Prop 8 Protestor in California
As I gather my thoughts about what we as the church should be about regarding the area of LGBT ministry, let’s explore more of what we shouldn’t be about.
Vicki previously commented:
I have a friend who’s husband was homosexual … She went to counseling with him for a while … He had felt the tension from church people that could not understand his struggle. That was her biggest complaint against the church; people couldn’t see it as a normal struggle, they want to make him out to be a criminal or freak.
One of the common phrases heard when discussing homosexuality in the Church is, “It’s not natural.” But that makes me ask, what is natural in a fallen broken world? Is being albino natural? Is being allergic to something natural? Are phobias natural? Are hermaphrodites natural? They are all very real and all occur naturally.
The problem with making the statement that “homosexuality is unnatural” is that it’s more of a personal attack and not much of a convincing argument. A homosexual person’s urges and desires are just as real as a heterosexual person’s urges and desires. To call them unnatural communicates that what they are feeling and experiencing is illegitimate and is easily discounted as lesser.
Being a musician, I know I can get rather defensive when someone throws out the blanket statement, “Rock and roll is not music.” No one is ever going to win me over with such an approach when I happen to like rock and roll and appreciate it as music. That person’s statement makes no sense to me because I know it as music.
From a personal perspective, homosexuals know their urges and desires come quite naturally. From a biological perspective, they know of examples of homosexuality occurring in the animal kingdom. So while homosexuality is uncommon, that doesn’t make it unnatural by definition. By offering such a statement to a homosexual, you are not only insulting them personally, but the statement doesn’t correspond with their reality so it’s understandably judged as false.
The most tragic part is that Jesus’ name and Scripture are usually associated in such a discussion so the Christian world-view is guilty by association and deemed equally false as well.
February 4, 2009 at 11:22 pm
I would disagree that urges found within a fallen human being are natural and therefore are somehow beyond the argument of being “unnatural”.
Ok that sentence did not type as well as it sounded in my head. Let me go about this the other way. We have reproductive organs. They do have ONE primary function i.e. to procreate. The homo-sapien has two distinct sexes, male and female. It requires one of each to procreate. This is the natural function of the species.
Same sex physical relationships fall outside the natural order and are therefore unnatural. That is a statement of fact, not a judgment of morality.
February 5, 2009 at 8:00 am
What do sexual urges have to do with anatomy? That’s like saying that the desire to kiss someone is unnatural because our mouths have ONE primary function … ingestion. If people use their mouths to kiss then they will starve so kissing is against the natural order.
February 5, 2009 at 11:25 am
I think the situation is far more dire than you assert. Since we are all fallen enemies of God; who seek for themselves first and foremost, the most natural thing in the world would be to use anyone you can for your own pleasure. Therefore i assert homosexuality is not only natural, but is normative. When someone says “I was born this way.” I would have to agree. But, in committing the sin you were born to commit, you are pointing to the rebellion against God.
Sexuality was created for both procreation and and for pleasure, but it is also dangerous. It is much more than sweaty bodies slapping together; otherwise victims of rape and molestation would be fine when the bruises heal. Twenty years ago, homosexuals had a life expectancy of about 20 years less than heterosexuals. Now since the powerful AIDS/HIV drugs the life expectancy is closer to 2 years less. It is still a dangerous lifestyle.
February 5, 2009 at 5:44 pm
@James, Allow me to clarify…
The fact that procreation requires two distinct sexes doesn’t speak to whether homosexuality is outside the natural order or not.
Sexuality is larger than just anatomy or procreation. Notice how easy it is to switch between discussing the desire and physical acts themselves as if they were the same. Your conclusion is that a sexual desire is outside the natural order because the physical manifestation can’t procreate. Care to apply that across the board?
Ever had the desire to engage in sexual activity that had no potential for procreation? Or what of people with the desire to not have children? Outside the natural order and therefore unnatural?
Which gets to my point, the “it’s not natural” argument is too vague as well as insulting. Consider that you’ve just told someone that based on what comes naturally to them, they are a criminal regarding the natural law of the universe — which by definition is a secular moral judgment.
February 5, 2009 at 6:56 pm
O’Ryan, sorry for not approving your comment earlier. For some reason the spam filter keeps kickin’ in.
Haven’t gotten to the Christian world view yet but thx for the preview.
February 5, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I get the spirit and intentions of your comments, Dave. It is a good thing to break down barriers among people.
I think that the “natural” and ‘unnatural” comments are driven by the verses found in Romans 1:26 and 27. Nearly all translations use the terms natural for heterosexual sexual relations and unnatural for same sex sexual relationships. It is hard to be critical of Christians who are using biblical terminology.
Perhaps we ought to focus our comments on the actions whle loving the actors. God loves the whole world. Joshua 5:13-20 provides a stunning demonstration of God’s love for everyone. John 3:16 provides a clear statement to this effect. Where Christians go wrong so often is in condeming the people involved rather than allowing Christ’s love to flow through them to people engaged in this lifestyle.
February 5, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Yikes! A quote from me! Scary!
The best method is Scriptural usage not our opinion. Great Question…What is natural in a fallen world? It seems natural for us to take God’s name in vain, lie, covet, dishonor our parents…all these things heterosexuals struggle with. until we read God’s word or our parents disciplined us for doing it. And even then we still struggle..
These are urges we have to suppress when living in a fallen world. I think ultimately the challenge comes down to, “Do you love God more than your urge?” Is He worthy of seeking to avoid that temptation? Heterosexuals feel that same tension. But ultimately, one must trust that God has a better plan, that is for their well being and His glory. He can and will provide a way out to stand up under it, if you are looking for one. I guess the key word I’m referring to that all sinners need….Faith.
Another note.. in Romans one it talks about why those unnatural urges of exchanging one relation for another happened…Man suppressed the truth of God for a lie. I would dare to say eyes are opened when first one receives and trusts in the truth of God..starting with His commands.
February 6, 2009 at 12:23 am
Thx for the Romans 1 references Bill and Vicki. While I agree completely, I think what goes wrong with the “it’s not natural” argument is that it is typically offered as a secular argument against homosexuality (something I don’t think exists). It is intended as a comment on solely the action, but ends up coming across as a personal attack. (Similarly to when parents start “factually” discussing different schooling options.)
Thx to everyone for helping me think through all this.
February 6, 2009 at 6:29 am
I think you’re on to something, guiroo… “it’s not natural” has no teeth if there’s no reason to suppose that “natural” == “ethically binding.”
From a purely secular point of view, there can be no ethics. It takes an ultimate standard of right and wrong to provide a foundation for ethical claims. Because the secularist rejects ultimate standards, well, “let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow, we die” (cf. Ecc. 8:15).
I guess the next move is to ask whether that’s too high of a price to pay. If you buy into the whole “no objective moral values” thing, you’re buying into all the crazy examples of things that you have to accept (e.g., you can’t say that gay-bashing is wrong, you can’t say that torturing babies is wrong, etc.). But I think that may take the whole conversation off-track…
Maybe a better avenue is to approach it from a question of conscience. How do you inform (or reform) someone’s conscience? (Hannitized one-liners need not apply.)
February 6, 2009 at 12:32 pm
@Hugh, yeah I think going to the extreme would take the conversation off track as it is falsely accusing people of having no ethics at all.
Things like gay bashing and torturing babies fall outside the ethic of reciprocity.
February 7, 2009 at 8:11 am
Check this out:
When Your Friend Says, “I’m Gay”