either. Perhaps it just is. Perhaps, as with so many other things, it isn’t what you are, but what you do with who/what you are.
Many Christians seem righteous with the concept of if your BLUE eye offends God, then pluck it out. However, psychology suggests that while one can repress/suppress some deep “feelings” that doesn’t necessarily change who or what you are. But the attempt, while possibly productive at the onset, can lead to significant consequences down the line. Hey, it’s not the Bible, but here is what a psychology text says on the subject:
“Suppression is looked upon as a harmless and even necessary psychological defense mechanism when it is used sparingly. Occasional suppression is viewed as vital to the self-preservation of the ego and is usually manifested in such ways as refusing to talk about a traumatic event until some time afterwards. In this way, the person is able to give him or her enough time to reach and adequate mental state to deal responsibly with the trauma. Suppression is related, in other words, to what we commonly refer to as a cooling off period. This cooling-off period of suppressing something works well in the short run, but runs the risk of turning into the unhealthy dwelling on a something that is hurtful.
Suppression is also the mind’s way of keeping us from doing something stupid. Impulses that are deviant or criminal pop into everyone’s mind from time to time and suppression is a very important method of keeping one’s self-control in check. If we didn’t suppress certain unhealthy impulses, there would be far more murders, assaults and suicides. But just because you may have been successful in pushing that traumatic experience out of your consciousness, that doesn’t mean you’ve put it out of your mind entirely. Suppressed feelings and thoughts remain in the subconscious and though you may not be actively thinking about what happened, those thoughts and impulses can still find a way out and get manifested in behavior. One of the most common ways that suppression of your own emotions comes out is in the attempt to suppress others. This explains why so many people who are outspoken against one issue or another are eventually revealed to have been engaging in exactly the same kind of behavior they railed against. Another problem with prolonged suppression and the refusal to deal with the trauma and anxiety can be manifested in what might be termed viral suppression. You may begin by suppressing your homosexual attraction and end up by suppressing any hint of flamboyance in your character. Those who trust in suppression too much tend to be very bland, boring, unimaginative people.
Suppression can also be released in more extreme forms. For instance, if a person suppresses sexual desire, they may eventually become subject to more and more extreme forms of sexual urges. The person who has to suppress expressions of anger can almost be relied upon to eventually explode in violent rages. Suppression in moderation is a necessary defense mechanism, but relied upon for protection against having to deal with the source it will invariably produce neurotic and even sometimes psychotic behavior.”
Let’s ask Ted Haggard if there is any validity to the psychology of suppression.
But let’s get back to SIN for a minute. What is sin? Is it simply an action? Do this thing and you have sinned? Then why did Jesus tell some that a Pharisee praying to God or giving an offering in the temple were commiting a sin? Perhaps they were a bit flamboyant, but they were doing as commanded. If it isn’t just the act, is it the consequence? If what you do hurts yourself or another then you have sinned? There might be something to that, but Jesus seemed to validate the concept of hurting yourself for a higher purpose (self-sacrifice) and plenty of Christians seem perfectly OK with hurting others for a “righteous cause.” Perhaps the key ingredient to sin is intent. It isn’t just what you do or what happens as a result, it is mostly WHY.
There’s the rub then. Because if intent is critical, then what exactly constitutes a “CLEAR SIN”? Just that list of do’s and don’ts? If we haven’t dealt with that enough already, let’s look at the whys of the law. Many Bible scholars say that the Jewish dietary restrictions weren’t simply capriciou; they were healthy. Rabbinical scholars point out that the prohibition just on male-to-male anal sex (the only thing expressly forbidden) may also have much to do with health concerns. The Hebrew in Leviticus 18:22 adds that male-to-male anal intercourse is unnatural.
To be honest, I am not comfortable with homosexuality in practice. As a male heterosexual, there are aspects of homosexual practice I find repellent on a gut level. So it would be easy for me to say that he practice of homosexuality is wrong. But what many many Christians seem to be saying is that just being gay is SIN. I believe that is wrong. Ancient Jews seem to agree. As for the practice, is it the act, the consequence or the intent that makes it sin? Can all of those things be applied equally to heterosexual activities outside (and sometimes even inside) of marriage? If you are having sex with your wife while thinking of someone else is that a “sin” on the same level as homosexual sex? Is it OK if you don’t intend to harm her, you just need the idea of someone else to get you going?
I won’t pretend I have any, much less all of the answers. I certainly have none as simple as those many Christians love to embrace: if “Homosexual = Sin” I don’t have to consider, much less embrace the “sinner.” Accept that and I don’t even have to think about my intent (is reveling in the righteousness of my position we are committing an infraction just as “sinful.”
What I do know is that many homosexuals have been ostracized by Christian society. They have been denied the opportunity to attend churches. They have been told they must stop being who they are in order to fellowship with Christians. I’m pretty sure that isn’t something Jesus would do. If I do those things, then I am committing sin. If God loves me — a sinner — then he loves gay people regardless of whether homosexuality is a sin. My job as a follower of Jesus to to convey the love of God and Christ to everyone without judgement or condemnation. If gay people need healing of some sort — and we all need healing of some sort — then it is the love, not the suppression, that can help bring that healing.
But if the love doesn’t come first, then there will be no opportunity for Christians to play any constructive role in anyone’s life (including their own). So maybe, just maybe, the most important thing isn’t whether something is sin — whatever that means.
Oh, and Cory, who am I? I’m me. God gave me a heart and a mind, like any other person. He allowed Moses to argue with him and actually changed his mind. I’m not trying to modify God, I just want to have a discussion. I’m not trying to violate the first commandment, but I do really want to work on keeping the second.
Not long ago we all lived on a flat earth, which was (or is) 6 or 7 thousand years old.
Homosexuals were (or are) deemed responsible for the ariel burst which destroyed Soddom and possibly Gomorrah .
Lot fled to a cave with his two daughters and impregnated them.
Moses bound millions (or billions) to his 613 edicts where the most controversial today (and the only one thats being pushed) is the ‘abomination of homosexuality’.
Christ died.
Of course there’s a lot more to the story but at this point its becoming unsalvagable.
I must apologise to the fundamentalists for my observations as I understand their pain. It’s not as bad as it seems.