Thoughts of My Very Own
Our pastoral team overseer just called me to do a very nice thing. He meets with a bunch of other pastors in Seattle and they are about to sign a petition. See, the King County Executive, is getting sued by 8 homosexual couples for not issuing them marriage licenses. So this group of pastors, they think that marriage isn’t just a legal/civic rite (okay, I’m with them so far) and so they would like to be heard in the matter as well. So they are basically taking a legal action to make sure they get to be a part of the suit against Ron Simms. They want to have a voice of some sort within the hearing process. So our overseerer wanted to give me a head’s up that he, as an individual who happens to be an ordained minister, was signing this “please let us be involved” document. (To be clear, these pastors are throwing their hat into the ring because they don’t think the gay couples should be given marriage licenses.) Of course, I told him he should do that, because he feels it’s a matter of conscious for him and I don’t think he should ignore that conviction for himself. Right now, I think there’s room for that – for “him” and “me” – in this new way I’m practicing the practices. He’s got to be obedient to how he understands this story we find ourselves in…and so do I.
Now like I said before, this was really REALLY thoughtful of our overseer (my friend), and not entirely easy to do. We are a part of a multi-congregational church, three congregations that are very very different trying to work together to do some good Jesus-y stuff in an urban setting. The very very different part makes these kinds of conversations hard sometimes. We walk on tiptoes a lot. So I’m grateful that he gave me the heads up. And I know he wishes I was signing on the dotted line as well.
But here’s the thing….
These couples, they look at heterosexual marriage — the arguments and the divorce and the set-aside dreams and the domestic violence and the divided up kids and the long drawn out court battles — and they see past all that. Somehow, despite how badly we’ve treated this thing we say we’re the champions of, these couples see the core of marriage– the hope of being with someone for a lifetime, the desire to take care of one another, to practice fidelity, to honor someone with your body and your mind and your emotions, the wish to raise a family in a stable place — and they still want that, they still want that kind of relationship, that kind of marriage. The thing is, I respect that. I get that, because that’s what I admire in marriage as well. That’s the God spark in marriage — that level of extended care and unending relentless love. That’s Jesusy stuff. It’s my job, as a cultivator, as Christian, to breathe on those God-active spots in someone’s life. To notice those God-sparks and to try to fan them into something more flame like. So to me, if someone wants to move towards that…that incarnational part of God that’s represented among us in this thing we call marriage…that’s good right? I’d breathe on that ember.
And here’s another thing (not exactly related to the whole petition thing, but interconnected to the issue at hand)….Where do we, the heterosexual church, get off becoming the champions for “protecting” marriage? Divorce is as rampant inside the church as out. I see plenty of domestic violence from behind my pastoral “desk.” It’s disingenuous of us to say that we are the preservers of this particular holy grail. I hate the lack of authenticity we exhibit when we present ourselves as the champions of the virginal institution we call marriage. The reality is, we’ve both protected it and damaged it as much as the next guy. We’ve done a real good job despoiling it –the world knows it, we know it. We should own up to that – loudly and often.
And one more thought rambling around in my heart….Why are we so vocal now? Where were we (the conservative evangelical church-at-large, which most of my life has included me, and may still, I’m not sure) when same sex partners were denied access to a dying loved one in an ICU ward? Where were we when two loving responsible adults wanted to raise a child that would otherwise knock around foster care for life? Where were we when people lost jobs, or apartments, or got ran out of neighborhoods because the person they loved looked too much like them? We were pretty damn quiet then, when the marginalized were being shoved further on the margins, when these folks were truly being treated like the least, the last and the lost. But now, now we’re noisy. Now we want to be involved in the conversation.
I don’t know. I am, after all, a young whipper snapper, green around edges and too rash for my own good. But these thoughts – regardless of how many strategic verses are lobbed at them or how many arguments are made against them – they won’t leave my soul. The Muse has me in a gentle choke hold, she will not let go. The metanarrative is Love. I stand unblinkingly before that and I wait for the chance to extend my hand.
This was very moving to read. I like the way you are processing this and am glad you shared your thought process here. This is a thoughtful and gracious post on a very touchy subject. I will steal these thoughts liberally and with no sense of guilt. Well done.
Very interesting. I like how you point out that homosexuals can also see to the heart of marriage and what it could be. Gender aside, many homosexuals “get it” better than a lot of people.
I also like that you are pointing out that, like the world, Christians have glaring examples of poor marriages. I myself am divorced and was a lousy husband.
Our pastor said words to this effect not too long ago. Basically, who are we to tell the world and homosexuals in particular what a good marriage should be when the divorce rates between Christians and non-Chrsitians are identical? Our ‘one man one woman’ trick doesn’t seem to be helping any, right?
And yet… while I agree with you wanting to encourage the God-part found in people, I disagree with the homosexual application of that - er - ‘passion’ for lack of a better word. God ordered things a certain way on purpose. Not to be arbitrary or say that some people are better than others. God’s ways are better than ours. God reminds us of this repeatedly.
I don’t have answers, just a similar struggle. Many people I love and consider friends reject Christ over their sexuallity. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Outstanding, Rachelle.
I think you hint at one of the must frustrating things for me about the traditional church–the fact that it sees so many things in terms of either or. You can either be gay or a christian.
That’s not to say that I think that God’s cool with the gay lifestyle, but I do think he lets some stuff ride for a while as we journey closer and closer to him.
I say all of this as a guy who at one point understood his entire identity to be circling around “gay.” If I had had to turn that off, in my own power, to pursue God… well, I’d never have even considered exploring the option. I wouldn’t have had the strength (God knows I tried).
Here’s my story, if you’re curious.
Peace to you and may God bless you for your compassion!
Ack. Darn HTML-less comments.
Here’s the
Is the issue really about how well or how badly Christian marriages have done, or is it what God says about marriage?
I also appreciated Will’s comment: “That’s not to say that I think that God’s cool with the gay lifestyle, but I do think he lets some stuff ride for a while as we journey closer and closer to him.”
It’s interesting what God says (and doesn’t say) about marriage over the years…what happens if we look at the different kinds of marriages our Biblical heroes held throughout the Old and New Testaments…and what God says in approval or disapproval of those realationship….?
Rachelle, awesome. I’ve been thinking about writing something on homosexuality b/c it’s been brought up so much recently among the people I see- just people asking me and stuff. I haven’t been brave enough, and that’s stupid. You’re awesome.
I am always thinking, it’s not like gay people are asking for crazy things. They want to get married, have kids. They’re asking for more stability. We as a church are saying “no.”
I guess my opinion on this is clear…
miss you!
Great point Rachelle. I am impressed that you would tackle this. In my former life as a conservative evangelical I spent a lot of time using the Bible to judge others, and not much time really honestly looking at and working on myself. It was very convenient. Now, I am not sure that the Bible has much to tell me about what others should be doing. I think it wants to tell me about what I should be doing. What if Christians spent half as much zeal on admitting they need help and working on their own marriages, as they did judging whether homosexuals can be married?
To illustrate Rachelle’s point about what God says about marriage:
http://www.thecommongood.org/CGN/3_3/biblicalmarriage.html
Those who cry out in defense of the “Biblical” view of marriage aren’t citing these verses, strangely.
This was a well thought-out, kind, and BRAVE commentary both on an issue that makes a lot of people nervous, and on the state of our church today. You touched on something that I have thought a lot about, which is that we, as Christians, could easily be putting our time into helping people who need it rather than wasting energy and political clout trying to prevent monogamous couples from making their relationship “official”.
I like your comments about loving people, and Jesus “coming to meet one where one is”… And your assessment of the state of marriage is accurate, it is being degraded from a solemn commitment before God to a casual agreement that flexes around whatever one would like it to flex. Even around relationships that cannot constitute “marriage”. Marriage is intended to support the human race through procreation. Not every marriage results in procreation, but every marriage COULD. Homosexual couples cannot procreate, so cannot be married. They can play house, they can stick together, they can love each other and they can be committed to each other, they just can’t be married. The meaning of the word does not allow it, and changing the meaning of the word degrades the word and the institution.
Homosexual couples can parent children from other means, much like single women can decide to have children without ever marrying… and if either of these situations HAS to happen, then so be it, but it is flat out wrong to PLAN to create a much less than optimal situation primarily for self gratification. Kids need a dad and a mom… a household with two moms or two dads is by definition less than optimal.
We as Christians need to completely love homosexual people as the beloved creations that they truly are… but we cannot encourage or condone sin…
We should treat someone who practices homosexuality the same as one who practices any other kind of sin. Taking a verbal run at someone because they smoke, or taking a verbal run at someone who is obese due to gluttony is not helpful or scriptural, and berating someone who practices homosexuality is both wrong and misguided… and notably NOT EFFECTIVE!
Christian love goes a long way towards healing, but loving sinful behavior is wrong.
-vern-
vern,
i’m sure i won’t be the only one to respond to you, but i guess i am the first.
first of all, rachelle, this was a beautiful piece. some great thoughts.
vern, i’m not married, but from what i know of marriage, your definition of it is extremely limiting. and i’m guessing that anyone who IS married, is going to comment on how their marriage is much more than simply their ability to procreate.
i know you’re not saying it’s the **only** purpose of marriage, but you say it’s intended for procreation - and i don’t agree. i’d say that it’s intended to provide fellowship, partnership, loving relationships, comfort, support, peace, difficulty, growth. but to say that it is intended for procreation…too limiting.
**clarification**
i didn’t mean to say that I don’t agree that one aspect of marriage can in fact be procreation…i’m looking forward to that part when i do get married.
but to **make** that the definition of marriage…that’s what is too limiting…
I’m not sure why, Vern, you say that two moms or two dads is less than optimal. I’d say two same-sex parents who have fought the courts and paid thousands to adopt kids that they cherish and adore are perhaps more optimal than some heterosexual parents… ones who are never around or who never wanted kids to begin with, just had them by accident. Not sure we can say “optimal” is a dad and mom and that’s it. I think it’s a little more complicated.
I say that because women and men are inherently different, and tend to balance each other or be the reciprocal of each other. Like sexes will tend towards polarization. Children need balance.
Cleave, I’m not “making” marriage about only procreation, the purpose throughout history has been to support not only procreation but also successful child development.
Check out Budziszewski…
http://www.boundless.org/regulars/office_hours/a0000865.html
A little sophomoric, but to the point.
I have four children… and I have to admit that having children was more about what I wanted for myself than anything else… but raising children, I recognize that my wants and needs are secondary to my responsibility as a parent.
To warp the meaning of marriage to accommodate a political agenda or as a justification for a lifestyle is self centered and destructive. No one I know is advocating anything but love for people, particularly those with sexual confusion. But loving people does not mean that one needs to desecrate marriage for them or bend all of history and tradition for them. Keeping marriage holy is difficult enough.
I respect your right to vote to change the law, if that is what you want… and I sincerely hope you respect my right to hate and oppose homosexual behaviour and loath homosexual adjenda, while loving those people involved. (in the same spirit that I loath some of my own behaviour and have to rely on the grace of God to change)
-vern-
Hi Rachelle. Been reading your blog for a while and wanting to stay anonymous but had to post a question in the spirit of pondering and sorting through what we’re feeling.
What you’re saying about blowing on the god-spark - does that mean also blowing on the god-spark of those who enjoy sexual behaviour with, say, a child, or their parent? Why do we think that this is any different to what this posting addresses? I am not presuming to know your answer - I’m honestly wanting to know.
Sure, God created sex and he created love and care and relationships but he also defined boundaries. Scarily, it is also the church that is meant to be stating those - y’know going into everybody’s world and preaching a gospel of truth and grace.
You can love someone and support them and provide extended care and unending relentless love and not have sex with them. You can do that for your father or mother. You can do that for your sister and brother. Marriage however is different. It is a becoming one - yes, of having sex. And as far as I can see, sex is meant to happen between a husband and wife only.
Blowing on the God-spark of unconditional love and care etc sounds awesome but not on the “God-spark” of immorality.
Your thoughts?
In my view, marriage is a symbol, a work of art, meant to illustrate something about the heart and nature of God. It should illustrate the dialectic of masculine and feminine together reflecting the personality of God. This is why marriage should be one man and one woman. It should illustrate the passion and devotion that God has for his people. This metaphor runs throughout the Bible. The state of marriage today, as well as the deep sexual brokenness of our culture mar and obsure the image of God he wants displayed to the world. This image is all but lost to us. So in my mind, it’s beyond sin and morality, and procreation, and child development, although these are important. It’s about reflecting God’s image on the earth. So those of us heterosexuals who are married had better quit throwing stones, and passing legislation and start making our relationships a better reflection
of God’s heart. ‘Cause the world is not impressed.
“You can love someone and support them and provide extended care and unending relentless love and not have sex with them. ” Great comment.
And all the love, support and extended care in the world does not inherently qualify one for the unique status afforded a married man and woman.
I have issues in my life, and I really treasure those people who are able to look past my imperfections and demonstrate the grace of Jesus to me while Jesus and the natural consequences of my action work on the imperfection. Anyone who encourages sin in my life, even if they’re doing it to help me in some way, is not being my friend, and is not demonstrating anything “Jesus-like”…
I used to smoke cigarettes, although I knew better; I know that cigarettes harm my body in many ways. God did not require me to quit the day that I radically devoted my life to Christ… he gave me grace and time to accomplish this, and with His grace, I no longer smoke. Had I delayed quitting, I may have developed lung cancer or cardio-vascular disease… heck, I still might based on damage I’ve done. My experience is that when God commands something in the Bible, I might be able to rationalize, and refute, and avoid the truth, but the POINT of God telling us not to engage in some behaviors is BECAUSE WE”LL HURT OURSELVES AND OTHERS!!! Smoking is one of those issues… cigarettes where not invented in Biblical times, similarly crack and heroin… but using general Biblical principles we can accurately assess that God intends that we not use any of these catastrophically destructive substances.
Back to the original statement, if someone were to tell me that because I’m a really nice guy with good intentions and a lot of good works, that it somehow is OK for me to smoke would be perverting the truth and harming me… they might choose to ignore my smoking, or be careful how the broach the topic… but here’s the kicker… if anyone at my church saw me trying to convince others that smoking is OK and somehow normal, there is now a new level of issue… not only my sin, but my actively propagating my sin to others. Trying to implement gay marriage is doing just that, for people who practice homosexuality, it is compounding this sin with the greater sin of trying to ensnare others by making my sin appear to be “a valid alternative choice”. People who practice homosexuality do not have a corner on this market…
God pays substantial attention to sexual desire in the Bible… talking directly about sex, relating stories about those who abused sexual urges and the resulting pain (King David, the people of Sodom, etc). One can do some impressive mental gymnastics to rationalize homosexual behavior, but to do this requires Olympian gymnastic talent.
I weighed about 280 pounds a couple of years ago. I knew that my weight was an issue on a number of levels… A direct frontal assault on me about my weight would have simply made me defensive… gentle concern about my well-being was effective.
-vern-
I want to thank everyone for their good discussion here. I have some thought that I’d like to post, but the require a blog entry and not a comment and I haven’t had child-free time to write. In the meantime I leave you with these thoughts, which I’d love to hear you ruminate on. The first one is a repeat…
What happens when we look at the different type of maritial (and extra marital) relationships found in our “story” (i.e. scripture) as it moves through history? What happens when the ideal that Phyllis is talking about bumps up with the reality of time and culture? How does God respond? What do our stories illustrate about this?
What are your stories? Tell me a about a time when someone has said to you (to quote Vern) “I hate, oppose, and loath how you are living and the things your are passionate about, but I love you.” How has that worked for you? How has it worked when reality has bumped up against that theory?
And in the same vein, tell me a time when you have had a friendship with someone who was gay, practicing, and discriminated against in some manner, or hurt by some sort of bigotry. (Has anyone experienced that?) What was your reaction in that matter? What happened when you theology bumped up against your reality?
I’d like to hear some stories. Theology and theory and ethics disconnected from story are disconnected from reality. I understand the drive for a pure thought form in that, but it’s not very organic, and I’m not sure it really works.
In light of my story request, I’ll post something I wrote a long time ago and have been too afraid to post. For some reason I just don’t care any more. Then, in a few days. I’ll post something on my emerging theology of sin, and why I think some of us may be working from different operating systems when it comes to our understanding of sin and how it works.
Thanks again,
R
The friends that I’ve made who practice homosexuality have all been in excruciating emotional pain. Tommy is dealing with a lifetime of unfulfilling relationships and some serious health issues, both directly related to his homosexual behavior. When I spend time with him, it is to comfort him… He says and does provocative things while I’m with him, and while I don’t encourage this behavior, I don’t react to it either… I’ve found that his provocative behavior, what he calls his “flaming” behavior is intended to flush out any attitude in people around him that would cause him rejection… he’s had plenty of rejection his entire life. So he acts out, and anyone who cannot tolerate this behavior is immediately identified and he can protect himself from them.
Finally we can get to the issues of the heart. And we talk about his broken heart, and my broken heart, and then healing. And when we leave, he gets the same bear hug that every one of my friends gets, like it or not.
Every homosexual male I have ever met is desperate for love, and will settle for the illusion of love if that’s all that’s available. As Christians, we are charged with loving people, after the example of Jesus. One of my favorite Bible stories is Jesus and the woman at the well… His mention of her sin is almost an aside…
John 4:15
The woman said, “Sir, give me this water so I won’t ever get thirsty, won’t ever have to come back to this well again!”
4:16 He said, “Go call your husband and then come back.”
4:17 “I have no husband,” she said.
4:18 You’ve had five husbands, and the man you’re living with now isn’t even your husband. You spoke the truth there, sure enough.”
4:19 “Oh, so you’re a prophet!
Jesus just mentions it then lets it go… He doesn’t commiserate, justify, excuse, bully or demand immediate repentance… He is focused on her heart, not her deeds.
I try to follow this example.
Jesus would have had a much different conversation with her if she insisted on trying to convince Him that her lifestyle was not only OK, by somehow great enough to enshrine it in a new paradigm of marriage… hey Jesus, this lifestyle is so great, let’s call it serial monogamy, and while we’re at it, let’s make marriage big enough to include my type of relationship. I truly love each of the men I’ve been married to, heck, I have had kids with some of them… doesn’t that count for something? Can’t you bless the way that I’ve implemented marriage so that others can see that my way is valid too?
He’d have flattened her like the Sanhedrin.
Instead she listened, and her listening and believing created a wave of conversions in her village.
John 4:39 Many of the Samaritans from that village committed themselves to him because of the woman’s witness: “He knew all about the things I did. He knows me inside and out!”
When people listen to Jesus instead of trying to find a way to justify sin, progress is made.
My friend Tommy does not ever try to convince me that homosexuality is OK… his life and misery speaks for itself. But I don’t have to try to convince him that I love him either, our friendship speaks for itself.
-vern-
Vern,
You’ve hyjacked my blog man!
I’ve had nearly 30 responses from folks today and I’m just now (at 10pm) getting chance to read them carefully and check out the links. So I’m just now going to have to ask you to temper your language or continue this conversation with me via email.
One of my reasons for this request is that I want this place (my blog, my pad) to be a safe place for my gay readers (who may be lurking about) and your language isn’t doing that right now. I’m mean you’re telling people you hate and oppose their (consenting, legal, and dare I say loving?) behvior, and that you loath what they feel passionate about; you’re using dissmisive language like referring to them as “playing” house; and you’re linking to sites that are saying they are irrelevant as parents because both gender traits aren’t present in the home. (I only point these things out publically so pals will know I am not okay with this in my house.) These things are drifting too close to a kind of speech I don’t want here, and they are too damaging to folks I want to love. You’ve got a right to your opinions, but when they drift towards that much pain-giving, you’re gonna have to post them on your own site. My job here is to extend love…got to protect the ground to extend love on.
But I don’t want you to think that I’m just trying to shut down dialogue with anyone who doesn’t agree with me…not at all! In fact, here’s a couple things I find intriguing in your statements.
I think it’s interesting that I haven’t actually said one way or the other whether or not I think homosexuality is a sin, but that’s been a major part of your discussion. What if we move past naming things as “sin” and “not sin”? What if we, as Jeremy suggested, let God do that part? If we really did that, really let the Holy Spirit do her job of convicting and correcting and converting (or as I like to think of it, as wooing and inspiring someone) then *how could you start living differently amongst the subjects of the kingdom???* This is my question. Not what’s sinful and why.
I think it’s interesting that you would state that one man, one woman is the “optimal” set up for raising children. This is socially and culturally biased. Anthropological and historical studies could show you any number of societies that did quite well with other forms of childrearing. Take for instance…say..well, basically any of the patriarchs and their roaming kibbutz-like collection of kids, wives, and concubines. This sustained a society for centuries. Perhaps how we raise children is culturally, historically, and socialy influenced more than it is Biblically directed. (Not that the Bible has _nothing_ to say on the matter of childrearing…just less then we sometimes think it does.)
Working it out w/fear and tremblin’,
R
Ruth,
Thanks for your questions, which I sense are in offered with good intent.
My husband asked me this same question the other day..basically, if we condone homosexual relationships, which seem to be forbidden in scripture, then what do we stand on when we want to say that sex between an adult and a child is wrong? (or something similar.)
I think consentuality has a lot to do with it, don’t you? Also, I think the scriptural instructions regarding homosexual realationships are limited and unclear. I’m still working on this one, to be sure. But there is an uneasiness in my spirit about how we have interpreted the few scriptures that are there, and how we have applied them w/in the metanarrative of love.
I think we are confused too by the difference between sexual addiction and sexual orientation in our culture, and I’m wondering how that is shaping our hermeneutic. (And believe me, I have lots of upfront expereince with sex addicts, so this part of my theology is coming out of quite a bit of personal experience.) Anway, it’s not something I’m going to go into in detail with right now because it’s so _so_ formative in my understanding….
but one thing I do think about a lot is how we’ve used scripture to justify all sorts of things in the past that we’ve since repented of — slavery, oppressing women, refusing to allow women out of abusive relationships because of our understanding of divorce–that hangs heavily around me these days, and I’m paying attention to that weightiness.
Rachelle
Wow. You take a few days off from cyber world and you miss so much. I find it interesting that most people think that the family is God’s highest priority. One just needs to look at history even in a cursory manner to see that marriage is always a social construction. That of course is lost on most of the good liberal democrats, I use this not as the poltical party affiliation but the whole political process that arose out of the enlightenment. For the state to survive there must be strong marriages. It does not matter to the state that women are beaten and killed just that there is a male and a female. Now to the positive.
R- you go girl. Our woeful misunderstanding of our own sexuality limits us to seeing this as a truly black and white issue. Interesting enough more is said about economic sin than sexual but who is counting.
It is important to wrestle with these issues. Yet at the end of the day it is God who convicts. We must accept and be reconciled for it is in this that we bear the imago dei. If we can’t even love our friends we are not image bearers. So you keep pushing against the dying of the light. And I would storm the gates of hell with a dixie cup of water with you. I cannot claim credit for that phrase, that would be James Mills.
Hi rachelle and those who may be reading….
Thanks for your thoughts. Being a woman, I hear where you’re coming from and your uneasiness. The ‘bible’ has been used to justify a lot of really horrible things eg think Middle ages crusades.
Consentuality is an interesting perspective. I must admit though, when I read that, I thought of the case that recently happened in Germany with the cannibal murder (did you hear about that in the States - it was covered here in Australia). You see, this was apparently consentual. The victim consented to be mutilated and eaten. I have a small problem with the consentual decisions of two (probably wounded, broken people) defining morality.
I realise that this is a bigger topic than to be covered here, but I think that the scriptural instructions regarding homosexuality may seem unclear in that Jesus didn’t single out homosexuality from other sexual perversions -please don’t be offended by my use of that word. I use that word because that is what evil does - perverts something beautiful - and then tries to deceive the image bearers that it is fact good and beautiful. Homosexual behaviour has only been singled out from other illict sexual behaviour within our current culture. Perhaps we find ourselves responding to a social agenda rather than reforming it?
I also think the church has not done a very good job in the past of restoring wholeness to broken people when the brokeness is more ‘apparent’and maybe this is where the problem really lies.
I’d love to sit down and have coffee with you one day. Let me know if you are ever coming to Australia hey.
Hey Rachelle…
sorry to have hijacked you blog. I’ll talk somewhere else.
You bring up an interesting point about the cultural aspect of the one-woman one-man nuclear family… and I agree… the American view of it is distorted. MOST other cultures have extended family included, grandparents and their wisdom included. But I am speaking about responsibility, and while since Biblical times and in various cultures all kinds of permutations have existed, responsibility and direction has come from one-woman one-man… We as Americans should reconsider how extended family/church family is included in our families… sounds like that’s part of ThPM is about.
I don’t mean to offend people or hurt anyone when I state my revulsion for certain behaviour. I have behaviour that I really hate. I have to ask God for the grace to help me deal with most of the things in my life that need work. I don’t feel a need or urge to get into other people’s issues or sin… I’ve got plenty of that of my own to work on… and do I have some planks in my eye…. we could go on all day.
Just because some of the links impune decisions that some have made, the opinions of others mean nothing… unless there is an element of truth in them… in which case, people will react extremely negatively, and attack even the messenger.
I feel drawn to your blog and your conversation, but not at the cost of being devisive or negative.
I appreciate others providing alternate opinions to mine, which either strengthens and fills out my perspective, or has me change and do a 180.
If I read a site the was designed to deal with heroin addiction, but had an element or undercurrent of, “wow, isn’t heroin the shit”… I’d feel compelled to say something there as well.
Given a choice, I will always pick to talk to those that I have the least initial agreement with… not to argue, but to learn. If this has been negative for others, I’m sorry… I will stop.
-vern-
Please notice Vern, that I haven’t asked you to stop talking…just to consider the power of your language, or if you really feel you cannot use other language without dilluting your message, to email me (and others in your teaching/learning community) privately so that this space remains safer. My email is cultivator at thursdaypm dot org.
I’m sorry if you feel like I’ve “attacked them messenger.” My intent is never to attack…disagree maybe, but not attack. I’m not sure what in my language or tone was attack, but rest assure it was not intended. My only intent is to create a place that is safe.
Shalom (my motto),
Rachelle
This is your pad, and I respect it. I personnaly don’t look for safety, as I see no inherent good in safety.
If one is so unsure of one’s position that my strong words against behaviour makes one feel awkward, one should probably practice some introspection about one’s ideas.
As CS Lewis put it in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe…
“Aslan a man? Certainly not. I tell you he is the King of the wood and the son of the great Emperor-beyond-the Sea. Don’t you know who is the King of Beasts? Aslan is a lion– the Lion, the great Lion.”
“Ooh!” said Susan. “I’d thought he was a man. Is he–quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”
“That you will, dearie, and make no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver, “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”
“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.
“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver. “Don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about being safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”
Safety is a relative thing.
John Eldredge, from “Waking the Dead”
This is a world at war. Something large and immensely dangerous is unfolding all around us, we are caught up in it, and above all we doubt we have been given a key role to play. Do you think I’m being too dramatic? Consider the tale told in the book of Daniel, chapter 10.
Ephesians 6:12 This is no afternoon athletic contest that we’ll walk away from and forget about in a couple of hours. This is for keeps, a life-or-death fight to the finish against the Devil and all his angels.
I’m not looking for safety… safety is an illusion… safety kills.
-vern-
Rachelle,
Your the coolest. You rock! Keep tellin it like it is. Every time I read this little blog thing of yours, I get more and more respect for you. Thanks for opening the curtains so that we all could watch as your world unfolds before us.
Maybe some day I could be more like you, and be more vocal about the stuff that I see around me. But, until then, I’ll let your voice be mine, and you can find me standing directly behind you cheering you on.
Josh
Power to the people!
Rachelle, thanks, I feel like I can breathe easier after your blog, it is freeing and peace-giving.
Vern, your comments create a constriction in my chest. I think I’m physically reacting to the fear and hatred beneath your words.
Inspiration, meditation that causes a centredness from which we can reach out and love others must be rooted in love. If we are truly to love others, then we must see our similarities. How can you love others when the differences are all you can see?
Because Rachelle you are opening up the conversation to personal responses to your questions, I’ll share some perspectives.
Some thoughts:
Sexuality is not a garrisoned off thing. It flutters around like a butterfly in the sun, and it wanders all the more when we try to restrain ourselves. Marriage is a social construct with a grid that doesn’t always match up to sexuality. I personally don’t think God cares as much about marriage as a lot of Christians seem to think. But I’m a heretic in many people’s eyes. I think the more people take marriage seriously, the less they have opportunity to play, and the more stressed out they become about their own inability to reform to the constriction. With stress comes deviance. Humans don’t follow rules well.
Life is strange, it never seems to work out the way we expect it to– we expect because we’ve read ‘the Book’ that we know the end of the story, and all the in betweens. The “Book” seems to give us a heads up on life. We couldn’t be more wrong, in my opinion. I keep discovering that life is not as it seems, and that has freed me from the constriction that Christianity has placed on me growing up. A few years ago I discovered that my dad is gay. Now I find that I have to relate to him differently, or do I? I am both reviled and intrigued. I have been given the opportunity for a door into understanding, or a repulsion and a run in the opposite direction. Overall, it makes me laugh. Dads aren’t supposed to be gay! Gay people are ‘over there’ somewhere out of reach. Or are they? No, they are right inside of me, if I can be honest. I could be gay. It’s part of that flimsy butterfly wing, it doesn’t stay where it’s supposed to.
Now it makes me laugh but it also makes me sad when Christians try to lay down the law about sexuality. What business is it of Christians anyway? On one hand sex is hidden from view for prudence sake, but then it is brought to the courts and laid out on the table if it is someone else’s way of doing things. Reminds me of the woman who was about to be stoned in public for her sexual sins. Didn’t Jesus write the stone throwers secret sins in the sand for all to see? Let it all out in the open, let it shine.
Yeah actually, let’s do that. Who among you has never had a thought or action of kissing someone their own sex on the lips? Am I wierd for asking that? I just wonder how many times some Christians have to banish the thoughts to hell and feel hidden shame. Who among you has never thought of divorcing their spouse, or cheating on them and thoroughly enjoying it. Not that I’m trying to celebrate our ’sins’ but I am wishing people would get rid of the secret shame for things, I think, that are more common then some wish to admit. Maybe if we took away some of the shame we’d see that these things are not actually all that big and ugly and scary. Maybe they’re very human.
I think that when we unwind a bit we can actually see God create new order. When we jumble it up, then new outcomes arrive, like in scrabble. I’m throwing in ‘deciding what’s right for other people’. What’s emerging is tolerance and understanding, and humility, because, the more I get to know others, the more I realize that other people are mirrors of my own flawed humanness.
Hey Fiona…
That tightening in your chest might be your conscience!
I don’t hate anyone, I disagree about behaviour. I do hate some behaviour, but behaviour is not the person.
And yes, I do “hate the sin and love the sinner”. I hate all sin, particularly sin in my own life. Loving sin is a bad spot to be in. Ignoring or denying it is bad enough. I will not love sin, no matter how much anyone is passionate about it, no matter how confused people might get about what is sin and what is self. People are people, they are not homosexuals. They may practice homosexual behaviour, but they are not their sins, same as I am not defined by how I have sex… although one might call me a jerk, and that’d be close.
Being attracted to someone of your own sex is not in and of itself sin. Temptation is not sin. Acting on it and/or fantasizing about it is.
Most people who are married have been tempted to cheat, many have. Everyone I’ve ever met have been tempted to have pre-marital sex, and most do. There may be some shame to this, but God’s plan is to repent, accept forgiveness and go on.
Christians DON’T lay down the law about sexuality, God did. If you don’t like it, tell Him. Or just disobey Him and suffer the consequences. I won’t even say “I told you so.”, and I’ll pray for you if it gets painful… because I’ve been given the latitude over my life to spread my wings and make mistakes, and received the grace from God and the grace of wonderful Christians when I repent not to rub it in my face.
If it happens that enough people in the US are either motivated to change the definition of marriage, or not motivated enough to stop it, it will not be even a speed bump in my day… I won’t lose any sleep over it.
I’ll still continue to live my life as I believe God wants me to, and I’ll trust Him to take care of the details. And when anyone asks my opinion, I’ll tell them, other than that, I’ll just pray.
It’s not about winning.
It’s not even about me.
It’s about doing everything I can to prevent pain and to encourage people to really study what God’s plan is for their lives… and to have the courage to do it.
I will be as outspoken about what a mistake I think that homosexual marriage is as I would be about decriminalizing heroin, or about why rescinding the abortion on demand laws is a good idea. If I lose, I don’t really lose, because the negative effect of losing is only peripheral to me. It’s only money. I can teach my kids to avoid the pitfalls.
Homosexuality doesn’t cause fear in me… it causes pity and concern.
-vern-
Fiona,
Thanks for your brave and beautiful post. It was very intriguing, and I found the butterfuly metaphor to be really helpful and inspiring. I’m not sure I’m following you about taking marriage seriously, but I do think that marriage should be play-ful, and that when it’s center is love and not fear or anxiety that a certain free-ness reamains within it that makes it much more life giving. And I too think that Christians have built up a nice hedge of hagiography around marriage. It would be nice if we could be more honest about that.
It would be nice if Christians could be more honest about a lot of things.
That seems to be my main goal lately.
Let the light shine…let the light shine in.
-Rachelle
I’ve been married to my wife for almost 19 years… we’d dated for 5 years previous to being married.
Marriage has been extremely difficult for us… not everyone experiences this, but we have really struggled. The more emotionally healthy people are when they marry, the better, but add in some family of origin issues and the ignorance of youth, and you’ve a recipe for some hard times.
Quitting has never been part of the equation, not an option.
to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part.
Have you considered that the “sickness and in health” might be a kind of mental sickness that might cause your spouse to abuse you? Do you know that the marriage vows may commit you even through abuse?
The kind of love required to overcome real marital adversity has NOTHING to do with the cute romantic love of one’s 20’s… it is selfless, dangerous, risky, tenacious love… a daily decision to love, regardless of the consequences.
Marriage, I mean real marriage, not the vague self focused oatmeal that is passed off as marriage in many circles, is much harder and more demanding than most people fathom. Many quit… find a way to justify breaking solemn oaths before God and others to take an eaisier route.
I don’t think that it is absolutetly necessary for people to use the customary marriage vows. And if they can’t stomach what I’ve been talking about, consider making much more lenient vows to take before God… admit to weakness if one knows one is going to be weak.
To have and to hold, from this day forward, except for the following caveats…
and list out those things that would cause you to end the marriage. Be honest… although it might extend the alter time in the wedding and delay the kiss, the caveates might just come in handy… and everyone would know what to expect up front. No suprises.
Hope y’all recognize tongue in cheek.
Marriage is not about what’s in it for one’s self… at least it shouldn’t be.
I may be wrong, but it is my belief that most homosexual couples want marriage primarily to legitimize their lifestyle. As they don’t have such unions today, why would they pick such a flawed model? Why not come up with a new term with even HIGHER ideals, and inspire the world with their love for each other, their monogamy, their selflessness? Why snivel about not being invited to the party? Proactively attack the perception that the whole issue is about leveraging benefits out of employers… skip right on by that.
Maybe call the relationship an “intersoul”… and ascribe attributes to the concept of relationship that are best exemplified by homosexual relationships… (i.e. great decorating taste, perfect sense of style, incredible artistic flair)
Seriously, come up with something that eclipses marriage and accurately describes the unioun… once that’s established, then think about asking for special privileges and concessions… you’ll get a better reception and more respect.
Aim high… inspire us.
-vern-
Be what you is, not what you ain’t. Cause if you is what you ain’t you ain’t what you is.
Well, this constrained space won’t do to try and explicate the same-sex marriage issue in all its glorious meanderings. Let me raise a caution about legitimizing same-sex marriage by telling you a story.
I came of age in the 1960s. Yup, a pagan, draft-card-buring, civil-rights activist, espousing free-love, and taking all the drugs, sex and jazz rather than rock’n'roll I could stand and maybe even a little more. At least I had some sense. I mean about the jazz v. rock’n'roll part. I vividly remember the culture wars on the issue of no-fault divorce. The punch-line of the argument was that it was better for the kids to be raised by one parent in a peaceful setting than to live in the stress of a home where Ma & Pa were constantly fighting — not domestic violence, just bickering. So of course I was an advocate for no-fault divorce. Actually I really advocated for the abolishment of marriage, but no-fault divorce would do ’til that happened.
Fast forward 30 years. I was reading the paper one morning when a little article caught my eye. The gist was that the long-term studies of children of divorce revealed that it would have been better for the kids for parents to have stayed together.
The point of this story is not that people shouldn’t get divorced. The point is that “new” doesn’t necessarily mean improved when it comes to social theory. Do a Google and take a look at what legalizing homosexual partnerships has done in Scandanavia. All marriage is on the decline. The majority of children are no longer born to or raised by a married couple.
Has the church made a mess of marriage. Absolutely. Has the church often been unloving to homosexuals. Sadly, too often. But the answer is not to throw in the towel and say, “Well, I guess we’re sunk.” The answer is to learn some humility, repent of our hard-heartedness and foolishness and move towards what’s right. For me, that’s the acknolwedgment that God created male and female in his image, that his image is compromised when both male and female are not present whether in society, a leadership team, or marriage.
This was not a “fight” I chose. Gay activists (of which by brother-in-law was one — I say “was” because he died 12 years ago of AIDS. I both baptized him and buried him.) have chosen this fight. The only question is will the church remain silent. My own sin hopefully keeps me from throwing stones, but I cannot let it paralyze me to inaction when the stakes are very, very large. The issue is not about allowing homosexuals to marry; the issue is the redefinition of marriage.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
This is the word of God. It is together as man and woman, together that we are in the image of God. Not man with man and not woman with woman. But man and woman together. And this is what marriage is about. Being more like God and knowing more of God. Yes, we should love everyone as Jesus loved us. That is for sure. But. There is sanctity only in marriage between man and woman and in no other form.
Christians are not popular in our world not because of what they represent but how they represent it. Maybe you don’t care about not being popular in the world, but do you care about whether or not people are going to listen to what you’re saying is right? Sure you quote the Bible as though it’s the word of God– how do any non-christians know that– all they are hearing from you is that someone is haughtily and defensively telling them how they should live their lives. It’s all about control. Control the people through this dogma so they don’t have to think for themselves. Being different, thinking differently is sinful. God’s supposed formula for marriage is the man as the head of the household, the spiritual guide, and the woman as the submissive servant. What if I as a woman am not buying into that formula? I am not rejecting “god’s truth” as I am hoping and praying that there is more room in God’s world for me, as I inherently am, a woman, and a born-again feminist. I am sure that homosexuals feel almost exactly the same way. As a woman, who has felt often that I am inherently more faulty than men are (first to sin, second to creation), I think I can relate a little to what some of you so called Christians are saying that the Bible says about Homosexuality and what it is to be gay. Being gay is inherently evil, and you may say, no I’ve skewed it– that it’s the act– but there are so many subtle ways that Christians put down gay people without even realizing it. Think for a moment about what it is to be not offered a place in a home (Christian tradition being the home) because of who you are or what you do. Shouldn’t we Christians be welcoming to those who haven’t felt welcome? But we’re not, inherently we’re not– because we put this mould out– that people are supposed to fit into!!
Dissect the language you are using when you talk about these issues for a moment– look back on any letter that you may have written and replace the word “homosexual or gay” with your own name, and see if there is not anything painful about the way you are talking.
And you say you are loving? YOu say you follow a God of love?
All I am hearing time and time again from this kind of anti-gay pro-establishment dogma is formulas to follow, and formulas used to express your thoughts through– I am not hearing much original, searching thought process here. And I am not talking about everyone. I really appreciated Ed’s letter and thought it was interesting and thought provoking. And I know that a lot of you are trying. But when I hear formulaic thought patterns, the same ones I’ve grown up with in the church, I get kinda turned off and just don’t want to dialogue any more. And please resist the urge to discount me as an angry whacko, or condescendedly lavish more bible verses on me.