What would a moderate christian standpoint on homosexuality look like?

[Anto9us]

A Bridge-Builder's standpoint on homosexuality -- it would look like discussion without rancor; acceptance without promotion, it would look like something very high and noble and fair, even though it probably does not actually exist.

 

[trophy33]

I am sure God loves gays and lesbians like He loves everybody.

I do not feel sexual orientation is a choice, but rather something established very early in life by factors we do not fully understand.

I also do not think that one makes a choice "from today I will be a homosexual or a bisexual or a pedophile or any *phile". Its a long process, more like an addiction than a choice.

But its a choice in the meaning than everybody can influence his/her ways of thinking, self-discipline, chastity or direction...

 

[dms1972]

Odd, that doesn’t seem moderate to me at all. Isn’t that pretty much what conservative Christians are saying now?

It probably varies amongst them as do whether they oppose or strongly oppose certain aspects. Some might want to change laws back, others accept it as it is. I probably do still lean towards the conservative end of the spectrum as it stands now.

 

[Albion]

I am sure God loves gays and lesbians like He loves everybody.

That's right. It doesn't mean that anything that anyone does is approved by him simply because he loves all his creatures, however.

 

[dms1972]

I also do not think that one makes a choice "from today I will be a homosexual or a bisexual or a pedophile or any *phile". Its a long process, more like an addiction than a choice.

But its a choice in the meaning than everybody can influence his/her ways of thinking, self-discipline, chastity or direction...

I think its a complex of factors, environment, family, genetic etc., but we are not totally determined by these, we still have choices as to our behaviour, but our power to choose can wane, as it does in other areas when habits, compulsions, and addictions develop.

 

[MariaJLM]

We lost this battle a long time ago. The right to same sex marriages isn't going anywhere. Certainly not here in Canada. The most we can do is simply not perform same sex marriages in our churches as it's not a real union in God's eyes. That is still a right that exists: a right to religious freedom. Granted, we should accept homosexuals who want to be involved in church life, but we should not allow them to promote their sin.

 

[dms1972]

That's right. It doesn't mean that anything that anyone does is approved by him simply because he loves all his creatures, however.

But what does the Bible mean when it says God is love? I think we project our own idea of love into God sometimes, and don't try to understand the nature of God's Love.

"Love is a more stern and splendid thing than mere kindness." CS Lewis wrote.

AW Tozer says :" The apostle John, by the Spirit, wrote, "God is love," and some have taken his words to be a definitive statement concerning the essential nature of God. This is a great error. John was by those words stating a fact, but he was not offering a definitive. " When equate Love with God, we "destroy the concept of personality in God and deny all His attributes save one, and that one we substitute for God. The God we have left is not the God of Israel; He is not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; He is not the God of the prophets and apostles; He is not the God of the saints and reformers and martyrs; nor yet the God of the theologians and hymnists of the church...The words 'God is love' mean that love is an essential attribute of God, Love is something true about God but it is not God. It expresses the way God is in His unitary being, as do the words holiness, justice, faithfulness and truth."

 

[Albion]

But what does the Bible mean when it says God is love? I think we project our own idea of love into God sometimes, and don't try to understand the nature of God's Love.

That is a reasonable question to ask. We mortals, of course, do not understand all the things of God but only what we are capable of and what has been given to us in revelation.

 

[JackRT]

I have been trying to figure this out for quite a while. I want to avoid the extremes if that is possible. So I would not argue against a form of civil partnership for non-christians, but disagree with same sex marriage. I would argue that Christians who wish to have prayer for wholeness including overcoming homosexual desires should be allowed to seek that out and psychotherapy too if they want, but that those who don't want to travel that road celibacy should be encouraged. No one should be forced to go for therapy, either secular or religious. I don't agree with practicing homosexuals being leaders in the church, or the blessing of same-sex relationships. Homosexuals seeking to live celebate lives should not be refused communion. Forgiveness and grace should be extended when people fail.

Does this avoid extremes of both the liberal and conservative sorts?

Aside from the fact a liberal stance is not extreme I would hold homosexuals to precisely the same standards as heterosexuals. In the past certainly, and to a lesser extent at the present, homosexuals have been constrained to deny their natural instincts. If they are expressed at all, they have had to be expressed secretly. The sexual instinct is extremely powerful and regardless of sexual orientation it will find a means to be expressed. Let us strive for a society in which that can be expressed in a manner that is healthy and fulfilling for both people in a way that supports the larger needs of a healthy society. This is why I support same sex marriage --- it can only enhance marriage, not threaten it. We heterosexual people are enough of a threat already to the institution of marriage.
What would a rational ethic of sex look like to you? To me it looks like just about any sexual relationship based on love and mutual respect and responsibility between consenting adults is acceptible. I would rule out any sort of violence, coercion, exploitation or anything destructive of a pre-existing relationship.

 

[RDKirk]

We need to love homosexual people as we love ourselves. This means not just tolerate them in Church, but giving them full rights as a member of the Church. i believe therefore that a homosexual who fights their sins and remain celibate could well be fit for leadership in Church.

The OP said that practicing homosexuals would not be permitted leadership in the church.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree with you on everything except for this. The secular population has agreed to give homosexuals the right to marry based on their brainwashing through Satanically controlled media, especially TV over the generations.
They don't have a right to sin. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to cause a debate and I might have misunderstood you, but I just want to state that I think that the effects of homosexuality should be taught in schools because it's a perversion, it destroys families, and it distorts children who are exposed to it.

A secular union would obviously be outside the Body of Christ and not recognized as a marriage by the Body of Christ any more than we would recognize co-habitation as marriage within the Body of Christ.

As to whether unbelievers have a "right" to sin, I'd say as a practical matter that God has certainly given them unfettered ability to sin and cautioned us that He will judge them--not us. Whatever "right" means is irrelevant in that context.

 

[RDKirk]

Ok I seem to have misunderstood the purpose of this forum. Thanks for explaining.

I think you understood it fine.

 

[RDKirk]

The debate in the public sphere was lost a long time ago, so this isn't much of a concession on your part, just acknowledgment of the minimum that should be expected in civil society.

Christians who believe they should be able to control peoples private lives involving two consenting adults are not "conservative", they are simply wrong.

At least the private lives of those outside the Body of Christ.

Romans 5 gives us a specific situation of "private lives involving two consenting adults" and absolutely puts a foot of the Body of Christ right into it--given that they are calling themselves members of the Body of Christ.

 

[Romans 8]

A secular union would obviously be outside the Body of Christ and not recognized as a marriage by the Body of Christ any more than we would recognize co-habitation as marriage within the Body of Christ.

As to whether unbelievers have a "right" to sin, I'd say as a practical matter that God has certainly given them unfettered ability to sin and cautioned us that He will judge them--not us. Whatever "right" means is irrelevant in that context.

I don't agree with gay marriage, or gay "shacking up" under any secular law. You are correct in your second paragraph, I agree that "right" is irrelevant but sin is sin. What's next, people should be able to rape or murder? I mean, come on, stand up for something.

 

[RDKirk]

Well that's what I think - but there is pressure to legalise same-sex marriage in parts of the world, even were civil partnerships legislation has been enacted and those partnerships are viewed as equal with marriage. When that is the case I don't think same-sex marriage is needed. I also think marriage between man and woman should receive a tax incentive.

I think those we do have a say as citizens in social policy, in who we vote for etc, and if given a vote on these things in a referendum.

There are also instances of people being momentarily unable to control their homosexual urges and being told by others when this happens "that's normal"! The same may happen amongst hetrosexuals, but its not often met with such sympathy or understanding! Those who defend the normality of sex-same attraction can do so if they want, but if its not kept under control, its no more acceptable in public than a man suddenly grabbing at a women which would not be tolerated or called "normal" nowadays. I know that people both homosexual and hetrosexual can have impulse control issues, but it should not be said "that's normal!"

Even if it's "normal," that's irrelevant to a Christian. Some one slaps you in the face--you slap him back...that's "normal."

But Christ calls upon us to reject "normal" all the time.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't agree with gay marriage, or gay "shacking up" under any secular law. You are correct in your second paragraph, I agree that "right" is irrelevant but sin is sin. What's next, people should be able to rape or murder? I mean, come on, stand up for something.

Those people are obeying their own master, and their master is sin. The word "sin" means nothing in their context any more than "water" means anything to a fish.

Sin as an action becomes meaningful only to people who are no longer slaves to it.

It is not the mission of the Body of Christ to fix the world, but to be an asylum from it.

 

[RDKirk]

Nobody gets to choose his or her tempations.

And nobody has ever chosen to be gay.

Actually, I've met some women who have made the deliberated, rationalized choice to be gay.

 

[RDKirk]

Sure, but at the same time, you can't justifiably complain about social censure and disapproval when people view those beliefs as groundless, irrational, or repugnant. Free association works both ways.

But the OP is about relationships within the Body of Christ. Any association that is not permitted to set its own standards and requirements of association is not a "free association."

 

[RDKirk]

Conservatives can be moderates, but aren't necessarily so. A moderate position would recognize pragmatism and realism as important principles to be respected.

Point A is not a correct understanding of what liberalism actually represents, nor of liberal attitudes in general. Many of our founding fathers in the US were liberals, but they also recognized moral discipline was essential to being a civilized human being. In addition, there are liberals who still take the Bible seriously, even if they understand it in very different terms, and it's not fair to dismiss that merely due to religious sectarianism.

That's classical liberalism.

 

[eleos1954]

The sensible approach is to realize and accept that we do not live in a theocracy. Those outside the church should be able to do whatever it is that they want to do, so long as whatever it is that they want to do is legal. God doesn't force himself on us, so I've never understood why we force our beliefs on others. If you are in the church, you will be judged by the church; if you are outside of the church, it isn't our business. We have enough to deal with as it is. His kingdom is not of this world.

Excellent post!

ie ... what they do outside of the church not our business ... yes agreed

Question though ... does that also apply to what we/they say?

This is what is becoming an issue "hate speech" ... it's not what you say but how you say it.

hate speech

abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation. (and now a legal issue in regard to gender definitions)

Using certain speech has now become a legal issue.

so ... does the " isn't our business still apply" to gender definitions... in my mind it does still apply.

*The reason I bring this up is because, some (people of christian faith) are saying the use of gender pronouns is the church being complicit with their core beliefs and being complicit is being sinful.*

So, that being what goes on/said in the church, is the churches business ... and what goes on/said outside of the church is not their business, so the church, minding their own business in regard to what is legally said (using a pronoun words that describes their thinking or belief) outside of the church is not the church being complicit with their core beliefs. The use of the gender pronouns (describing a thinking or behavior, is not agreeing with a thinking or behavior) using words that describe a thinking or behavior is not sinful nor being complicit in the church.

*Am I processing this correctly?* Is the church minding their own business a sin? Is using gender pronouns (words that describe a thinking or behavior) the church being complicit and therefore sinful?

Just trying to get my head wrapped around it all.