Question

Resurrection’s position on faithfulness to scripture, homosexuality, Gay Bishops and “sexual variety” – a different approach: biblical and loving, without approval and without bitterness:

Question: Where does Resurrection stand on the election of Gene Robinson, an openly "gay" bishop in New Hampshire, and on "local option" for same-sex blessings? (Both of these were approved at the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church in August of 2003)

Answer: We believe they are outside of God's intentions in creating us "male and female" (Genesis 1:27). We do not accept either of them.

Put simply, Resurrection teaches a biblical and traditional view of marriage as a sacrament given by God for the union of a single man and a single woman, and the sole context for the emotional, spiritual and physical expression of our sexuality. We realize that this view has become unpopular and politically incorrect in much of Western culture and in many denominations, including our own, but we truly desire to listen to and learn from our Creator, through the words of the Bible (which we honor as holy scripture, not just the ideas of an ancient culture), and the leading of the Holy Spirit. We will do so even if this puts us at odds with our culture and some in the Episcopal Church.

However, we also believe that much of the debate over this issue has been filled with rancor and lack of simple Christian charity. Therefore, we would respectfully request the opportunity to carefully explain our beliefs.

God designed us. He knows what works in human relationships, and what sounds good but fails. Whatever any culture or theologian promotes that is different from this will never be as healthy or holy as what God desires and says. We humans have enormous capacity for rationalization and making compelling arguments for all sorts of things that, in the end, turn out to have been unworkable and wrong. We don’t want to fall into this easy trap.

Sometimes we need to take a step back and look at things simply. Consider a simple bolt and nut. They are obviously designed to go together in a certain complementary way, and serve an important purpose by doing so: they fasten things together with strength. No one would argue that the designer of the bolt and nut intended for two bolts to work together, or two nuts. Their designer would quickly dismiss such an assertion as mistaken, and so would we.

Men and women also obviously "go together" physically in a similar way, whether we think it is because of the intention of the Designer, or just "nature." To assert that some men were intended by God (or nature) to be with men, and some women to be with women, is mistaken, and goes against what we can plainly observe about the physiology of human bodies. It is a logical “category error.” Without being explicit, the method that members of the same gender use for sexual intimacy essentially simulates heterosexual physiology. Simulates. This underscores how we are actually designed.

This doesn't mean that it is ok to hate or harm people who chose to act in this way, but neither should we be forced to agree with their assertions:

· “God made me to love more than one woman or man (polyamorous[1])” and so on.

We simply do not believe that any claims that “God made us with sexual variety” make any sense at all, much less that they deserve to be blessed by the law or the church. God did not design us for same-sex physical intimacy, or for miscellaneous combinations of men and women, or put us in the wrong bodies, and scripture and biology are both very obvious on this point. We need to set aside our cultural blinders and see this truly.

As followers of Jesus, we explicitly disavow and disapprove of hateful attitudes and behavior toward anyone. People who consider themselves homosexual, bisexual, transgendered, polyamorous or anything else should be loved, respected, and invited to forgiveness, healing and fullness of Christian life, just like all the rest of us.

The church is also complicit in some of this confusion of sexual identity. Often it has rejected men and women, boys and girls, who do not fit the 1950's American view of gender types. A girl who is a "tomboy" or a boy who is "artsy" are often quickly marginalized and belittled if they will not straighten out and behave according to expectations. Members of the church commonly label them "gay," even when they are quite young. When the "gay culture" accepts them as they are, they are eventually convinced that their difference has to do with sexual desire and intimacy, not just a difference in demeanor or talent. The church needs to confess and repent of its complicity in this.

Our culture does the same thing. There are currently over 50 characters in network and cable television series that are explicitly "gay," and these are consistently portrayed as sympathetic characters, treated hatefully by those who don't approve of their "gayness." Heterosexuals who are uncomfortable with a gay character are consistently belittled. The scripts are manipulative and intentionally so. It is relentless and pure propaganda, designed to make us feel bad if we do not agree.

The television program "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is an example, though there are many. It perpetuates these stereotypes: normal heterosexual men are incompetent when it comes to issues of grooming, clothing, interior decorating, art and even food or romance, because they are "straight." If they are good at any of these things, they must be gay. From this unstated but widely accepted notion, we tell young men with artistic leanings, directly and nonverbally, that they are "gay." We send young women a similar message - "must be a lesbian" - if they don't fit our notion of "feminine."

Even our acceptance of nouns like gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and polyamorous imply that these are biological realities, and they simply are not. Without meaning to trivialize the issue, it should be noted that there are also individuals and organizations that argue just as passionately that they are by nature polyamorous, pedophiles, the offspring of aliens, or the reincarnation of people from previous lives, and there are whole movements devoted to articulately and passionately advancing these beliefs. This is not meant to make fun, but to point out how thoroughly a person can become convinced when circumstances, experience and culture conspire to make us believe things about ourselves. It is also to acknowledge that any of these feelings (sexual, "alien" or otherwise) can be intense, a struggle, and at times overwhelming to the individual who experiences them. But we do no one a kindness by declaring them to be God's design and intent. They are neither designed by God nor healthy, in spite of all the rhetoric and manipulation used to promote any of them.

Neither is “fidelity” alone, in any kind of relationship, any certain proof of holiness. Even gangs require and honor fidelity in the relationships of their members to each other and the gang. The only fidelity that matters is in relationships that God blesses.

Yet we have to concede that the relentless propaganda has succeeded. The culture war over homosexuality has been lost. Although its partisans once contended publicly that sexual orientation was not a choice, this false claim is being abandoned as no longer necessary (see Rejecting the Gay Brain and Choosing Homosexuality where a gay writer explains why this is true. If this link goes bad, drop a note to webmaster@resurrection.org and we'll update it).

Variety in sexual experience is now the norm. For the generations now in their teens and twenties, the gender of the person you have sex with on a given "hook-up" is on a par with choosing red or white wine for dinner. Some may prefer one or the other most of the time, but either could be good tonight.

And fidelity is the next justification being set aside. What will be said to matter more than fidelity is the right of the individual to choose how and when in sexual encounters, and it is none of the church's business. After all, it is argued, the morality expressed in the Bible isn't given by God, it is just that of an early and less enlightened culture, and therefore irrelevant to us.

We reject these odd and unscriptural assertions about God making anyone for sexual intimacy outside of marriage between a man and a woman, and instead believe that such desires come from being seduced and infected by sin in a fallen and confused world, that they are often the product of abuse, or the pervasive hyper-sexuality and hyper-individuality of our culture. How can anyone stuck in this lifestyle ever get free of it if we keep telling them that it is okay and blessed by God? We condemn them to it! But they can be touched and healed by God. We rob such people of healing and new life when we proclaim their wounds or sins to be God’s design.

We are also sadly aware that such a loving view of the opportunity for healing or repentance is attacked as evidence of ignorance and homophobia. It is claimed that it will make “gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered” individuals feel “incomplete” and “not good enough” just as they are. We need to remember that the Christian life is not just about feeling good and being affirmed and stuck where we are. Jesus didn't sacrifice his life so we could stay lost in our sins but have good self-esteem. His life, teaching, sacrificial death, resurrection and ascension are about repenting and being forgiven for our sinfulness, being healed of the wounds that came from being sinned against, growing in Him, and becoming complete. All of us need to do this, and none of us should hide from it by declaring that an offer of love and healing prayer is hateful. We should seek out healing and repentance, not run away from them.[2]

It is also sometimes true that individuals may continue to struggle with their sexual feelings over time, much as a recovering alcoholic struggles with the desire to drink but stays sober, and this effort needs to be recognized and honored.

We are a parish that is deeply focused on healing, and we witness it constantly. We know that it begins with safety, acceptance and respect, but never ends there. God always takes us deeper, and often heals what we had asserted was simply part of who we thought we were. We need to let this healing be available and offered openly and lovingly, rather than promote lifestyles, rites and bishops that declare that it is unneeded.

You, like each of us here at Resurrection, are invited into an eternal relationship with Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, Healer, Savior and Lord. He wants His best for us—and that is often quite different from what our culture declares to be good.

(On a personal note: would someone with a homosexual (or other) orientation be welcomed by me and cared for by the membership at Resurrection? Yes – they have been and always will be, just like anyone else. I personally count many men and women with a variety of sexual “orientations” as friends. I care deeply about them, like them, love them, enjoy their company, respect their opinions, honor their contributions, and disagree clearly with their ideas and theology about homosexuality. I’ve ministered to people dying of AIDS at San Francisco General’s AIDS ward and elsewhere, and I’ve been ministered to by them and by others who call themselves “gay.” But I disagree with them profoundly on this issue, and they know it, and they know that I love them anyway. Most of them have loved me anyway, and I simply refuse to let bitterness over this issue enter my heart. I pray for a deeper work of the Holy Spirit and healing in each of their lives, just as I pray for His deeper work and healing in mine.)

[1] “Polyamory” means living with and having intimate relations with multiple partners, of either or both sexes, in a single household, with sexual fidelity to the group. This is a rising wave of claims, with activists and organizations nationwide, following on the success of the gay activists. It is also found on one of the links provided by outright.org, an organization for 12-22 year olds which promotes sexual variety, and of which Gene Robinson, the newly elected "gay" bishop of New Hampshire, was a founder. This is not to imply that he chose for that specific link to be there, but its presence is consistent with the views of many in such activist "sexual variety" organizations, as is their promotion of numerous "alternate" spiritualities, including paganism, goddess worship, atheism and the profound revision or outright rejection of Christianity and the Bible. Don't just take our word for it. A little research will show how far all of this has gone in order to advance the goals of these “sexual variety” groups.

[2] See also “Teaching Healing Prayer for the Victims of Sin,” the author’s doctoral dissertation, at http://www.georgekoch.com, for an extended discussion of these issues.

For an extensive analysis of Jewish and Christian tradition, and the impact of secular humanism, on this topic, please see: Some of My Best Friends are Gay.

Read what an American gay writer says about whether homosexual are "made" that way or choose it. He says its a choice, and they should have the freedom to make it, and the idea that they are "born that way" is just something to make liberals feel good about their support for gay rights. Read the whole article here. His argument, by the way, is a compelling humanist case, and comes from the idea of radical human freedom, sourced in the Enlightenment. Christians, unlike humanists, choose to live lives in accord with scripture, seeing it as God's counsel on living in harmony with how He made us, not just doing what we feel like doing. The current crisis in the Episcopal Church stems from trying to blend the two approaches (and others); it is an unhappy mess.