Addendum - "Gays - No easy Answer"
I have received a great deal of e-mail in response to my sermon. It has been from gay and straight, old and young, male and female, from all over our country and abroad (one man in Taiwan wrote requesting permission to translate the sermon into Chinese). Much of the mail I have received has been positive. The critical mail I have received has been from both the "left" and the "right" and is almost always highly thoughtful. Some questions have been commonly raised in the correspondence. I think it useful to further reflect upon them here:
What do you think of gay marriage?
I believe the biblical ideal is found in the creation story in Genesis 1:24: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." I have no biblical warrant to say that this is not the ideal. I believe that most would also say that it is best for a child to be raised in a home of love with a father and mother. I think it completely appropriate for society through its laws to hold this up as an ideal.
At the same time, I am not overly concerned about "gay marriage" (although I prefer that we call it "civil union" rather than "marriage"). Heterosexuals have done far more damage to the "sanctity" of marriage than homosexuals. The 1996 "Defense of Marriage Act" was authored by three times married Rep. Bob Barr and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. If you don't see how laughable that is, you don't have a sense of humor.
Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, but he did speak strong words of condemnation towards divorce and remarriage. The church has rightfully been able to graciously support the latter group. Why cannot it give gracious support to homosexuals as well? In my view, we cannot condemn gay people for living promiscuous lifestyles and at the same time condemn them for forming committed, loving, monogamous relationships.
In your sermon you indicate that many gays would prefer that they were otherwise. Isn’t this primarily because of our cultural bias against gays, and wouldn’t the case be otherwise if our cultural attitudes could be changed?
There is much truth to this observation. Undoubtedly gays would be more self accepting if our culture’s attitude could be made more accepting. (Many gays I heard from expressed complete satisfaction with their orientation. Many others expressed the opposite). One writer compared gay self-condemnation to black "self-hatred" of a few decades ago. This "self-hatred" had been picked up from the white culture. I believe there is much validity to this comparison. I am just not convinced it is the whole truth.
Nobody really knows the answer to this question, but in my opinion I believe that, even absent cultural attitudes, my statement in the sermon still holds true: "The truth is, all of us, straight and gay, know fundamentally that the natural purpose of sex, though not the only one, is biological reproduction. There is no getting around that." In light of this basic fact, I believe it reasonable for a gay person to feel some sense of incompleteness at a minimum. (Of course, this is also true of some heterosexuals).
What is the purpose of sex?
As I indicated in the sermon, one basic purpose of sex is procreation. This is undeniable. I also indicated in the sermon that this is not the only purpose of sex. One writer pointed out to me that if in fact this was the case, we would stop having sex as soon as we had all the children we wanted. What are the other purposes of sex?
Let me mention the most obvious, although no one ever seems to clearly state it. People have sex because it is pleasurable, plain and simple. This makes perfect sense from a natural standpoint. Nature made pleasurable that which is necessary for our survival as a species. The primary reason human beings have sex, talking on the basis of pure motive, is not to procreate or to express love, but because it feels good.
Of course, being a Christian, I can’t speak from just a natural or selfish standpoint. What about from God’s point of view? Why should God want us to have heterosexual sex rather than the homosexual kind, beyond creating a new generation? (Here I don’t mean to say that God is against our enjoying the physical pleasure of sex---see my article on Sister Act). I believe (I am certainly being speculative here) one reason God wants us to be heterosexual is because God wants to encourage us to love someone different from ourselves---something we human beings continually have a problem doing. Psychologists tell us that in our maturing we go through a stage when we prefer the company of the same gender. We feel "safer" with those like us. To be intimate with those different from ourselves, at that stage, is threatening and frightening. A part of maturing is to overcome that fear of being intimate with and loving those who are "different." Some are unable to do this. This is certainly one reason (but not the only reason) some are gay.
This is also confirmed by what many writers have pointed out to me---strongly heterosexual people usually are less homophobic. (There is something about this comment I have never liked. It commonly contains an element of "put down," i.e. it puts down people who question the "rightness" of homosexuality by implying they are insecure in their own sexual identity. I believe that many sexually secure evangelical Christians call into question the "rightness" of homosexuality because their view of scripture leads them to do so). If it is true that strong heterosexuals are less homophobic, more accepting of gays, it shows that God’s strategy is working.
Of course, my argument can be turned on its head. It could be argued that God has created some to be gay in order to encourage tolerance. Gays more than most people have suffered under the intolerance of others.
In your sermon you imply that although all human love is perverse, homosexual love is by definition more perverse than heterosexual love. Is that true?
The sermon may give that impression, but that is certainly not true. No doubt a lot of heterosexual relationships are far more perverse than many homosexual relationships. If our choice of sexual partner is a perversion, I believe it far down on the list of perversions that God is concerned with. (You might take note of what sins of Sodom God had most laid on the heart of Ezekiel [ch. 16, verse 49] Ezekiel doesn’t mention homosexuality. Also, the Genesis account of the destruction of Sodom tells of homosexual rape. This should not be equated with a loving relationship between two consenting adults).
In the beginning of my sermon, I indicated it represented my "interim reflections." I am still reflecting. My continued wrestling with the issue is very much stimulated by all the thoughtful e-mail I have received. Keep it coming. I may change my mind about some things. Check out my sermon in another year and check on the state of my "reflecting" then.
Aren't you overstating the grief and misery of gays? Don't many come to accept their sexuality, find fulfillment in it, and be affirmed by family and friends?
All this is true, thankfully! But after having heard from hundreds of gays, one thing I know of for sure---there is no universal gay experience. I am glad that many gays have happy fulfilled lives in supportive relationships.
Last revised March 22, 2004.
What do you think of gay marriage?
I believe the biblical ideal is found in the creation story in Genesis 1:24: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." I have no biblical warrant to say that this is not the ideal. I believe that most would also say that it is best for a child to be raised in a home of love with a father and mother. I think it completely appropriate for society through its laws to hold this up as an ideal.
At the same time, I am not overly concerned about "gay marriage" (although I prefer that we call it "civil union" rather than "marriage"). Heterosexuals have done far more damage to the "sanctity" of marriage than homosexuals. The 1996 "Defense of Marriage Act" was authored by three times married Rep. Bob Barr and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. If you don't see how laughable that is, you don't have a sense of humor.
Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, but he did speak strong words of condemnation towards divorce and remarriage. The church has rightfully been able to graciously support the latter group. Why cannot it give gracious support to homosexuals as well? In my view, we cannot condemn gay people for living promiscuous lifestyles and at the same time condemn them for forming committed, loving, monogamous relationships.
In your sermon you indicate that many gays would prefer that they were otherwise. Isn’t this primarily because of our cultural bias against gays, and wouldn’t the case be otherwise if our cultural attitudes could be changed?
There is much truth to this observation. Undoubtedly gays would be more self accepting if our culture’s attitude could be made more accepting. (Many gays I heard from expressed complete satisfaction with their orientation. Many others expressed the opposite). One writer compared gay self-condemnation to black "self-hatred" of a few decades ago. This "self-hatred" had been picked up from the white culture. I believe there is much validity to this comparison. I am just not convinced it is the whole truth.
Nobody really knows the answer to this question, but in my opinion I believe that, even absent cultural attitudes, my statement in the sermon still holds true: "The truth is, all of us, straight and gay, know fundamentally that the natural purpose of sex, though not the only one, is biological reproduction. There is no getting around that." In light of this basic fact, I believe it reasonable for a gay person to feel some sense of incompleteness at a minimum. (Of course, this is also true of some heterosexuals).
What is the purpose of sex?
As I indicated in the sermon, one basic purpose of sex is procreation. This is undeniable. I also indicated in the sermon that this is not the only purpose of sex. One writer pointed out to me that if in fact this was the case, we would stop having sex as soon as we had all the children we wanted. What are the other purposes of sex?
Let me mention the most obvious, although no one ever seems to clearly state it. People have sex because it is pleasurable, plain and simple. This makes perfect sense from a natural standpoint. Nature made pleasurable that which is necessary for our survival as a species. The primary reason human beings have sex, talking on the basis of pure motive, is not to procreate or to express love, but because it feels good.
Of course, being a Christian, I can’t speak from just a natural or selfish standpoint. What about from God’s point of view? Why should God want us to have heterosexual sex rather than the homosexual kind, beyond creating a new generation? (Here I don’t mean to say that God is against our enjoying the physical pleasure of sex---see my article on Sister Act). I believe (I am certainly being speculative here) one reason God wants us to be heterosexual is because God wants to encourage us to love someone different from ourselves---something we human beings continually have a problem doing. Psychologists tell us that in our maturing we go through a stage when we prefer the company of the same gender. We feel "safer" with those like us. To be intimate with those different from ourselves, at that stage, is threatening and frightening. A part of maturing is to overcome that fear of being intimate with and loving those who are "different." Some are unable to do this. This is certainly one reason (but not the only reason) some are gay.
This is also confirmed by what many writers have pointed out to me---strongly heterosexual people usually are less homophobic. (There is something about this comment I have never liked. It commonly contains an element of "put down," i.e. it puts down people who question the "rightness" of homosexuality by implying they are insecure in their own sexual identity. I believe that many sexually secure evangelical Christians call into question the "rightness" of homosexuality because their view of scripture leads them to do so). If it is true that strong heterosexuals are less homophobic, more accepting of gays, it shows that God’s strategy is working.
Of course, my argument can be turned on its head. It could be argued that God has created some to be gay in order to encourage tolerance. Gays more than most people have suffered under the intolerance of others.
In your sermon you imply that although all human love is perverse, homosexual love is by definition more perverse than heterosexual love. Is that true?
The sermon may give that impression, but that is certainly not true. No doubt a lot of heterosexual relationships are far more perverse than many homosexual relationships. If our choice of sexual partner is a perversion, I believe it far down on the list of perversions that God is concerned with. (You might take note of what sins of Sodom God had most laid on the heart of Ezekiel [ch. 16, verse 49] Ezekiel doesn’t mention homosexuality. Also, the Genesis account of the destruction of Sodom tells of homosexual rape. This should not be equated with a loving relationship between two consenting adults).
In the beginning of my sermon, I indicated it represented my "interim reflections." I am still reflecting. My continued wrestling with the issue is very much stimulated by all the thoughtful e-mail I have received. Keep it coming. I may change my mind about some things. Check out my sermon in another year and check on the state of my "reflecting" then.
Aren't you overstating the grief and misery of gays? Don't many come to accept their sexuality, find fulfillment in it, and be affirmed by family and friends?
All this is true, thankfully! But after having heard from hundreds of gays, one thing I know of for sure---there is no universal gay experience. I am glad that many gays have happy fulfilled lives in supportive relationships.
Last revised March 22, 2004.