The second sexuality sermon (on homosexuality) has now been delivered. A manuscript is available at the BWCOB website: http://bwcob.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/09Oct25ResponsetoHomosexuality.pdf
Several comments have already been offered under the previous post on sexuality, so do check in there to get caught up on the conversation. I will be responding to the comments offered there, but I am hoping that the continuing conversation related to how we as a church respond to homosexually oriented persons shifts to this post.
I am very interested to hear how people are responding and what continuing reflections and reactions are being generated. Hopefully we shall have some good, honest conversation...
To get the conversation going here, I am going to respond to an anonymous critique posted under the comments of the "sexuality" post from a few days ago. (You can check out those comments by browsing the archive).
ReplyDelete1. A comparison was made to alcohol and cigarettes, etc and I am assuming the implication is that we encourage change in alcoholics and discourage children being exposed to ads which could influence them to try cigarette smoking, so why not the same for those with a homosexual orientation? Why should we encourage homosexually oriented persons not to change, nor be concerned that their acceptance would influence our children toward homosexuality? My response is that while research and experience have shown that rehabilitation programs such as AA have resonably good success rates in bringing real change for alcoholics, and that cigarette ads do in fact influence young persons to take up a smoking habit that has been shown to be highly destructive to one's health, research and experience has shown that for homosexually oriented persons, the "success rate" of conversion programs is not significant and often leads to repression rather than conversion, and that there has been absolutely no evidence found that would indicate that children who are "exposed" to open and affirmed homosexual persons in relationships have any greater likihood of being homosexually oriented themselves than any others. This includes children raised by gay or lesbian parents. So in my opinion, the comparison does not hold up.
2. Re: the comment that we can justify anything we want, and the implication that my sermon bent the scripture to fit my bias. I agree that we do have a tendency to find what we are looking for in scripture, and that we need to guard against reading our own interests into the text. However, I do believe that we need to approach the scripture with a variety of interpretive tools, and a willingness to examine our sacred texts in the light of contemporary understandings of science, biblical scholarship, etc. For me, this is the only way to take the scriptures seriously. And one of the best safeguards we have against simply reading whatever we want to read into the scriptures is the ability and practice of approaching and studying them together in the context of community. Which is why this conversation is so important. I do not want my word to be the last...
3. Re: the comment about soldiers being made to feel like sinners in the church, I would say only two things: 1) That everyone should of course be welcome in the church, and that ill treatment and lack of hospitality toward soldiers and veterans would be in my mind every bit as problematic as the same for homosexual persons. 2) If we are going to make the comparison, I might argue that the scriptural evidence grounding a pacifist position is stronger than that grounding the case against homosexuality. That does not, however, excuse a lack of hospitality toward soldiers, veterans, etc.
Chris, I want to thank you for starting the forum. Hopefully many people will take advantage so that they can be part of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you for the most part about the comparison between homosexuality and soldiers. We should absolutely welcome all. I have a number of friends who are heading off for the military and, while I don't support that decision, I very much support them. It should also not be a surprise to those who attend a church where there is teaching that war is wrong, that there will be individuals that cannot condone many acts carried out by soldiers. But they can show love and friendship.
How is this example of the soldier in church different from homosexuality? Someone in a previous post stated that he/she believes that homosexuality is a choice. I have grown up with a number of gay people in my family, and community. Learning from them, I have little doubt that many people are born with their sexual orientation. Morally, I have a difficult time treating an inborn trait in the same way as an action that is freely chosen.
Yes Tim, I think we would agree in most if not all respects. However, I do want to push a little and ask how exactly we would treat those with an inborn trait differently than those who make choices with which we would not agree. Because though I am thoughly convinced that sexual orientation is not chosen, many others are thoughoughly convinced that it is. Which would put the issue of sexual orientation (assuming practice) and military service on equal footing in terms of the church's response. I do believe these issues are connected, and quite often the logical patterns are switched between those on opposite ends of the liberal/conservative spectrum (i.e. - conservatives hold service to country as obligatory/given and orientation as chosen, and liberals vice versa). While I understand the differnce you suggest, I believe that seeing this paticular issue from the "other's" point of view will help us to realize in both cases how we must relate to one another with differences in conviction.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI was referred to your sermon today, and after reading it and dancing around the room I wanted to express my appreciation. Thank you for so eloquently expressing a compelling argument for the acceptance of varying sexual orientations within the church. It is heartbreaking that so many gay individuals are unable to reconcile their love of God and commitment to the church with their innate orientations. The points you brought up are not only useful when speaking with those who have a different stance on homosexuality, but also with people who have become disillusioned with Christianity as an organized religion. It will help many who are questioning their faith to know that there are those within established Denominations working to provoke thought and change.
ReplyDeleteThanks again--Sara Huffman
Thanks Sara. Glad you made the connection. Your mentioning of those questioning their faith and disillusioned with Christianity reminded me of Dan Kimball's book "They Like Jesus But Not the Church". One of the six consistent critques he heard from those outside the church was that the church is homophobic. Count my voice among those working to change that perception.
ReplyDeleteI realize that a comment that is not in agreement with your statement will probably never be allowed to remain, no matter how much weight it carries and sense it makes. I will however, attempt to post a comment.
ReplyDeleteAccording to your take on the Scriptures in Leviticus, "This sense is supported within the text by the listing of other “abominable” sexual sins such as adultery, incest, and bestiality, with the death penalty prescribed for all." Does this mean that the remaining sexual sins are also acceptable in the eyes of God?
I have to wonder if you are using the pulpit to fit your views into a Scriptural base? We as pastors have an responsibility to His sheep to teach them what He has inspired to be written.
Based on what I read, you did indeed go into this message with a personal agenda.
While I agree that we as Christians are to love and accept EVERYONE who comes to Him, and His house, to hear His Word, that does not mean we are to "tickle the ears."
We have an obligation to teach without making His Word match how we feel and believe.
BTW. I commented as anonymous because I do not have a google.......
I know that in terms of date, this discussion has petered out, but I would like to comment on the last post (because I rarely can keep my views to myself).
ReplyDeletePreviously posted:
"According to your take on the Scriptures in Leviticus, 'This sense is supported within the text by the listing of other “abominable” sexual sins such as adultery, incest, and bestiality, with the death penalty prescribed for all.' Does this mean that the remaining sexual sins are also acceptable in the eyes of God?
I have to wonder if you are using the pulpit to fit your views into a Scriptural base? We as pastors have an responsibility to His sheep to teach them what He has inspired to be written."
My comment:
You say that this is fitting previously held views to a Scriptural base. This may be somewhat true, but all Christians use their judgement in terms of trying to understand how to live out biblical teachings. Leviticus (and other books of old Testament Law) have many rules that most Christians do not follow. We ignore the rules clean and unclean foods, on mildew and mixed fiber cloth. Why is it that this rule re: homosexuality is not to be questioned? I may be because it fits into our own personal views (as Anonymous charged Chris).
This argument does not inform us how we should view the Leviticus text on homosexuality, but instead shows that we all look at our spiritual text from our own experience and knowledge. We cannot treat one verse as something we should not think critically about, while we find reason to disagre/not follow others.