mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (07/08/90)
I have a tendency to get very confrontational, even angry, in disputation
on matters important to me. But despite appearances I very much dislike
theological warfare; I am fundamentally committed to *tolerance* in
doctrine, so long as the gospel is not forgotten and so long as all
disputants are interested more in the pursuit of God's truth than in
maintaining positions.
Accordingly, I'd like to step a bit outside the homosexuality debate as
such and comment on how I see the "arena" in which I find myself a very
reluctant combatant. I see the Christian community divided roughly
into four more or less distinct groups:
1. The majority would really rather not deal with this at all. They
basically "accept" communal mores and church tradition as saying
homosexuality is "sinful" without giving the matter much thought.
If brought face to face with a homosexual friend, or brother, or
daughter or son, they mostly want to know what is the loving,
Christian response. This group *is* the church; the other three
below are vying for their attention.
2. The dogmatic traditionalists "know for a fact" that homosexuality
is "against God's will" and "an abomination" and they will cite
the (meagre) proof texts and the (voluminous) hate literature of
2000 years to "prove" their point. No experience spoken by a gay
man could ever change a mind that is resting in perfect possession
of God's truth, so that anyone who speaks against their dogma MUST
be either misled, misinformed, a hypocrite, or a tool of Satan.
3. Homosexual Christian youths (and some adults, throughout entire
lives) go through hell. They start, as children, from position #1,
and they too learn all the nasty jokes (and have likely used them
in nasty, childish taunts) and all the revulsion our culture teaches
towards both acts and people so tainted. Adolescence teaches us
that *we* are this horrible thing we have been taught to loathe;
that our every impulse -- when the world is celebrating with all
the means at its disposal the sexual awakening of heterosexuals
-- is condemned by God, while what God "commands" is utterly
beyond our comprehension and performance -- and may at a trial
prove as disgusting to us as *our* impulses to "normal" people.
These youths, alienated from themselves and from a society that
devalues them and may actively persecute them, are good targets
for cults. What is sad is that some of the cults that prey on them
are "Christian" -- they take their souls and make them slaves to a
social group, all in the "name" of Christ, our Redeemer. All these
kids want is acknowledgment that they are human, and they will
gladly castrate themselves to get it. "And some make themselves
eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven" -- yet the Church
already decided in the case of Origen that one shouldn't carry that
*too* far!
4. Some of us (remarkably many, given how society conspires against us;
recall that conservatives maintain that society will disintegrate
unless stable heterosexual liasons are actively fostered) go past
the anguished days of adolescence and find that deep bonds, aided
by sexual intimacy, match every glowing description of the union in
one flesh that we read in secular and sacred literature applied to
heterosexual bonds. If this joy and unselfish union in love is not
the gift of YHWH, then perhaps we should leave the church to search
for the great god who has given us what YHWH can't?
Pardon the apparent blasphemy of that last; it is altogether *too* close
to what some conclude because of too-closely identifying party 2 with the
Church.
Obviously, people in camps #2 and #4 are somewhat biased by ideology; I
can't help but testify to what I know, and I for my part suspect that
those in #2 know only their catechisms, and not anything about reality.
I will not disguise my bias, but testimony, WITNESS, and martyrdom are
the realities that the Church (#1) has always responded to. That is
what makes saints. I offer my testimony as one of the least of these,
my brothers. I would rather point you to the incredible faith, and love,
shown by the myriads of gay couples confronting AIDS -- Christ as both
victim and priest present with almost unbearable intensity on a path
towards death as grueling as many Golgothas together. Do not despise
the testimony of my brothers. Must we *all* die, to show you our love?
--
Michael L. Siemon Hell is a different pain, for there is despair.
m.siemon@ATT.COM But of all pains that lead to salvation, this
...!att!sfsup!mls is the most pain -- to see thy beloved suffer.
standard disclaimer -- Julian of Norwichjdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) (07/10/90)
In article <Jul.7.23.59.04.1990.3922@athos.rutgers.edu>, mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: |> .... I offer my testimony as one of the least of these, |> my brothers. I would rather point you to the incredible faith, and love, |> shown by the myriads of gay couples confronting AIDS -- Christ as both |> victim and priest present with almost unbearable intensity on a path |> towards death as grueling as many Golgothas together. Do not despise |> the testimony of my brothers. Must we *all* die, to show you our love? There is little doubt in my mind that there often is great love, heroic love, sacrificial love in a homosexual relationship. This love is from God, just like the love which flourishes in other relationships. God is love, and whoever lives in love, lives in God and vice versa. God can be present in a homosexual relationship too, and every Christian should be capable of recognizing this. Nevertheless, I don't believe that God intends homosexual relations to be the proper use of our sexuality. Throughout scripture and all through the teachings of the Church, the proper domain of sexual exercise is within heterosexual marriage, and nowhere else. Any extramarital sexual activity, including homosexual activity, is a misuse of sexuality. Fortunately, God doesn't withdraw his love when we abuse some facet of his plans within our lives. He still works in us, consoling, comforting, nurturing, and bringing forth fruit, even though we have something within us which is not his. Otherwise we'd all be without him, for none of us are without sin. And the love He engenders in a homosexual relationship is still his love, even though the exercise of the sexual function within that relationship is not what he intended. To those who believe a homosexual relationship is an acceptable alternate Christian lifestyle, I must respectfully and humbly disagree. But to those who believe that God does not love homosexuals and does not work in their lives, I also must disagree. God loves homosexuals at least as much as he loves everybody else, and we are called to emulate God's love in everything. John -- John DiMarco jdd@db.toronto.edu or jdd@db.utoronto.ca University of Toronto, CSRI BITNET: jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (416) 978-8609 UUCP: {uunet!utai,decvax!utcsri}!db!jdd
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (07/13/90)
In article <Jul.10.03.54.32.1990.12229@athos.rutgers.edu>, jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes: > This love is from God, > just like the love which flourishes in other relationships. God is love, > and whoever lives in love, lives in God and vice versa. Thank you; I want, from other Christians, little or nothing more than this recognition, which John has phrased very well. I do not claim perfection in Christ, and indeed am altogether too aware of my failings in the love of God. Too aware of my failings, in that the awareness itself can get in the way of my responding to God's mercy. I think we all know the difficulties of examining ourselves for sin -- that we can at the same time fail in our most conscious attempts to do the good, while forgetting how constantly God's grace sustains us in all we do. And if it is hard to examine myself on this, it is harder -- to the point of impossibility -- to examine another with justice. > Nevertheless, I don't believe that God intends homosexual relations to > be the proper use of our sexuality. Well, that *is* the problem, of course. To "use" sexuality "properly" we would have to understand it -- to know its "functions" sufficiently well for our human purposes, and such of God's purposes as we can hope to know. I'm not especially happy with talk of "use" or "functions" in this case, as it seems to depersonalize what is very deeply personal. But yes, we *do* know in part, looking in our dark intellectual mirror. Where our doctrinal theorizing seems to me to go astray is in thinking that this partial knowledge can substitute for what we will know *then* when all human partialities pass away. Certainly, reproduction of our species is *one* function of sexuality, and one that God blesses in us, as in all of life. But to see that as the unique function, the only blessing, of sexuality is an error, one that the Church at least once upon a time adopted, under the influence of Stoic ethics as far as I can tell. Most of us, now, even in Rome, recognize at least the further function of sexual bonding -- as an aid for sustaining that relationship of "helpmate" which is by no means the "normal" pattern of sexual reproduction among other species (but also not utterly unique to human beings, at least not unless we introduce all the other trappings of human culture along with this). > Throughout scripture and all through the > teachings of the Church, the proper domain of sexual exercise is within > heterosexual marriage, and nowhere else. Possibly scripture dwells on heterosexual marriage, and all the abuses to which people constantly subject it, because you heterosexuals are such a stiff-necked sort of people? :-) The feeling I get from most "traditionalist" discussions is one of "everything not compulsory is forbidden." But I think God's creation is much richer than such an attitude allows for. What about Leviathan that God made for the sport of it? People want to read the *absence* of clear scriptural examples of homosexual love as "proof" that God forbids it. The logic of that escapes me. Draw the conclusions you are most comfortable with, but at least realize *what* you have bought to scripture to be able to draw your conclusions. > To those who believe a homosexual relationship is an acceptable alternate > Christian lifestyle, I must respectfully and humbly disagree. Respectful and humble disagreement I can live with :-) What is more, John's statement manages that, without compromising his beliefs -- at least that's how *I* hear it. Too often I hear (maybe I'm oversensitive, maybe the writers insufficiently sensitive) neither respect nor humility; that almost always derails the discussion into mutual acrimony -- and I bear my share of guilt on that. Anger breeds anger, and patience has never been one of my strong suits. One of the best ways to call me back from angry confrontation is a clear restatement of the gospel as I know it, something like John's which I'd like to cite in closing as well as at the start: > God is love, and whoever lives in love, lives in God and vice versa. -- Michael L. Siemon Inflict Thy promises with each m.siemon@ATT.COM Occasion of distress, ...!att!sfsup!mls That from our incoherence we standard disclaimer May learn to put our trust in Thee