Religion and LGBTQ

[Janeway]

OK..I hope this is not going to turn ugly..but I need to ask....

 

Multiple things have come up lately with aquaintances that have led me to ask...

 

Where in the bible does it say to exclude gay people from church and lives in general? I know that some Christian churches teach that being gay is a sin, but I thought it said everyone was welcome in the church and I am not sure it said to exclude anyone from your life for being gay? I may be wrong..but I cannot find it. 

 

Three situations come to mind-

 

-friends' daughter left them and stays with a religious family and will not allow her family back in their lives and tells them they are all going to hell. Comes out the last time that I saw them that their son is gay and daughter wants son kicked out of their lives or she won't come back. They refuse.

 

-friend's son (someone who has been on my FB a long time and I chat with from time to time but do not recall how we met) decided he is transgendered. She had been posting for a while about how devastated she was and how much she misses him and how awful this has been for her. She says his friends have been influencing him and he wants nothing to do with her. Later, though, found out from him that he would be ok to have something to do with her, but he/she wants to be called "she" and by her new name and to be accepted how she is. After that, I went back to my friend and suggested a compromise. She does not try to change him and he can come around. Afterall, she is devastated to the point of being as if her child died. I assumed she would want him back. Nope. He needs to repent first basically and completely give up anything with LGBTQ even in his private life when he is not around her. She says she also feels it would destroy her other children to know that she is ok with how he lives his life if she allowed him around. None of this makes sense to me. Even Jesus had prostitutes around him. Why can't she have her own son around?

 

-attended a church where the pastor is divorced and remarried. He preaches against LGBTQ and makes it clear that anyone gender alternative is not welcome at his church. Ask him why not, afterall, even if one accepts that LGBTQ is a sin, even Jesus said to bring the sinners. He said it is because they are still sinning currently and that is not acceptable. In order to be forgiven, you must turn from your sin. Um, ok..he is not with his first wife. Doesn't he need to immediately stop his adultery and go back to his first wife? Oh, and he is not his wife's first husband. They are both committed adultery. 

 

OK....these are my questions. I am not asking to offend. I am asking because I really do not understand the reason and I do not feel comfortable asking anyone in in-person-life as I am afraid to admit my real beliefs while I live in the bible belt. Yep, true. 

[Carol in Cal.]

There is a lot of stuff from society that gets mixed up into the teachings of the church.

 

For a really long time society treated anyone not het as deviant scum.  To the extent that the church followed suit, it was OTT and wrong.  But there are residuals from that.  

 

The church can teach that the behavior is wrong without teaching that people are scum.  And church members can follow that teaching.    

[6packofun]

I'm getting tired of and sad from hearing stories like these.  People cannot seem to understand that having a biblical *stance* on a topic is not in contradiction with the biblical commands on how to treat other human beings, particularly those who are not yet believers.  I feel like people are more afraid of others getting the idea that they think homosexuality is not a sin if they show love and grace to people than they are concerned with...showing love and grace to people.

[TranquilMind]

OK..I hope this is not going to turn ugly..but I need to ask....

 

Multiple things have come up lately with aquaintances that have led me to ask...

 

Where in the bible does it say to exclude gay people from church and lives in general? I know that some Christian churches teach that being gay is a sin, but I thought it said everyone was welcome in the church and I am not sure it said to exclude anyone from your life for being gay? I may be wrong..but I cannot find it. 

 

Three situations come to mind-

 

-friends' daughter left them and stays with a religious family and will not allow her family back in their lives and tells them they are all going to hell. Comes out the last time that I saw them that their son is gay and daughter wants son kicked out of their lives or she won't come back. They refuse.

 

-friend's son (someone who has been on my FB a long time and I chat with from time to time but do not recall how we met) decided he is transgendered. She had been posting for a while about how devastated she was and how much she misses him and how awful this has been for her. She says his friends have been influencing him and he wants nothing to do with her. Later, though, found out from him that he would be ok to have something to do with her, but he/she wants to be called "she" and by her new name and to be accepted how she is. After that, I went back to my friend and suggested a compromise. She does not try to change him and he can come around. Afterall, she is devastated to the point of being as if her child died. I assumed she would want him back. Nope. He needs to repent first basically and completely give up anything with LGBTQ even in his private life when he is not around her. She says she also feels it would destroy her other children to know that she is ok with how he lives his life if she allowed him around. None of this makes sense to me. Even Jesus had prostitutes around him. Why can't she have her own son around?

 

-attended a church where the pastor is divorced and remarried. He preaches against LGBTQ and makes it clear that anyone gender alternative is not welcome at his church. Ask him why not, afterall, even if one accepts that LGBTQ is a sin, even Jesus said to bring the sinners. He said it is because they are still sinning currently and that is not acceptable. In order to be forgiven, you must turn from your sin. Um, ok..he is not with his first wife. Doesn't he need to immediately stop his adultery and go back to his first wife? Oh, and he is not his wife's first husband. They are both committed adultery. 

 

OK....these are my questions. I am not asking to offend. I am asking because I really do not understand the reason and I do not feel comfortable asking anyone in in-person-life as I am afraid to admit my real beliefs while I live in the bible belt. Yep, true. 

The Bible does not say to "exclude gay people from their church and lives".  ??   Everyone is indeed welcome in church. We are all sinners, saved by grace.    You can't find that passage because it isn't in there. 

 

Homosexuality itself  (the action) is a sin, just one of many.   Sinners of all varieties are welcome in church; we are all sinners until we are "washed in the blood" so to speak.  In fact, Jesus Himself says that he came to save the lost. 

 

That daughter is confused.   The parents are obligated to speak the truth in love to their son but are decidedly NOT obligated to "kick him out of their lives". 

 

I feel for the mother.  She has and gave birth to a male child, but is being blackmailed. She has to deny biological reality to see her son and that isn't right.  I think you are right to suggest a compromise.  She can't deny reality, but he apparently cannot deny his feelings.  So they should work something out; you are right about that.  Each side needs to give a little and be reasonable.  You only have a mother for a very short time in the scheme of things.  The son should realize this.  It won't matter in 10 years or 20 when she's dead.  He will just miss her. 

 

You are right about the hypocrisy of the third situation with the pastor.  He has no leg to stand on in this argument, and he's kind of missing the entire point anyway. All people need to hear the word of God and repent of their sins and realize the freedom Jesus has purchased for them, not just those who are already not sinning in some obvious way.  He should understand this. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by TranquilMind

[bettyandbob]

There is no place that says kick these people out of your life. Your examples are harsh interpretations. There are a few verses which may be interpreted a saying homosexuality is a sin. Even if one goes with that interpretation (I don't) it does not say this sin counts more than anything else you can do. 

 

I especially don't understand a pastor not wanted someone to come to his church. I avoid people who say these kinds of things. For a short time I attended a church where many of the congregation had such viewpoints, but not the pastor. I attended because they had a good program for my ds who has disabilities. My ds was not engaged enough to understand that this attitude existed, but I decided no matter what good the church had for my ds the attitudes were too negative for me to be around. 

[scholastica]

It would really be better for you to ask the people in question in person. Religious beliefs are very personal and vary wildly amongst denominations. I also don't think you would get an answer that would satisfy you anyway, since you have already decided that these people are wrong in their approach. Not that I agree or disagree with you, it's just that I don't think any explanation they or anyone else would give you would make sense to you or change your mind.

[mellifera33]

1 Corinthians 5:9-11

 

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindler, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. (NIV)

 

I have seen this passage used to explain excluding LGBT people from fellowship.

Edited January 21, 2017 by mellifera33

[Bluegoat]

These all sound like poorly thought out, and uncharitable, situations to me.

 

That being said, since when has it ever been the case that the Bible is supposed to be a rule-book?  Questions around sexuality, sex, and gender generally relate to how Christianity understands the nature of sex, gender, procreation, and family life.  While those things are found to some degree in the Bible, it isn't necessarily in the form of a set of rules. 

[Bluegoat]

Oh - as far as excluding people - there is, generally speaking, a acceptance that people who are deliberatly choosing to act in a way that is contrary to Christian teaching will not be able to fully participate in the community life.  So - not so much an addict that finds it impossible to give up his addiction (though that person might be barred from some responsibilities for practical reasons) but the person who actually has a difference in view of the teaching and pursues that.

 

Howe that looks is treated differently among different groups - in some cases where there is formal church membership the person cannot join in that sense, in other cases it is about being an elder, or in others about admittance to the sacraments.  As far as actually cutting people off entirely, that seems to be an extreme view.

[Carol in Cal.]

1 Corinthians 5:9-11

 

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindler, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. (NIV)

 

I have seen this passage used to explain excluding LGBT people from fellowship.

But see, even in conservative circles I don't see this passage used to exclude someone who is quietly alcoholic, or whose business or personal dealings are indicative of extreme, dominant greed.  That's where it's very clear to me that societal repugnance has (falsely) influenced the way the passage is applied.

[Carol in Cal.]

DP 

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[Charlie]

There is a lot of stuff from society that gets mixed up into the teachings of the church.

 

For a really long time society treated anyone not het as deviant scum.  To the extent that the church followed suit, it was OTT and wrong.  But there are residuals from that.  

 

The church can teach that the behavior is wrong without teaching that people are scum.  And church members can follow that teaching.    

 

Are you suggesting the church has always accepted homosexuals and society is only now catching up? Or that the church has historically offered a warm and friendly kind of encouragement to queer people to just stop being queer (!), and the non-church, secular society was the source of aggressive, hostile response to homosexuality?

 

I wonder if there is a Christian denomination that doesn't have any history of formally speaking or acting out against homosexuals in a way that would today be considered treating people "as deviant scum."

 

But mostly, I'm having a little trouble understanding how trying to convince a queer person to just not be queer is not implying homosexuality is a kind of sexual or social deviancy (as if sexuality can be chosen, much less chosen "responsibly"), and that their nature is, well... as icky and undesirable as scum, even if more polite rhetoric is used.

[PeachyDoodle]

Are you suggesting the church has always accepted homosexuals and society is only now catching up? Or that the church has historically offered a warm and friendly kind of encouragement to queer people to just stop being queer (!), and the non-church, secular society was the source of aggressive, hostile response to homosexuality?

 

I wonder if there is a Christian denomination that doesn't have any history of formally speaking or acting out against homosexuals in a way that would today be considered treating people "as deviant scum."

 

But mostly, I'm having a little trouble understanding how trying to convince a queer person to just not be queer is not implying homosexuality is a kind of sexual or social deviancy (as if sexuality can be chosen, much less chosen "responsibly"), and that their nature is, well... as icky and undesirable as scum, even if more polite rhetoric is used.

 

IMHO, the difficulty of this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding, both within and without the church, of the nature of sin. The Bible, at least in many interpretative traditions, does portray homosexuality as a form of sexual and social deviancy. What we miss, however, is the fact that the Bible labels ALL forms of sin as social and spiritual deviancy. If God has established and ordered the world, then God gets to say what things deviate from that established order. And God has spoken.

 

In a sense, secular society is ahead of the church on this one when it cites modern scientific discoveries that there is something fundamental to their make-up that causes a same-sex attracted person to gravitate toward members of their own sex. Instead of arguing against this, the church should be pointing out that this is what Christianity has affirmed all along: Human beings are broken. The brokenness takes a wide variety of forms, but we are all fundamentally flawed, sinners in the core of our beings. Sin is not something we DO, it's something we ARE.

 

How we as Christians, forgiven sinners, treat other people, other sinners, is the same regardless of their particular deviant proclivities: We call them to repent and believe the good news that God has forgiven their sins in Christ. Repentance does mean we have to acknowledge our deviancy, our sinfulness, before God. Refusal to acknowledge our sin, or insistence that what God has called sin is not sinful, casts doubt on the validity of that repentance. Yet even here there is grace, because repentance and forgiveness are not one-time events, but a way of life for the Christian.

 

The church has often erred by, as you say, insisting that those with SSA simply "stop being queer." Christians don't "stop being queer" any more than they "stop being gluttons" or "stop having an explosive temper" or "stop worrying" or what have you. Our sinful nature doesn't leave us when we repent and believe. But, we are given a new nature, one that is perfectly righteous and without all those sinful, deviant tendencies we were born with. These two natures are at war within us -- and the Bible does tell us to put the old nature to death and put on the new nature. This is painful and difficult and sometimes feels as though it goes against everything that is within us, but Christians are called to suffering and to bearing a cross. We should bear each other up as well, for each of us should know the struggle of daily denying ourselves the desires that feel most natural to us, whatever form they take.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Are you suggesting the church has always accepted homosexuals and society is only now catching up? Or that the church has historically offered a warm and friendly kind of encouragement to queer people to just stop being queer (!), and the non-church, secular society was the source of aggressive, hostile response to homosexuality?

 

I wonder if there is a Christian denomination that doesn't have any history of formally speaking or acting out against homosexuals in a way that would today be considered treating people "as deviant scum."

 

But mostly, I'm having a little trouble understanding how trying to convince a queer person to just not be queer is not implying homosexuality is a kind of sexual or social deviancy (as if sexuality can be chosen, much less chosen "responsibly"), and that their nature is, well... as icky and undesirable as scum, even if more polite rhetoric is used.

None of these things.  Not even remotely.  

But honestly I don't know quite how to explain it more clearly.  I'll give that some thought.

[TranquilMind]

But see, even in conservative circles I don't see this passage used to exclude someone who is quietly alcoholic, or whose business or personal dealings are indicative of extreme, dominant greed.  That's where it's very clear to me that societal repugnance has (falsely) influenced the way the passage is applied.

 

I think the relevant part is "calls himself a brother", the implication being that he is in the faith and insistent he is in right standing with God, doing nothing wrong. 

 

Not that he is a guy who acknowledges a problem. 

[VaKim]

Maybe Matthew 10? Not commenting one way or another. Just saying this is a possible passage.

 

 34“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35“For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.

      37“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.

[mellifera33]

But see, even in conservative circles I don't see this passage used to exclude someone who is quietly alcoholic, or whose business or personal dealings are indicative of extreme, dominant greed.  That's where it's very clear to me that societal repugnance has (falsely) influenced the way the passage is applied.

 

In the name of consistency, maybe misers should be disfellowshipped. That would be awkward. 

[Bluegoat]

But see, even in conservative circles I don't see this passage used to exclude someone who is quietly alcoholic, or whose business or personal dealings are indicative of extreme, dominant greed.  That's where it's very clear to me that societal repugnance has (falsely) influenced the way the passage is applied.

 

I think in the case of the alcholic, the assumption is generally that the person is incapable of quitting, or can't see the problem.

 

With the unrepentantly greedy, that should, to be conistant, be treated very severly.  On a personal level it can perhpaps be tricky to know when someone is really being greedy, but it's clear enough when it creates injustice. 

 

But greed is arguably one of the dominant sins of our age, so that it is built into our cultural structures and often we can't see it. Or we even mistake it for a good.

 

I think its always a question what it means to exclude someone.  I mean, in many churches things like prison ministry and helping people coming out of those situations is considered important.  My sense has always ben that it means to treat people who are following a wrong or misguided life in such a way that their ideas (greed is good, say) can't become integrated into the thinking of the whole congregation.  I',m not so sure we are actually more open now, the topic of this thread notwithstanding.  It seems like just as many people as always are against, for example, ministry to criminals and prisoners, if they committed the more taboo sorts of crimes - and that is on all sides of the political fence and the non-religious as well as the religious.

[Crimson Wife]

There is a political aspect to certain lifestyles that confounds the issue of sin. It's akin to the difference between a person who quietly uses marijuana behind closed doors and one who publicly calls for legalization and social acceptance of pot use.

 

A pastor has every right to ask someone to leave if that person is publicly rejecting the teachings of the church and calling for the church to change its teachings to suit that person's sinful lifestyle.

[Rebecca in KY]

From the Old Testament all the way through the New Testament, the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin. I agree with others that it is not THE sin and shouldn't be focused on to the exclusion of other sins. Here are just a few passages:

 

"26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done." Romans 1:26-28

 

"8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." 1 Timothy 1:8-11

 

"9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 

And one from the Old Testament: "22 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22

[Joker]

Reading threads like this just remind me why I thank God every single day that He blessed me with my transgender son and not someone who would callously toss him aside.

 

I also feel blessed that there are churches that are so welcoming and accepting to the LGBT community. We are a Christian family and having gone through this experience makes me so sad and very angry at those who turn their backs. There's no excuse.

[Mergath]

From the Old Testament all the way through the New Testament, the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin. I agree with others that it is not THE sin and shouldn't be focused on to the exclusion of other sins. Here are just a few passages:

 

"26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done." Romans 1:26-28

 

"8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." 1 Timothy 1:8-11

 

"9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 

And one from the Old Testament: "22 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22

Did you even read the OP? Or did you just see "lgbtq" and figure you'd cut and paste your handy list of condemnatory verses?

[Lawana]

Church teachings change over time. Why religious standards often lag societal ones is something that bothers me tremendously. It will only be a matter of time before most religions accept that sexual orientation is an inborn quality, not a "lifestyle choice".

 

That someone can have the perspicacity to understand that sexual orientation is *not* a choice, and the compassion to accept that *all* persons should be able to persue meaningful intimate relationships despite religious strictures to the contrary, speaks to the credit of the individual, not the current teaching of a particular religious organization.

[6packofun]

Did you even read the OP? Or did you just see "lgbtq" and figure you'd cut and paste your handy list of condemnatory verses?

 

Do you have handy some celebratory verses?

[Mergath]

Do you have handy some celebratory verses?

 

I have some handy verses from MY religion. Not quite what you're used to, I'm sure, but all the same, here they are.

 

"Just as a mother would protect her only child with her life, even so let one cultivate a boundless love towards all beings." -The Buddha, from the Karaniya Metta Sutta

 

"Conquer anger with non-anger. Conquer badness with goodness. Conquer meanness with generosity. Conquer dishonesty with truth." -The Buddha, from the Dhammapada

 

"Those who cling to perceptions and views wander the world offending people." -The Buddha, from the Magandiya Suta

[Charlie]

IMHO, the difficulty of this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding, both within and without the church, of the nature of sin. The Bible, at least in many interpretative traditions, does portray homosexuality as a form of sexual and social deviancy. What we miss, however, is the fact that the Bible labels ALL forms of sin as social and spiritual deviancy. If God has established and ordered the world, then God gets to say what things deviate from that established order. And God has spoken.

 

In a sense, secular society is ahead of the church on this one when it cites modern scientific discoveries that there is something fundamental to their make-up that causes a same-sex attracted person to gravitate toward members of their own sex. Instead of arguing against this, the church should be pointing out that this is what Christianity has affirmed all along: Human beings are broken. The brokenness takes a wide variety of forms, but we are all fundamentally flawed, sinners in the core of our beings. Sin is not something we DO, it's something we ARE.

 

How we as Christians, forgiven sinners, treat other people, other sinners, is the same regardless of their particular deviant proclivities: We call them to repent and believe the good news that God has forgiven their sins in Christ. Repentance does mean we have to acknowledge our deviancy, our sinfulness, before God. Refusal to acknowledge our sin, or insistence that what God has called sin is not sinful, casts doubt on the validity of that repentance. Yet even here there is grace, because repentance and forgiveness are not one-time events, but a way of life for the Christian.

 

The church has often erred by, as you say, insisting that those with SSA simply "stop being queer." Christians don't "stop being queer" any more than they "stop being gluttons" or "stop having an explosive temper" or "stop worrying" or what have you. Our sinful nature doesn't leave us when we repent and believe. But, we are given a new nature, one that is perfectly righteous and without all those sinful, deviant tendencies we were born with. These two natures are at war within us -- and the Bible does tell us to put the old nature to death and put on the new nature. This is painful and difficult and sometimes feels as though it goes against everything that is within us, but Christians are called to suffering and to bearing a cross. We should bear each other up as well, for each of us should know the struggle of daily denying ourselves the desires that feel most natural to us, whatever form they take.

 

 

Thank you for the explanation. So, from my perspective, it sounds like you're solving the problem of not treating queer people like "deviant scum" by suggesting everyone is deviant scum, and the appropriate treatment is to encourage one another to fight off the scum part of their nature by allowing the good part of the nature to increase in power. When the good part is stronger, the scum part won't deviate as much, and the scummy quality will lessen.

 

The events the OP talks about, rejecting lgbt family members, makes more sense when considering sentiments shared by Crimson Wife and Bluegoat. If refusing to change, and if trying to convince Christians to change instead, is understood as subversive, then one logical conclusion is to remove the threat if it can't be subdued. In your faith tradition, how does the church respond when a person refuses to accept what the church teaches and wants the church to change its teaching instead? What would they advice for a parent in their home in that scenario?

 

I think you misunderstand what science explains about sexuality and behavior in general. There is no default perfect mark that is missed or broken, there is only what survives. Humans are social creatures and individual evolutionary traits are varied. As homosexuality doesn't threaten the whole, it's not identified as being broken or wrong in any way. It just... is.

[Crimson Wife]

Orientation may be biologically determined, but ACTING on those urges is a choice. Society certainly expects some individuals to refrain from acting on their sexual urges when those urges are deemed socially unacceptable. What has changed in recent decades is that secular society has narrowed the definition of unacceptable behaviors to a simple matter of non-consent. Christians who look to the Bible as the authoritative Word of God and not something that can simply be ignored because "times have changed" reject this narrowed definition.

 

We all are sinners and in need of God's forgiveness. We should love the sinner while still hating sin.

[Mergath]

Orientation may be biologically determined, but ACTING on those urges is a choice. Society certainly expects some individuals to refrain from acting on their sexual urges when those urges are deemed socially unacceptable. What has changed in recent decades is that secular society has narrowed the definition of unacceptable behaviors to a simple matter of non-consent. Christians who look to the Bible as the authoritative Word of God and not something that can simply be ignored because "times have changed" reject this narrowed definition.

 

We all are sinners and in need of God's forgiveness. We should love the sinner while still hating sin.

 

So going back to the OP's actual question (which some of you seem to have missed in your haste to point out the evils of gayness) how do you feel about gay people being basically exiled from their families and/or church, while people who commit other sins obviously aren't?

Edited January 22, 2017 by Mergath

[PeachyDoodle]

Thank you for the explanation. So, from my perspective, it sounds like you're solving the problem of not treating queer people like "deviant scum" by suggesting everyone is deviant scum, and the appropriate treatment is to encourage one another to fight off the scum part of their nature by allowing the good part of the nature to increase in power. When the good part is stronger, the scum part won't deviate as much, and the scummy quality will lessen.

 

The events the OP talks about, rejecting lgbt family members, makes more sense when considering sentiments shared by Crimson Wife and Bluegoat. If refusing to change, and if trying to convince Christians to change instead, is understood as subversive, then one logical conclusion is to remove the threat if it can't be subdued. In your faith tradition, how does the church respond when a person refuses to accept what the church teaches and wants the church to change its teaching instead? What would they advice for a parent in their home in that scenario?

 

I think you misunderstand what science explains about sexuality and behavior in general. There is no default perfect mark that is missed or broken, there is only what survives. Humans are social creatures and individual evolutionary traits are varied. As homosexuality doesn't threaten the whole, it's not identified as being broken or wrong in any way. It just... is.

 

I understand what science teaches, and I didn't say or mean to imply that science attaches a moral judgment to SSA one way or the other -- although as you admit, science imposes its own moral threshold, predicated on whether or not a given trait "threatens the whole." But both science and Christianity affirm that SSA is the result of some inborn trait or genetic construction. Christianity does (historically, at least) attach a moral judgment to SSA, because Christianity understands itself to have the revelation of God's Law. Within the belief system of Christianity, God alone retains the right to say what is or is not damaged, broken, corrupt, or (we would say) sinful in God's creation.

 

The problem is that American Christianity has in large part lost the understanding that humans are damaged, broken, corrupt, and sinful BY NATURE. And yes, the loss of this understanding accounts for some of the views expressed on this thread and also helps to explain the (IMO, wrong) actions that some people take against LGBT family members. That SSA is a genetic trait is irrelevant (or, rather, a given). We all have a myriad of inborn traits that are sinful, which cause sinful impulses, which cause sinful actions. Even being able to stop the impulse from manifesting in an action is largely irrelevant: When it comes to our standing before God, the impulse alone is enough to condemn us. We throw ourselves on God's mercy and trust that he is loving and faithful to forgive, as he has promised.

 

The putting to death of our sinful nature is done, not to attain favor with God, but in order to love and serve those around us. However, this characterization is not entirely accurate:

 

 

<snip> the appropriate treatment is to encourage one another to fight off the scum part of their nature by allowing the good part of the nature to increase in power. When the good part is stronger, the scum part won't deviate as much, and the scummy quality will lessen.

 

Mortifying the old nature and raising the new nature to life is not something we do -- it is something God does in us, as we daily repent of our sin (thereby agreeing with God that our sinful thoughts, words, and deeds are in fact sinful and require forgiveness) and cling by faith to the promise of God that we are forgiven. We will never, in this lifetime, be free of the old nature, or perhaps even make notable progress against it, but we hold fast to the promise of forgiveness in Christ. Knowing that we have a right standing before God, and everything that we need or will ever need, secured for us in Christ, we are set free to love and serve our neighbors for their own sake. God's Law then gives shape to what that love should look like. It often means sacrificing the things that seem most innate and natural to ourselves for the good of those around us. This is the cross Christ promised us we would have to bear.

 

Excommunicating professing Christians who refuse to submit to the truth of God's Word has always been intended for the benefit of the erring Christian, not only the preservation of the community. Those who refuse to repent stand condemned before God, and out of love we cannot turn a blind eye to that. We dare not pretend to receive them as a brother/sister in Christ and allow them to continue under the misconception that their sin does not matter. Christ's admonishment is to treat such a person as an unbeliever -- a person to be loved, and served, and also called to repentance and faith in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. The reaction of the church in such a case is loving counsel, but also the refusal of absolution and the sacraments, because these gifts are reserved for the people of God.

 

Within the family, the situation is different. We are not called, as parents, children or siblings, to withhold our love from those around us, but to continue to be kind to them, sacrificing ourselves for their good, loving and caring for them, and when the opportunity presents itself, calling them to repent and believe and receive the forgiveness promised them in Christ.

 

Sorry that's long. Hopefully it explains my point of view somewhat. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

[abba12]

The issue of homosexuality is being really badly managed by the church right now. Yes, the bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin, unnatural, etc. But the bible also makes clear that sex before marriage is a sin and divorce outside of a few particular cases is a sin. If you're going to refuse to associate with a homosexual, you must also refuse to associate with people living together unmarried and people who are divorced, as they are equally sinful, these are all misuses of sex and marriage. So, are we going to see churches banning people who live together and divorcees? Nope. 

 

The bible tells us it is a sin, but it also tells us how to treat sinners! And it's not like this. 

 

I do believe homosexuality is a sin just as I believe sex before marriage is a sin and divorce outside of particular reasons is a sin. But I still have my divorced father over for dinner, I still have my sister and her live-in boyfriend over for dinner. And I still have my gay friend over for dinner. I have other online friends who are gay as well, one of whom I have known for 12 years. Generally I don't offer my opinion on sexuality to acquaintances, just like I don't tell people I've just met that their divorce was wrong. Friends who know me well do know my position on homosexuality, they know I disagree with their choices and decisions. They also know I respect them and treat them as humans despite it. We even talk about their relationships sometimes, just as I'll talk about dating with a divorcee. They don't try to change my beliefs and I don't try to change them. I just love them, as I'm commanded to do. Maybe God will work through that love to lead them to Him, maybe He won't, but that's not my job, and I can make a better impact for Christianity by loving them than I can by hating them. 

[FaithManor]

So going back to the OP's actual question (which some of you seem to have missed in your haste to point out the evils of gayness) how do you feel about gay people being basically exiled from their families and/or church, while people who commit other sins obviously aren't?

We finally couldn't take the hypocrisy anymore and attend a church, not UU but definitely open and not interested in being the thought police and prying into everyone's private lives. It has been so uplifting to be able to worship and have community without the hate, condescension, dirty looks and passive aggressive insults directed at our "non conforming" son.

[Mimm]

As much as I've tried to model love and acceptance, my gay/bi (she hasn't decided if boys are still an option for her) daughter has pretty much decided she's not a Christian anymore. I'm sad. And I feel my voice is drowned out by all the hateful ones.

[Charlie]

I understand what science teaches, and I didn't say or mean to imply that science attaches a moral judgment to SSA one way or the other -- although as you admit, science imposes its own moral threshold, predicated on whether or not a given trait "threatens the whole." But both science and Christianity affirm that SSA is the result of some inborn trait or genetic construction. Christianity does (historically, at least) attach a moral judgment to SSA, because Christianity understands itself to have the revelation of God's Law. Within the belief system of Christianity, God alone retains the right to say what is or is not damaged, broken, corrupt, or (we would say) sinful in God's creation.

 

The problem is that American Christianity has in large part lost the understanding that humans are damaged, broken, corrupt, and sinful BY NATURE. And yes, the loss of this understanding accounts for some of the views expressed on this thread and also helps to explain the (IMO, wrong) actions that some people take against LGBT family members. That SSA is a genetic trait is irrelevant (or, rather, a given). We all have a myriad of inborn traits that are sinful, which cause sinful impulses, which cause sinful actions. Even being able to stop the impulse from manifesting in an action is largely irrelevant: When it comes to our standing before God, the impulse alone is enough to condemn us. We throw ourselves on God's mercy and trust that he is loving and faithful to forgive, as he has promised.

 

The putting to death of our sinful nature is done, not to attain favor with God, but in order to love and serve those around us. However, this characterization is not entirely accurate:

 

 

Mortifying the old nature and raising the new nature to life is not something we do -- it is something God does in us, as we daily repent of our sin (thereby agreeing with God that our sinful thoughts, words, and deeds are in fact sinful and require forgiveness) and cling by faith to the promise of God that we are forgiven. We will never, in this lifetime, be free of the old nature, or perhaps even make notable progress against it, but we hold fast to the promise of forgiveness in Christ. Knowing that we have a right standing before God, and everything that we need or will ever need, secured for us in Christ, we are set free to love and serve our neighbors for their own sake. God's Law then gives shape to what that love should look like. It often means sacrificing the things that seem most innate and natural to ourselves for the good of those around us. This is the cross Christ promised us we would have to bear.

 

Excommunicating professing Christians who refuse to submit to the truth of God's Word has always been intended for the benefit of the erring Christian, not only the preservation of the community. Those who refuse to repent stand condemned before God, and out of love we cannot turn a blind eye to that. We dare not pretend to receive them as a brother/sister in Christ and allow them to continue under the misconception that their sin does not matter. Christ's admonishment is to treat such a person as an unbeliever -- a person to be loved, and served, and also called to repentance and faith in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. The reaction of the church in such a case is loving counsel, but also the refusal of absolution and the sacraments, because these gifts are reserved for the people of God.

 

Within the family, the situation is different. We are not called, as parents, children or siblings, to withhold our love from those around us, but to continue to be kind to them, sacrificing ourselves for their good, loving and caring for them, and when the opportunity presents itself, calling them to repent and believe and receive the forgiveness promised them in Christ.

 

Sorry that's long. Hopefully it explains my point of view somewhat. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

 

I think I communication my thoughts about science poorly. I don't admit science imposes its own moral threshold. I don't understand science to impose a moral value on anything. Morality is a quality humans assign, relative to any given culture. Humans decide a moral value of a thing based on knowledge of that thing, and because in time scientific explanations replace religious understanding, I would argue this more accurately explains why more Christians are accepting of their lgbt kids than ever before rather than a misunderstanding of God's law. I also imagine it's due to the internet creating a smaller global neighborhood. The people we know are no longer determined by our geographical location, and that means all kinds of new experiences and ideas and moral considerations to learn about.

 

What I find interesting is that even in this thread we can see that Christians have never yet come to a consensus about sin and nature and God's law - what it is and how it should be applied. It would seem that there's really no way to know what is a sin, and so we see throughout history Christians are constantly updating their opinions about what God's law means. After all, how can you misunderstand what cannot be understood in the first place?

 

I'm not tracking with you in the bold, but as far as the underlined, I imagine kicking your own child out is understood by some Christians (the ones the OP talks about for example) as the sacrifice being called to make for the good of that child. I imagine they imagine Christ giving them strength to do what they consider to be the "right thing" in honoring God's law. I can't imagine kicking my child out of my house for that. I just can't. There doesn't seem to be remorse among those who do, and I can only guess it's because their faith keeps them going. They believe they're taking the high road, and they believe they're right in God's eyes. How else could they go to sleep at night, you know?

I enjoy your explanations, and sometimes short and sweet doesn't cut it, lol! Besides, I kind of get my geek on when it comes to moral discussions like this, so thank you right back!

[Bluegoat]

Thank you for the explanation. So, from my perspective, it sounds like you're solving the problem of not treating queer people like "deviant scum" by suggesting everyone is deviant scum, and the appropriate treatment is to encourage one another to fight off the scum part of their nature by allowing the good part of the nature to increase in power. When the good part is stronger, the scum part won't deviate as much, and the scummy quality will lessen.

 

The events the OP talks about, rejecting lgbt family members, makes more sense when considering sentiments shared by Crimson Wife and Bluegoat. If refusing to change, and if trying to convince Christians to change instead, is understood as subversive, then one logical conclusion is to remove the threat if it can't be subdued. In your faith tradition, how does the church respond when a person refuses to accept what the church teaches and wants the church to change its teaching instead? What would they advice for a parent in their home in that scenario?

 

I think you misunderstand what science explains about sexuality and behavior in general. There is no default perfect mark that is missed or broken, there is only what survives. Humans are social creatures and individual evolutionary traits are varied. As homosexuality doesn't threaten the whole, it's not identified as being broken or wrong in any way. It just... is.

 

I'm pretty sure that I don't share the sentiments of the people described in the OP.

 

You can argue that any behavior or emotion that people have has been selected by evolution to remain as it in some way advantageous for the replication of genetic material over time.  It might be tolerance, love, and inclusion, or xenophobia and hatred.  If evolutionary survival is our guide, both are indicated as useful traits.

[FaithManor]

From the Old Testament all the way through the New Testament, the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin. I agree with others that it is not THE sin and shouldn't be focused on to the exclusion of other sins. Here are just a few passages:

 

"26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done." Romans 1:26-28

 

"8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." 1 Timothy 1:8-11

 

"9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 

And one from the Old Testament: "22 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22

Interesting that you felt the need to jump in with this when the question posted was not whether or not you believe LGBTQ is sin, but concerning the practice of excommunication from churches and from families.

 

Sigh...its gets so old. Believe me. No one is in the dark about what most Christians think of non heterosexuals. Really. Those of us with a child facing the hate have NO illussions about this. It needs no further clarification. We aren't stupid.

 

The constant dog piling by christians hurts so much that I am very close to giving up entirely on organized christianity. Very close. It is the very last place one can expect any mercy, love, or grace.

[regentrude]

The problem is that American Christianity has in large part lost the understanding that humans are damaged, broken, corrupt, and sinful BY NATURE. 

 

Can anybody explain to me why God, who created humans in his image, chose to create them "damaged, broken, corrupt and sinful" so that they have to struggle against the very nature he has given them, so they can be worthy in his eye?

 

To this ex-Christian, this seems simply cruel.

 

 

To the OP: Not all Christian churches have the above view. And these attitudes towards homosexuals never once came up in the thirty years I was an active member of my Lutheran church in Germany. They must interpret scripture very differently. But then, nobody there threatened kids with hell either.

Edited January 23, 2017 by regentrude

[Bluegoat]

Can anybody explain to me why God, who created humans in his image, chose to create them "damaged, broken, corrupt and sinful" so that they have to struggle against the very nature he has given them, so they can be worthy in his eye?

 

To this ex-Christian, this seems simply cruel.

 

 

To the OP: Not all Christian churches have the above view. 

 

The traditional teaching is that he didn't.

[PeachyDoodle]

Can anybody explain to me why God, who created humans in his image, chose to create them "damaged, broken, corrupt and sinful" so that they have to struggle against the very nature he has given them, so they can be worthy in his eye?

 

To this ex-Christian, this seems simply cruel.

 

 

To the OP: Not all Christian churches have the above view. And these attitudes towards homosexuals never once came up in the thirty years I was an active member of my Lutheran church in Germany. They must interpret scripture very differently. But then, nobody there threatened kids with hell either.

 

 

The traditional teaching is that he didn't.

 

Right. Everything God created was good. Sin and death entered the world through our first parents when they chose to disobey God.

 

And we don't struggle against our sin nature in order to be worthy in God's eyes. We struggle against our flesh in order to sacrifice ourselves for the good of our neighbor precisely BECAUSE we have already been declared righteous in God's sight.

[regentrude]

And we don't struggle against our sin nature in order to be worthy in God's eyes. We struggle against our flesh in order to sacrifice ourselves for the good of our neighbor precisely BECAUSE we have already been declared righteous in God's sight.

 

How does a person's sexual orientation affect the good of his neighbor? Why should this person fight against something that is completely irrelevant for one's behavior towards the neighbor, if one is already "declared righteous in God's eye"?

[quark]

Just a small note if that helps OP's questions: we are not Christians but have attended services in the past (at one time, quite regularly). We are in CA. The church closest to us that we pass by but have not attended yet welcomes everyone. During the recent uneasy political climate, they posted signs specifically welcoming the LGBTQ and immigrant communities. They are not UU. The signs that they post outside the church changes every 2 weeks and many are quite clever and tongue in cheek yet also respectful. :001_smile:

 

To me, kicking my child out would be the bigger sin. :leaving:

 

 

[Bluegoat]

I think the more difficult question that often isn't really adressed in discussions like this is - when is it appropriate to separate ourselves in some way from others, be they members of the community or our own children.  THis sometimes is glossed over when people simply say that it is unloving to cut oneself of from children because you have a moral difference with them.

 

I think we can assume that everyone loves their children, and has some kind of duty to them as well.  And I think it would be pretty naïve to think it is not always a possibility that there could be some kind of significant moral break between ourselves and our children.  And you can say parallel things about a community more generally though the specifics will differ.  How do we deal with people within a family, a community organization, or a political state, who hold ideas that are in some way antithetical to the institution as we understand it?  In a democracy, for example, people are free to have anti-democratic ideas.  How do we integrate them, though, when those ideas may actually impact our democratic institutions.  What if it is a less direct link, say we see certain economic views as dangerous to democratic principles?  How do we contain that danger?  Or do we try to do so at all?  Are all ideas one that we can allow to exist freely, even if they change the foundations of our institutions?  Classical liberalism tries to put as few barriers in place as possible with this, but even there we see a few - and our society on all sides of the political spectrum seems to be moving away from classical liberalism.

 

I think without looking fairly carefully at questions like this, its easy to say "oh, I would never cut someone off for THAT reason" and be rather self-congratulatory about it. 

 

[quark]

.

Edited January 23, 2017 by quark

[Veritaserum]

This issue is a primary reason why the church and I parted ways. I was raised in a very conservative religion that has been politically active against the LGBTQ community for recent decades. My oldest child came out as queer a little over two years ago. I'd already been struggling with church because what I was hearing in lessons didn't match the loving God I knew. Too many people were being damaged by the messages and the actions done in God's name. Minor children were and are kicked out of homes, adult children were and are forbidden to bring their loving partners home, parents are saying they'd rather their child be dead than queer and these children are killing themselves. The message they hear is not "we're all sinners, but we are all welcome at church." The message they hear is "YOU are defective, unworthy, unloveable, and unwelcome unless you fit this specific mold" (not even all straight, cisgender people fit the mold).

 

So I left and I took my children with me. My husband followed over a year later.

 

My parents and my husband's parents are heartbroken because my action to protect my child in this life has (according to their belief, which I do not share) jeopardized our eternal lives. This belief soils our relationship with them because it prevents them from truly loving and accepting us as we are. Even though we are successful, compassionate people, we are not enough because we aren't part of the church anymore. How can anyone have a close relationship with someone they know disapproves of who or how they love? With someone who disapproves of who they are?

 

They can't.

 

The stories "love the sinner, hate the sin" religious folk like to tell about their gay friend coming over to dinner--well, I'm not sure if that gay friend views the relationship the same way you do. I have a lot of friends who also happen to be queer and none of them are really okay with the "love the sinner, hate the sin" rhetoric. They may be friendly with people who hold those views, but it's not the same as being friends with them.

 

When I read about Jesus, I don't see any qualifications or restrictions on the commandment to love. I wish all Christians felt the same.

[quark]

.

Edited January 23, 2017 by quark

[Scarlett]

A good, counselor friend IRL explained this to me recently. As in sexuality and gender identity being on a spectrum just like intellectual, physical, emotional, wealth, whatever-have-you. Our identity is very much on a spectrum too. Most of us see gender as two rigid options, male and female. But most of us are not truly one or the other regardless of how we look/ act/ perform biologically.

This doesn't have any ring of truth or logic to me.

[Scarlett]

If you believe strongly that something is right or wrong it doesn't suddenly become different just because it involves your loved ones.

[Joker]

.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Joker

[Scarlett]

No one is excluded from attending our services. But in order to be baptized and become a member you must have brought your life in line with God's standards.

 

I don't really know any homosexuals. If I did I can't imagine we would be friends. Acquaintances maybe. Our belief system would be so far apart there would be no basis for a friendship.

[Frances]

This doesn't have any ring of truth or logic to me.

Why not? As a psychology major, I thought this long before I ever heard any research or evidence for it. People certainly have different levels of sex drive, why wouldn't it make sense that they have varying levels of sexual attraction to each gender? Just about any human characteristic I can think of falls on a continuum. Why not sexual attraction? Or gender identity?

[Carol in Cal.]

 

My parents and my husband's parents are heartbroken because my action to protect my child in this life has (according to their belief, which I do not share) jeopardized our eternal lives. This belief soils our relationship with them because it prevents them from truly loving and accepting us as we are. Even though we are successful, compassionate people, we are not enough because we aren't part of the church anymore. How can anyone have a close relationship with someone they know disapproves of who or how they love? With someone who disapproves of who they are?

 

They can't.

 

Love and approval are two different things.

 

Surely you have friends who you love but don't approve of all of their decisions?  I certainly do, and I have friends who love me but don't approve of all of mine.