1. What I know of
Jesus.
Society is obsessed with sex, the church is obsessed with
sex, human beings are obsessed with sex. Jesus, was not obsessed with
sex. In fact, sex wasn’t really a topic Jesus is recorded as talking about. The
closest Jesus got to giving us guidance on relationships was in urging people
not to divorce. This tells us that Jesus is big on commitment, monogamy, and
love, suggesting these are the keys to a healthy relationship rather than
gender.
Jesus told us to love others, to give to the needy, to
forgive, not to worry, to not judge others, to seek him, to give freely, to
recognise that we are
valuable, to acknowledge him, to love God, to lead others to
him, and to trust in him. Yet I’ve never known someone to get kicked out of a
church for being stingy with their money, for worrying, for having low
self-esteem. So why does the church decide that being gay is a greater evil
than the sins that actively disobey Jesus’ teachings?
I always like to think about if Jesus were here today, right
here amongst us, and living in our culture and our times. Do you think Jesus
would be a vicar who exiles members of his church upon hearing they are gay? Do
you think Jesus would be a leader of a Christian organisation who keeps a blog
in which he constantly speaks out against all gay people? Do you think Jesus
would be a Bishop who expresses fear and disgust at the idea of homosexuality?
Do you think Jesus would start a campaign rallying people to deny gay people
equal rights? Do you think Jesus would marginalise, discriminate, or even hate?
Do you think Jesus would judge a person based on their sexuality rather than
who they really are inside? Do you think Jesus would perpetuate division in the
church over the issue? Do you think Jesus would hold up a sign saying “I hate
fags”?
Do you think, that if you could answer yes to any of those
questions, that you would even want to follow that Jesus?
The Jesus I know is about goodness- love, acceptance,
forgiveness. He isn’t about casting blind, blanket judgement.
2. What I know of
God.
God created me. He planned what I would be like, and he put
this plan into action when my DNA first existed on this earth. He knew the
twists and turns my life would take, and he knew that one day, when I was 18
years old, I would meet someone special. Someone who complemented my
personality perfectly, someone whose DNA fitted together with mine in a very
beautiful way, someone whose face made my God given body parts flutter and
dance, someone I could share a love for him with, someone who brought me
happiness, someone who made my soul sit up and wonder what had just hit it.
Someone who he had formed before birth, who he had planned a life for, who he
loves very, very much.
God is good, a fundamental Christian truth. Would it be good
to create two amazingly compatible people, who were bound to fall in love
because of the way they were created, because of the life they’d had, to watch
their independent lives as they edged closer and closer to the moment their
worlds collided, to watch the joy they brought each other, only to say “nah,
not allowed”?
Would it make any sense at all for God to create gay people,
or allow them to be gay, knowing that they are severely disadvantaged in terms
of their eligibility for Christianity? It would be like a mother only allowing
her children to be part of the family if they are born blonde. The child can
either live their life dying their hair blonde, covering up who they really
are, or they can face inevitable exclusion. Church leaders require celibacy
from gay people, yet this would be like the mother making the child shave their
head- its ok to have the genes of a brunette, but you cannot practise being
brunette, you cannot outwardly be brunette, you cannot enjoy your brown hair,
and you will surely never be loved because of it. Oh, and don’t forget the
blonde sibling, they’ll shun the brunette too, telling them that they must
shave their head, that mum won’t want them otherwise. But isn’t that incredibly
easy for the blonde to say? How would the blonde child feel if they were the
one who would never feel good enough, would never be good enough?
Does God love
us unconditionally? Does he love us regardless of our sexuality? Would he want
us living as people we are not inside? Would it be fair of him to create us
all, heterosexual and homosexual, knowing that only the former are allowed to
enjoy sexual, close relationships? Would God really expect homosexual people to deny, ignore and resist and
entire part of who they really are?
The God I know loves us unconditionally, and is fair, and
wants the best for us. Can this still be true for a God who does not accept his
gay children? If God were a God who rejected the love of a person (towards him)
because of their love for a person of the same sex (who he created to be
compatible), then is this a God you would want to follow?
3. What I know of
the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit (among other things): anoints for service,
assures, calls and commissions, convicts us of sin, guides us in truth, helps
us in our weakness, lives in us, leads us, moulds our character, and teaches
us.
So I’m a Christian, the Holy Spirit therefore lives in me
and does all of the above tasks. So why do other Christians try and take over
the role of the Holy Spirit in my life? Why does my (former) vicar think that his
conviction of my sins, his anointing, his truth, his guidance, is greater than
that of the Holy Spirit’s in my life?
I have certainly struggled over whether I am right to pursue
same-sex relationships. I have looked to Jesus and found he said little about
it, but that his emphasis on love does not condemn me. I have looked to God and
figured he loves me unconditionally. But to be absolutely sure, I feel like I
need to listen to the Holy Spirit, to let him guide me. I let the Holy Spirit
convict me, any Christian knows that feeling of conviction, it isn’t quite like
guilt, it’s not necessarily a sudden remorse, it isn’t even always a desire to
repent. It’s just that feeling deep within that lets you know you’re barking up
the wrong tree, that what you’re doing isn’t what God wants you to be doing.
But in regards to my sexuality, I am not yet convicted. I am passionate about
seeing equality in this area, I am alive with thoughts and arguments (more than
I have ever had about any topic), I am (humbly!) proud to be who God made me to
be, I feel like my purpose is to be an agent of change on this issue.
Either, the HS isn’t doing his job very well, which is a
ludicrous claim as God does everything perfectly, or I am simply defying the
HS, which wouldn’t make sense for me to do- why would I change my ways based on
what the Spirit was telling me in all areas except one. Or maybe I’m not really
a Christian and so the HS isn’t really in me, in which case why am I ever
convicted about anything? Or maybe it’s the devil who is enticing me to false
security, making me think it’s ok when it isn’t… but if that’s the case then I
don’t see how I’m not powerless to that in which case I don’t see how it’s my
fault.
Long story short, the Holy Spirit lets me know when I am
doing things wrong, and someone else telling me I’m wrong isn’t going to make
any difference unless I hear it first from God himself.
4. What I know of
the Church.
The church is made up of people, people get things wrong,
ergo the church can get things wrong.
Let’s imagine the church is right, and it really is sinful
to be in a same-sex relationship. Does that mean the church is right to
marginalise gay people? That it is right for them to put homosexuality on top
of the hierarchy of sin (that they have created)? There is no denying the
church has gone the wrong way about it all, even if they are right.
The hypocrisy of church is a theme that runs through this
entire blog, because the church is repeatedly undermining its own authority on
the issue. Divorce, sex before marriage, financial sins, pride, unforgiveness
etc etc… the congregation arrives each Sunday rife with sins that they don’t
intend to repent from. Some feign repentance and some hide the sin altogether,
and quite often the church turns a blind eye. They take the mentality of ‘if we
can’t see it then it isn’t happening’, and how many people do you think remain
active members of the church, leaders even, under this pretence?
Then someone like me comes along, I don’t start serving
until I know the church would be comfortable with it, I don’t hide my ‘sin’ or
my intention to ‘sin’, I don’t make excuses. I tell them outright that I am in
a same-sex relationship. And it’s game over, my only lifeline is to repent from
something that I do not believe is a sin. I am penalised for being honest, I am
outside the church while all those with covert affairs, numerous marriages,
ill-gotten gains, a disinterest in the needy, hatred in their hearts, are on
the inside. None of us are without sin, yet my ‘sin’ is not allowed to co-exist
alongside the sin of other church goers.
If the church treated me in the same way that it treats
straight people, then I might actually listen to what it has to say. All I can
see is one set of rules for one group, and another for us.
Another issue I take with the church, is it’s equation of
homosexuality with sex. The bible seems to say a lot more about sexual
immorality in general than homosexuality and for that reason, I personally
believe abstaining until marriage/civil partnership is the best way. That means that, unlike a lot of
Christians (a LOT more than the church is willing to recognise) I am not being
sexually immoral, yet I am treated as if I am. When I was kicked out of my church
they said to me “we’re kicking out the straight couple who are having
premarital sex too”, as if that assures me of their equality. But I just felt
frustrated, that I am trying to be as holy and godly as possible, considering
the fact my sexual attraction to the same-sex will never be seen as holy or
godly, and yet I am placed in the ‘sexual sin bin’.
Being gay only leads to sexual sin because it is impossible
for us to confine sex for marriage- because the church withholds marriage from
us! If we could get married, then we could keep sex sacred (from the viewpoint of the church) and be treated in
the same way as our heterosexual brothers and sisters, without having a ‘sexual
sin stamp’ placed on our forehead.
The only way homosexual people can meet the standards of the
church is to never have sex, whether in a civil partnership or not. This is
unfair, shows no compassion, is very easy for a married heterosexual with a
life of abundant sex to say, and doesn’t allow a gay person to express who they
truly are. Not to mention we have to somehow never lust, somehow quench any
sexual attraction that naturally comes with love, somehow cease to be sexual
beings altogether. It is completely repressive, and makes me imagine the church
as some sort of slave driver, who enjoys a lavish lifestyle while laughing at
the slaves who will never get a taste of it.
So the church needs to stop criminalising homosexuality, to
stop making it into a bigger sin than any other, to stop assuming being
homosexuality invalidates you as a serving member of the church, to stop
placing unrealistic expectations on gay people, to stop repressing them,
marginalising them and treating them differently. And to stop assuming that
being in love with someone of the same sex means that we are all automatically
sinners.
5. What I know of
the bible
This is the crux of the matter. Those few words printed in
that book are the beginning of all of this. If just a few words in the bible
had been omitted, or translated differently then (technically) there would be
no argument whatsoever to assume homosexuality is wrong, as a Christian.
Firstly, we are going to have to assume the bible is
infallible. That means there is no chance it has been interpreted wrongly,
there is no way that they views express the writers’ rather than God’s, that
every word written has been preserved with its original meaning intact.
I’ll let us assume that, because it’s a widely held view by
Christians that the bible is infallible. But then we’ve got more issues, the
issue of context mainly. Can a Christian categorically, definitely, doubtlessly
argue that the few verses which mention homosexuality are a) relevant to our
culture, b) semantically interpreted in a way that reflects the context of the
time it was written, and c) are read with regard to the immediate context of
the surrounding verses.
I won’t go into the verses here, because I have before and
because there are many websites explaining it better than I can.
But what I know of the bible, is that it has a whole lot
more about a whole many more issues. Homosexuality is a tiny issue embedded
between teachings about hundreds of things. It is a secondary issue, with
doctrinal teaching requiring our main attention. Where it is briefly mentioned,
there is ambiguity around translation, context, intent, applicability etc.
I follow as much of the bible as I can, and the bits I don’t
manage I repent of. But I don’t see how, or why, I should follow a few
questionable verses which defy my very nature and innate being. I go back to my
earlier analogy- imagine there was a verse that said “brown hair is unnatural
and detestable,” firstly, you would think it unfair that you were penalised for
the way you were made, you’d be frustrated that you had to spend your life
covering up or denying the way you were made. You would find it almost
impossible to imagine how God could say such a thing, or how other Christians
could so easily pass judgement on you.
Now imagine, that the verses saying your hair is a sinful
colour, might not be so true. Imagine it was translated wrongly, it might not
mean ‘hair’ as such but might actually mean ‘wig’ and it’s been saying all
along that brown wigs are sinful. But if it did mean hair, then it turns out,
that at the time brown hair had entirely different connotations, meaning it meant
a lot more back then than simply hair colour, that brown hair was used in an
evil way which it isn’t used anymore. Imagine there was a small chance the
verse was only there because the writer didn’t like brown- haired people.
All the blonde people don’t bother to look into whether the
verse meant wig, or whether the verses apply in the current context. They don’t
need to- they are blonde, if the bible says being brunette is sinful then it
is. They’ll point out to all the brunettes who haven’t shaved their heads, or
dyed their hair, that they don’t belong, that they can’t be members of the
church, that they don’t deserve the same rights as blonde people. All the
while, the brunettes will easily say that the verses are out of context,
translated wrongly, that condemnation based on the way they are born does not
tie in with the overall message of the bible, that even if it is completely
wrong then that doesn’t give the church the right to treat them badly.
___________
And so, those are five reasons that the church's anti-gay stance infuriates me. If homosexuality is sinful after all then there is still no justification for the way gay people are treated by the church and by other Christians. The God I know puts love over condemnation, grace over law, and understanding over judgement. And that is the God I choose to follow.