A Gay Friendly Church?

I moved to Sydney in January 1996. On my first Saturday I decided to go to the nearest Church. It was a hot, humid day, so I dressed appropriately, at least as far as I was concerned. As I entered the Church I was met by the Pastor and another gentleman dressed in a suit and tie, which was in marked contrast to my dress shorts, short-sleeved open necked shirt and long socks. I was welcomed with a firm handshake and the to be expected few questions about who I was and where I came from - as the eyes of both greeters checked me over from head to toe - or, perhaps it is more appropriate to say from toe to head. As I glanced at all the adult males around me I got the message - next time wear a suit and tie.  There wasn’t a next time.

Lets face it. In a church, as in any organisation or group of people, there are certain expectations, some written, others not. Violation of these expectations can come with some form of sanction, and churches are notoriously good at applying the sanctions. I once overheard part of a conversation between two women. The first said something along the lines ‘We’re Catholics, we’re good at judging people.’ That same sentence could be rewritten with an ‘insert denomination’ box and applied almost universally.

Groups or organisations tend to attract people ‘just like us’, those who will ‘fit in’. White, middle class, family oriented, but not all. We tend to gravitate to where we are comfortable. Even in my predominantly white, middle class congregation there are those I feel uncomfortable around because they may be young and not on my wavelength, have a certain type of disability, a mental illness or something that marks them as different.

What follows is not based on research or personal experience with members of the Gay community. It is a reflection on personal experiences that I believe allow me offer what may be a helpful insight. It all started when I found myself in my thirties as a recently divorced, recently new Christian.

Divorce exposed me to a range of feelings I had probably never experience before, at least in anyway as intense. Painful as it was, it was in some ways one of the high points of my life. I started to read as I never had before trying to understand what I was going through. I also opened up to people as I hadn’t before, often because I felt I just had to let stuff out. I was lucky enough to find a few mates I could be comfortable with.

I also became involved with Singles Ministry, a group of mainly plus 30 plus unmarried and formerly married Adventists. And, of course, I read books about singles. What follows is largely based on that time of my life.

The Adventist Church is family focused, with some exception where there may be a stronger young adult or student focus. We have Children's, Youth and Young adults ministries. We acknowledge and celebrate births, baby dedications, mothers and fathers days. Do we even acknowledge the pain of childlessness, the struggle of separation and divorce, the often loneliness and isolation of mature singles or the struggles they may have, including the area of sexuality. We do acknowledge the death of a partner, but what about the end of a relationship.

The day my divorce went through I asked some friends out to help me celebrate. Gladly, some came. Others - ‘No, we don’t feel comfortable about that. Divorce isn’t God’s will, we can’t do that.’ For me it had nothing to do with God’s will, it was about marking a new beginning. Now I could finally put the past behind and look to the future. Others have told me they have felt the same.

Sexuality can be a real challenge. I read once that the divorced can swing from no interest whatever in sex to an almost uncontrollable desire, and back again. Singles Ministry does involve the risk of bringing together lonely people that have not adequately worked through a relationship breakup with others in the same position, resulting in rebound marriages that again fail.

Too many formerly married find themselves shunned by by couples they were once friendly with. Some feel - and it makes sense to me - that an attractive single may be seen as a threat to the marriage by the same-sex partner, especially if there are concerns over the stability of the marriage. Then there are those that side with one partner against the other, yet no one knows what happens behind closed doors. And judgement. I heard the divorced wife of an Anglican minister say one day that she was told ‘You must be a terrible sinner for God to allow this to happen to you.’

Another challenge - and whether this is as relevant today as it was more than 25 years back - is stigmatisation. One author put it this way. ‘If you are single and you live alone, you obviously have problems with relationships. If you are single and share a house with a member of the opposite sex, you’re obviously cohabitating. And, if you are sharing a house with someone of the same sex …’ you’re smart enough to work that one out.

So, what does this have to do with gays? First, I don’t claim to know a great deal about the complexity of human sexuality, but I have read enough to know that, for many at least, it is not a lifestyle choice. Many have struggled to deny their sexuality for years before finally accepting it. Too many others, I fear, have been driven to suicide, a real human tragedy.

My reflections above have been based on experiences of mature singles. These singles struggle for acceptance, their sexuality, and judgement by members of the Church community. Look around your congregations and ask yourself how many people have you once worshipped with who have gone through marriage breakdown that still worship with you. Too many of these drop out.

In many ways, how can the issues faced by the LGBT community be all that different to these ‘straight’ singles. Is it possible that for some of us latent homosexual feelings may lead us to avoid gays? If we can’t provide a place of acceptance, where people know they will be accepted without being judged for one group of people, how can we provide that for others are not ‘just like us?’

More to come.

Marriage, the Church and the Ballot Box

I stated in my previous post ‘Gay Marriage - a Victimless Sin’, that in some ways a gay relationship may be much closer to God's ideal than many so-called Christian marriages and questioned if a committed, loving relationship was a victimless sin. In this post I outline my reasons for holding to the historical Christian position. Related to that of course is the question of how the Church should relate to the State in the current debate on marriage equality.

In one or more following posts I will share some thoughts on why members of the homosexual community may see the Church as ‘the enemy’ and how the Church may become more ‘user friendly’ to members of that community.

Fundamental to my understanding of marriage are the first two chapters of Genesis.  Here we are given a tiny glimpse of the world as God meant it to be. Chapter 3 tells us how it all went wrong. From then on until we come to the last chapters of Revelation the story is all about God’s working with failed humanity in order to bring us back to the ideal.

In Genesis 1 we are told God created humanity in His own image, to be like Him. We see that both male and female were made in His likeness.  Interestingly, God is said to have made people ‘in our image, to be like ourselves’ (Gen. 1:26). The word ‘our’ clearly refers to more than one. God is, in essence, a  plurality.

If God is a plurality it follows that His image and likeness must also be a plurality. Hence, male and female. That both genders were created in the same image and likeness implies that male or female alone inadequately represent the Creator. Today, after being told for decades the only real difference between the sexes is seen in their genitalia we are learning there are many real differences in the way men and women operate and the ways they think. Perhaps we see in this that males and females were created to complement each other.

When God said ‘Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves’ we see the plurality of God working as one to achieve their objective. Humans were created for a specific purpose as seen in Genesis 1 and 2. That was to rule over and take care of the earth as God's representatives. In order to do that they were commanded to ‘Multiply and fill the earth …’ (Gen. 1:28). Adam and Eve and their descendants were to fulfill God’s purpose of populating the earth with representatives of God. While they could not create as God had done, theirs was the responsibility of creating life through their sexual union.

Genesis 2 adds to the picture. Here we see the man, Adam, formed from the earth and given life when God breathes into him. He is without a suitable companion and God determines this is not good. So God determines to rectify the situation which He does by causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep and fashioning a woman from his rib. And in this fashioning we see reflected the plurality of the one seen in Genesis 1. Adam proclaims of Eve ‘She is part of my own flesh and bone! She will be called ‘woman’ for she is taken out of a man (Gen. 2:23)’. Then in the next verse we read ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ Male and female as one entity, the image and likeness of God.

That was, and remains God’s intent today in a world that has drifted a long way from the way He meant it to be. We see this expressed in the second chapter of Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament. Again, as had the prophets before him, Malachi is called to rebuke the failings of the people and call them back to the way of God. One of the problems he addresses is that of divorce. And so we read in verses 14 & 15:

‘You cry out, “Why doesn’t the Lord accept my worship?” I’ll tell you why! Because the Lord witnessed the vows you and your wife made when you were young. But you have been unfaithful to her, though she remained your faithful partner, the wife of your marriage vows.

‘Didn’t the Lord make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his.And what does he want? Godly children from your union. So guard your heart; remain loyal to the wife of your youth.’

Two things stand out. First, the oneness of husband and wife. The second, ‘Godly children’ from that oneness. In a world of conflicting ideas, many of them alien to God and His way, the union of husband and wife to nurture and raise children and to teach them the ways of God both by instruction and modelling, remain of prime importance.

While that remains the Christian ideal we all know that we do not live in an ideal world. Divorce rates in the Church are very similar to those in the wider community. Neglect and abuse of children and spouses happens. Parents die. Illness or accident can mean one or both parents are unable to fulfil the parenting role. Men and women may be unable to find partners, or choose not to marry. God places no shame on these, valuing them as much as anyone else. That none of us can fully hope to live out God’s ideal does not mean we should walk away from it, for as Christians we are called to uphold it.

So, where does that leave us in the debate over marriage equality and, if we are called to vote, how should be vote? Perhaps we could reflect a little on Church history.

During the Dark Ages the monarchs of Europe kowtowed to the Pope and his Bishops, doing as the Pope commanded. Early reformers such as Luther and Calvin had the support of Princes and Magistrates and in turn argued that ‘The magistrate had a right to authority within the church, just as the church could rely on the authority of the magistrate to enforce discipline, suppress heresy, or maintain order.’ (Wikipedia, article ‘Magisterial Reformation). There was, however, another branch of the the Reformation, the Radical Reformation.

One of the hallmarks of the Radical Reformation, who were persecuted by both the Catholic Church and the Magisterial Reformers, was their belief in the complete separation of Church and State.They rejected the view that the State should have any authority over the Church and the authority of the Institutional Church. This was accompanied by the belief that being a Christian was a matter of choice and that Christianity should not be forced on anyone. And while my reading on the topic has been rather limited, there are those that argue that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been influenced significantly by the Radical Reformation, or Anabaptist, tradition.

This view appeals to me, for I have long believed that if Christianity, or any other religion or philosophy, relies on the power of the State, or any other form of coercion, to force adherence to its beliefs and practices, it loses its legitimacy. For me, the power of Christianity is in its message as demonstrated in the lives of its adherents. If they cannot demonstrate to the world the advantages marriage as understood by Christians then there should be a time for inner reflection, not outward political agitation. And, if I am called to vote on the issue, this will be a major factor that influences my vote.

Of course, you are free to disagree.

My next post will be a reflection on some of the challenges I see for the Church when it comes to accepting Gays, Lesbians and others.

If you are interested in the topic of the Radical Reformation try Google. You may also like to Google Anabaptist.

Bible quotes from the New Living Translation

Gay Marriage - a Victimless Sin?

‘Why ask’ you may say? It is, after all, pretty obvious, especially from a Christian perspective, isn't it? An exclusive one man, one woman relationship for life, nothing more, nothing less. Clearly there is no room in that for same sex marriage so what is there to debate? So why does the campaign for marriage equality challenge my thinking as it does? Why can't I simply say ‘No, it's not on’ and leave it at that.

Let's start with what, at least so far as I am concerned, marriage isn't.  First, it is not a piece of paper with the title ‘Marriage Certificate’. Neither is it participation in a ceremony, whether in a Church, Registry Office or any other place. All such legislative tools, ceremonies, rules and rituals are nothing more than culturally derived, used to establish and define a marriage contract. Neither is it cohabitation in the absence of any such culturally derived expectations.

While all of these may be part of what it means to be married I believe marriage is first and foremost the commitment of two people to cling together through all that life throws at them. It is expressed in those traditional vows to love and to cherish, through sickness and health, till death do us part.

Christian marriage as I understand it is built on mutual submission. Based on respect for each other both partners commit to the welfare of the other, making their partner's well being rather than their own their main priority. Legal, cultural, religious or other norms and expectations are of secondary importance. Without the commitment, respect, mutual submission and care, marriage is relegated to a form, conformity to a social expectation, a status symbol, or a relationship of convenience.

There are some who argue the Bible doesn't prohibit same sex marriage while others vehemently declare it an abominable sin. I do not intend to pursue these claims here, other than to acknowledge I take a conservative view of marriage. Having said that, I believe that in the Bible God establishes principles for our benefit. If that is so then Christians should be able to present a well-reasoned, logical argument in support of those principles without appealing to the ‘God said and that's the end of the argument’ defence. That will never convince reasonably intelligent, questioning people.

At this point it may be helpful if I share my understanding of what sin is. Simply put, it is failing to love as God loves. The Bible says ‘God is love’ and that we were made in His image and likeness. Sin has corrupted that image, that likeness and that is where we are now. All those rules about not killing, stealing, marital unfaithfulness and the like simply help us understand we are sinners. We can keep the rules, but keeping the rules, at least as seen by others, does not necessarily mean we love others. Love is of the heart, not conformity to a list of ‘do’s’ and ‘don'ts’.

How much human misery has resulted from murder, incest, marital betrayal, theft, lies and more. The list of victims is endless. The list includes battered spouses, unwanted and abandoned children, deserted wives or husbands and more, all victims of ‘legal’ marriage.

This is what challenges me the most about the same-sex marriage debate. Now I know that same-sex relationships can be marred by the same ugliness as seen in far too many ‘straight’ relationships, including marriage. However, when a same-sex relationship is entered into willingly by both partners who unreservedly commit to ‘have and to hold’ through all that life throws at them,  to mutual respect and to put the needs of the partner above that of self, that relationship is far closer to what I see as the ‘Christian ideal’ than many marriages accepted as being Christian, or legally legitimate. A mutually exclusive gay relationship as described above, if a sin,appears to me as victimless sin. And, if that is the case then, on the long list of sins, it must be rare, if not unique.

From a Biblical perspective we were made to live in relationships. Did not God say, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion who will help him’ (Gen. 2:18)?

It was for this reason God made woman, but male and female were also essential if God's command to ‘Multiply and fill the earth …’ was to be carried out (Gen. 1:28). This need for companionship is hardwired into our very core. So is this to be denied those who can't find that need fulfilled with someone of the opposite gender?

I do not profess to have all the answers. However, while I see some Christians all too willing to consign homosexuals - and all other so-called sexual deviants - to hell, and others mouthing platitudes about loving the sinner but hating the sin, I see little, if any, discussion on how Christians can actually show that love. I know if I were gay I would find most Church groups to be very confronting and not the sort of place I would like to hang out.

As I said above, I do hold to the conservative Christian view of marriage. That does not make me run from the questions I ask above. I do believe that for the Christian there is a defence of the historical position. In later posts I plan to outline what I see as that defence as well as present some of my ideas on how the Church might become more ‘user friendly’ to those whose sexuality does not ‘conform’ to what is seen as the norm.