Letter to Cindy Davidson
A letter to The Daily Star in Oneonta, NY brings up the issue of homosexuality and being Christian. (I will disregard the poor theology in the letter, where she says, "I have the right to a God of my understanding." This, of course, is true in the USA. However, it is not true outside that context in the world of God's creating. There you only have the right to the universal creator God as he has revealed himself in Jesus. All other gods bring no right.) If I could write a letter to this seemingly earnest lady, I would write something like this.
Dear Cindy,
First, let me say that human sexuality is a significant part of being human. Scripture's first declaration of human sexuality is that humans were created male and female--an intimate connection and bond. Moreover, humans--male and female--are created in the image of God. Something about the male-female creation that is humanity reflects God. This means that there are healthy ways for males to be attracted to males and females to be attracted to females. Of course, there are unhealthy attractions, as well--male to female, male to male, female to female, female to male. This is a broken world and this sexual brokenness is exploited and glorified by media and culture. This makes it an even more important issue for church today.
Second, I want to clarify true Evangelical thought. Being gay is not a sin. Same sex attraction is not a sin. Homosexual acts are a sin. There is an important difference to be made there. Many people will ask why it is a sin when it doesn't seem to hurt anybody. Why should people not be able to act on their feelings? It's because creation is for God's glory, meant to reflect him. In the male-female make up of humanity, there is the context for pro-creation. This is meant to reflect God, as well, in whom the Spirit is eternally generated in love the love the Father and the Son both have for each other. In homosexual behavior, there is no context for procreation. In the end, it is the desire of humans to remake themselves in the image of something other than the Triune God. It's also important to note that heterosexual activity is not always reflective of God's image, either, and in those cases it's the same sin of people wanting to remake themselves in the image of someone other than the Triune God.
With this in mind, I believe the church's call to preach against the sin of homosexual and heterosexual behavior must always be good news. This good news is multifaceted. First, there is the good news that God has entered this broken world, the Word of God made flesh--Jesus. Jesus was a full blooded human being with sexual desires. (He remains a human being now, of course, but I won't go into my opinions on the role sexuality plays in our new heaven and earth.) Jesus knows what it's like to be sexually attracted to someone. And yet he went unmarried--unsatisfied sexually. Jesus knows the restraint the law places on people outside the context of marriage, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. Second, there is good news that Jesus is the image of God and we are being remade in his image. This means that we receive the fruit of his Spirit, part of which is self-control. This means that though sexual attraction outside marriage will occur--for both male and female, hetero- and homosexual--that we can live as Jesus lived. Third, there is good news that Jesus has created a community that is commanded and created to love perfectly, to walk through this sexual brokenness with all who come to them. That the church has failed is a given; it will never perfectly succeed. All you can hope to find are some who will better exhibit the life of Jesus.
Does Father by his Spirit transform some people who are gay so that they have heterosexual attractions? Yes. Does Father through his Son call some heterosexuals to live lives of singleness? Yes. Does Father leave some people who love him deeply with same sex attraction? Yes. Does he expect them to live as his Son in his singleness? Yes. Can they do this? Only by Father's Spirit.
Dear Cindy,
First, let me say that human sexuality is a significant part of being human. Scripture's first declaration of human sexuality is that humans were created male and female--an intimate connection and bond. Moreover, humans--male and female--are created in the image of God. Something about the male-female creation that is humanity reflects God. This means that there are healthy ways for males to be attracted to males and females to be attracted to females. Of course, there are unhealthy attractions, as well--male to female, male to male, female to female, female to male. This is a broken world and this sexual brokenness is exploited and glorified by media and culture. This makes it an even more important issue for church today.
Second, I want to clarify true Evangelical thought. Being gay is not a sin. Same sex attraction is not a sin. Homosexual acts are a sin. There is an important difference to be made there. Many people will ask why it is a sin when it doesn't seem to hurt anybody. Why should people not be able to act on their feelings? It's because creation is for God's glory, meant to reflect him. In the male-female make up of humanity, there is the context for pro-creation. This is meant to reflect God, as well, in whom the Spirit is eternally generated in love the love the Father and the Son both have for each other. In homosexual behavior, there is no context for procreation. In the end, it is the desire of humans to remake themselves in the image of something other than the Triune God. It's also important to note that heterosexual activity is not always reflective of God's image, either, and in those cases it's the same sin of people wanting to remake themselves in the image of someone other than the Triune God.
With this in mind, I believe the church's call to preach against the sin of homosexual and heterosexual behavior must always be good news. This good news is multifaceted. First, there is the good news that God has entered this broken world, the Word of God made flesh--Jesus. Jesus was a full blooded human being with sexual desires. (He remains a human being now, of course, but I won't go into my opinions on the role sexuality plays in our new heaven and earth.) Jesus knows what it's like to be sexually attracted to someone. And yet he went unmarried--unsatisfied sexually. Jesus knows the restraint the law places on people outside the context of marriage, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. Second, there is good news that Jesus is the image of God and we are being remade in his image. This means that we receive the fruit of his Spirit, part of which is self-control. This means that though sexual attraction outside marriage will occur--for both male and female, hetero- and homosexual--that we can live as Jesus lived. Third, there is good news that Jesus has created a community that is commanded and created to love perfectly, to walk through this sexual brokenness with all who come to them. That the church has failed is a given; it will never perfectly succeed. All you can hope to find are some who will better exhibit the life of Jesus.
Does Father by his Spirit transform some people who are gay so that they have heterosexual attractions? Yes. Does Father through his Son call some heterosexuals to live lives of singleness? Yes. Does Father leave some people who love him deeply with same sex attraction? Yes. Does he expect them to live as his Son in his singleness? Yes. Can they do this? Only by Father's Spirit.
posted by Aaron Perry at
3:21 PM
3 Comments:
good post AP :)
You realize, Father Aaron, that in making this argument, you have also just undone (brilliantly, I might add) every Christian argument for contraception? JP II couldn't have done it better. Pro-creation! Exactly.
"Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate. Let the heathen spill theirs on the dusty ground. God will make them pay for each sperm that can't be found."
Any excuse to quote Monty Python, of course, is a good one.
I posted something very similar on my church blog (fixing a few of the typos) and in so doing put in an argument regarding sexual activity in marriage where there is no possibility (or expectation) of pro-creation. This would include sex among those too old to have children, those unable to have children, and those making use of contraception. (I realize these are not all parallel situations and would want to nuance the argument, as a result.) Marriage--whether or not children are the plan or possibility of a sexual act--remains the context for procreation and should never be considered otherwise. This, of course, includes adopting, mentoring, caring, teaching, training, fostering children. Because humans are sexual beings, sexual expression within marriage still has benefit to humans developing that context. Marriage is the boundary for sex and sex is often critical to healthy marriage. They are mutually affirming. As such, men and women can be training to be better parents before planning children without it denying that marriage is the context of procreation. It does mean that people should not marry if they are not intending to procreate--either by birth or adoption or fostering.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home