For those of you who read my blog, I'm publishing this post as a response to a video I posted to my Facebook and the conversation that ensued. Here are my thoughts, and here is the video:
Lesbians raising a child
Here's the video someone posted in response:
A lady talks about her homosexual father
While I appreciate the video response that this lady offers, her personal testimony addresses a homosexual father with multiple partners. I think most would agree that a heterosexual parent with multiple partners creates just as much confusion and instability for a child. Because of that, her personal experience neither validates nor refutes the issue of committed, same-sex partners raising a child.
My guess is most of us don't know a same sex couple raising a child. But here's a hypothetical situation. A same-sex couple shows up to your church having raised a child for several years, which they consider their own and who loves mom & mom (or dad & dad) very much. Is it really the loving thing to do to split that family apart because they are "living in sin?" I don't think so. That seems pretty contrary to a God who came to restore wholeness and demonstrate love.
Further, which of the 5 biblical passages do you want to use to condemn homosexuality?
The one where Jesus talks about it? Oh wait, he didn’t.
The one in Leviticus where homosexuality is called an abomination? That same book also says eating swine and shellfish and wearing multi-material fabric are an abomination (same Hebrew word). So if someone can't participate in a loving, committed, homosexual relationship, I suppose we also need to change our wardrobe and stop eating bacon and shrimp.
Or how about the one that condemns a grown man forcing himself on a young boy? Again, that has nothing to do with committed same-sex marriages. And the list goes on.
To grab onto something Tom said in the Facebook thread, an orphan (or a child living in an abusive, heterosexual home) would do well in the hands of any committed, loving family (or individual) who desired to pour into him/her as opposed to living on the street. Anything lost by not having a male/female mentor in the home can be picked up through the Church, a place where the community, not the parents alone, should assist in raising the child anyway. Individualism is causing more grief and harm to our nation's kids than same-sex adoption (which, frankly, causes nothing that a heterosexual adoption doesn't).
Jesus came to liberate people from an unjust social system, to bring love, and to restore wholeness. He met people where they were, and operated within his context to do the work that he did. Our context is changing, whether Christians like it or not. From within that new context, we must learn how to best demonstrate the Gospel of love and wholeness to people who still need it.
Whether you believe homosexuals should marry or not is irrelevant. Jesus says that Christians should not divorce (whereas he says nothing about homosexuality), but we've long come to terms with that. We now have divorce ministries, counseling, and pastors in their second marriages. It's not the ideal, but it's reality. In 10-20 years, gay marriage will be nationally legal. President Obama has already confessed, "America is no longer a Christian nation." We need to stop pretending that it still is. I think we would bring a lot of glory to the name of Jesus if we spent less time arguing right or wrong and more time figuring out how the Church will operate as an agent of love and transformation from within this new context.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have two notes to make about this.
ReplyDeleteThe first is regarding your hypothetical situation. I think your line of reasoning for how we should act in this situation could lead to places you wouldn't want to go. You could use that same logic to mean that we shouldn't break up polygamous relationships either, for one.
Also, you use some terms that are easy to redefine in one's own head. When you say restore wholeness, you use it in contradiction with the attitude of breaking up a homosexual couple because of sin. It implies you believe we could be made whole in any worldly relationship. We can only be made complete in God. When Jesus speaks to the adulterous woman, He tells her He doesn't condemn her, and says to go and sin no more. So, if the lifestyle of homosexuality is indeed sin (granted, you imply that you question that concept) then Jesus' command to the adulterous woman is valid for the homosexual couple as well. (Don't many people cheat because they feel more complete with this new relationship than with their spouse? Wouldn't it violate the wholeness principle, which you seem to base on emotion, to break them up?)
My second comment is in regards to the thought that Jesus said nothing regarding homosexuality. It is good to note that in John's gospel, he says that Jesus said and did many other things which are not recorded in his gospel. At BEST you can take the agnostic approach and say you don't know if Jesus said anything about it. There is no way of saying He didn't speak on the topic with such certainty as you claim.
Furthermore, Jesus' primary audience consisted of Jews. Jews knew the laws. When Jesus referenced the laws, it seemed it was to make them stricter or to bring them back to the heart of the laws, rather than just obeying the letter (you heard it said....but I tell you...). Why WOULD Jesus talk about homosexuality? It would be preaching to the proverbial choir to tell them it was wrong. It would be like telling them that murder is wrong. But He doesn't do that. He says hating your brother is like murder in your heart. After saying that, He didn't have to justify to them that murder too is wrong. They knew that.
And to wrap this all up, the Bible IS clear that God considers sexuality and its expression as something sacred. God has shown He cares very much what we do with our sexuality. In the beginning He set forth the standard. I don't think one could read the Bible without bias and at the end tell me the homosexual lifestyle is condoned by it.
I would request you don't take my comment to mean that I am a homophobic bigot. I don't believe in treating them with hatred. In fact, I think the whole subject gets more attention within the Church than I would prioritize it with. In the end, we Christians are called to be Christ to the world, and I don't think this involved hating gays and lesbians. I don't think being Christ to the world means compromising on truth either.
I hope you take this comment the way I intend it; I only desire truth.