LGBT People In Church: Top 5 Questions Asked By Opponents Of LGBT Inclusion

In my 30 years as an advocate for God's love for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, I've had countless conversations with those who think differently than me about God, Scripture and the place of the LGBT faithful in the church.

Throughout these years, I've heard, read and have been asked many of the same questions -- and by a wide variety of people. Today, I share with you the five questions I most commonly hear, as well as my answers to them. I do this in the hopes that others share their responses as well and we continue to learn from each other.

Question 1: "How can you ignore the clear meaning of Scripture and all of Christian tradition that says same-sex love is a sin?"

Christian history is a flowing stream of new insight. Our understanding and interpretation of Scripture has changed over time, and continues to change, as our understanding of the world God has made for us expands.

For instance, there are single Bible verses such as, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything," (Colossians 3:22), that have been used in our history to justify acts now considered repulsive -- like slavery or forcing women to remain silent in church. As we learn, we grow, and our understanding and interpretation of Scripture changes.

We should take solace that our knowledge of God is always being reformed through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And the fountain from which new inspiration springs is the dialogue between our different interpretations of Scripture. There have always been and always will be disagreement in the church about what the Bible means. Some Christians read the Bible as saying same-sex love is a sin. Other Christians read the stories of David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18-2 Samuel 1) and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8) as affirmation of gay men and therefore a foundation for including LGBT people within God's love.

I choose to participate in the full life of Christian history, sharing the inspiration the Holy Spirit gives to me. And since Scripture teaches me that Jesus has drawn all people to Himself (John 12:32), I therefore see God's embrace of LGBT people as the clear meaning of Scripture and the present culmination of the whole arc of Christian history.

Question 2: "How can you be sure that you aren't just making stuff up to justify something that is culturally trendy?"

That I actually perceive God correctly and am doing God's will is a matter of faith. This is true for every single one of us, regardless of our interpretation of Scripture. Christians live by faith in Jesus' love, not by certainty (we need only look at the state of the world to know we live by faith in God's love).

This being said, we have good direction on how we know whether we are doing Jesus' will (culturally trendy or not). He said, "You will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16)." And Paul outlines the best fruit: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness and self control (Galatians 5:22)." Nurturing these virtues everywhere I can assures me that I am doing God's will and not making stuff up to be culturally trendy.

Experience has taught me that God's inspiration can come from an infinite number of messengers, including both Scripture and culture. So what I give myself to, as a Christian, is to begin every day committed to love God and my neighbor and to be as attuned to the Holy Spirit as I possibly can in order to know how to do that.

Question 3: "Don't all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people violate the Biblical requirement of monogamous marriage between a man and a woman?"

In the Bible's story of creation, God declares everything good, until this moment: "Then the Lord said, 'It is not good that man should live alone; I will make him a helper as his partner (Genesis 2:18).'" There is nothing in Scripture that requires who this companion will be. In fact, the whole of Scripture (including the apostle Paul) looks upon women as the subservient property of the husband (and most of the time with full acceptance of owning multiple wives). Marriage in ancient Hebrew and Greek meant the man taking the woman as his property. This actually contrasts with our modern understanding of marriage, which is based on a commitment of love between equally mature and willing adults.

We have the testimony of many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Christians who tell us that God has bound them to a person of the same sex as their partner for life. And we have seen the marvelous fruits of the lives of these believers who contribute to their families and communities with greater power and joy because of the loving partner who is at their side.

LGBT people in loving partnerships have all the qualities that we value in marriage. These qualities are the essence of fidelity in marriage espoused by Scripture. And let us not forget Jesus' warning, "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate" (Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9). Again, with no stipulation as to whom God has joined.

Question 4: "How can any Christian, in good conscience, engage in or condone sexual practices that are both unnatural and dangerous?"

I see the line between safety and danger running through the lives of all people, not between straight people on one side and LGBT people on the other. All sexual activity includes inherent possibilities of danger. The best protection against these dangers is to engage in sexual activity after there is intimacy on other important levels of life -- to be assured of mutual love and consent between mature adults. This holds for all couples.

For those who shun and make outcasts of LGBT people, they create a self-fulfilling prophecy. A son or daughter will come out as LGBT in some communities and be met by an environment that is hostile. They watch as their family and church ties get severed. Their moral support structure -- that which guides the making of good moral choices -- disappears and they are left to navigate the world on their own. Some who are lucky find a community that is open and affirming and can prosper, while others do not find moral support and wind up making a series of bad decisions.

Now imagine for a moment if more people in our communities and in the church were welcoming and affirming of LGBT people. If instead of shunning and turning their backs on their child or neighbor, they could continue to encourage good, safe, moral choices that also allowed them to be who they were before God. The outcome, and our world, would be wonderfully different: safe and overall better for it.

Question 5: "How can you dismiss the way Jesus can heal people who suffer from an affliction like alcoholism or same sex attraction?"

No Christian would deny that Jesus healed those who suffered from affliction. What I dismiss is the assumption that same-sex love is an affliction. I do this because I trust the witness, in word and deed, of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Christians and of those who know their love and gifts.

Sadly, I know many LGBT people who began their understanding of themselves where tradition and religion taught them: They believe for years that they are defective, sinful and need to be healed. They beg Jesus for that healing for years. And His answer to them is that they are whole and good as they are. Period. Their souls have been tried in the refiner's fire and I trust their discernment of God's will. The goodness of their lives since accepting God's love shows they are right.

Yet, some in our society try to "heal" these children of God through reparative therapy (efforts to change LGBT people to being "straight"). They hold up a very small select few as examples of "success" and don't like to discuss the damage done to so many others. The hurt that is inflicted by those programs is an egregious assault on the souls of the LGBT people who go through them. They need to be stopped.

Yes, Jesus can heal people of their afflictions -- but if there is no affliction then there is no need of healing.

Finally, I must comment on the equation that some try to make between alcoholism and being born gay which disturbs me greatly. My mother was an alcoholic. She died well before her time from throat cancer related to drinking and smoking. Alcoholism is a terrible, deadly progressive disease that affects one's own body, mind and spirit. As the disease consumes the alcoholic's attention, it also eats away at the relationships with all who love them. For those who live openly and honestly as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, the damage to body, mind and soul comes from outside, not from within. It comes from those that shun, cast away and turn their backs on their family, friends or neighbors who have the courage to come out. Trying to equate the two demonstrates a misunderstanding of both.

--

Thanks in advance to those who share their own answers to these, and to those who sincerely ask these questions and honestly comment on my answers.

 

Follow Rev. Dr. Janet Edwards on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RevJanetEdwards

Comments

[jedwards518]

10:09 AM on 10/07/2011

On question #5, and the issue of your mother's alcoholism, you forgot one thing. Your mother lived alcohol-free, sober, and happy for the last years of her life. This showed that she vanquished the behavior that was the result of her tendency. She readily shared with anyone whose heart was open to the teaching, that she did this with her creator's assistance. You might say her life was "repared"(repaired?).
A thief has a tendency to steal: not always indulged. Some people with a tendency to steal live very happily as bank tellers their whole lives. They never indulge themselves.
Some people who are alcoholics work as bartenders, but never have a drink. They possess the tendency, and will readily tell you so, but they never indulge the tendency.
Why is a tendency toward gay behaviors any different? Presumably one could have the tendency toward gay behavior, but resist the indulgence in the behavior, with God's help.
Am I missing something?

[DeWain]

02:32 PM on 10/01/2011

To: Janet Edwards

Q1:
Men, it is ok and healthy to love other men, it is a wonderful part of nature, but you can keep sexual behaviors out of the relationship. It makes sense.
Women, learn to love other women, it is a wonderful part of nature, but you can keep sexual behaviors out of the relationship. It makes sense.
Sexually ambiguous people, you're in luck. Science and medicine can now help you to adjust for natures errors. It's wonderful progress, don't you think?

Q2:
You can be sure that we ARE just making stuff up to justify personal behavior or misbehavior. As we mature as individuals and as a species, we must also start judging and eliminating undesirable behaviors. The same sex issues reflect common behavior practiced for millions of years. They were only decided upon as ludicrous a couple thousand years ago. There is no need to return to our unthinking animal origins of sexual maladjustment. It remains ludicrous and becomes even more so with creative inventiveness.

Q3:
The requirements of marriage are socially constructed norms for the well being of the children and the group or tribe. Violations are within the purview and authority of the various groups. The best way for a child to grow, or for humanity to thrive, is an ongoing learning and judging experience for society. Marriage ideals are clearly miscast, so let's not add more pathology to an idea which may have some merit but is floundering.

[xscd]

11:29 PM on 10/08/2011

Asking gay men and women to refrain from having sex doesn't seem like a very good suggestion or answer. Imagine asking a heterosexual man or woman to refrain from having sex with the opposite gender. I personally think that sexuality is just a common and natural outgrowth of intimate psychological and emotional connection between two human beings regardless of gender.

[DeWain]

02:44 AM on 10/09/2011

xscd

My answers to Q4 and Q5 offered modern scientific ideas on the subject and did include responses to reasonable thoughts like yours. They apparantly can not be viewed here, sorry.

[pup4588]

12:50 AM on 10/01/2011

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble
of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.

Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do
with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

[RockyMissouri]

04:06 PM on 10/01/2011

Thank you for reminding us of the lunacy.....

[Atwill]

02:03 PM on 10/02/2011

you uncle is a very bad and wicked man. no J/K

[DavidBlackburn]

12:45 AM on 10/01/2011

Christ's teachings were based on love and grace, yet some Christians exempt themselves from being loving and gracious.

[furby6]

10:06 AM on 10/02/2011

Congratulations David Blackburn, you just figured out something. Christians don't have the monopoly on goodness. If one feels compelled to proclaim one's beliefs by shouting them on every roof top, there's usually some insecurity underneath all that. Calling a skunk cabbage a rose won't make it smell any sweeter, and persuading people that your faith is pure won't make you a better person.

[RockyMissouri]

03:18 PM on 09/30/2011

Thank you for being a beautiful, caring and honorable human being! Your heart is motivated by goodness, however......I don't think the likes of Pat Robertson and other hard-liners have enough room in their hearts OR minds to see anything except through the eyes of HATRED and BIGOTRY.
I do admire and respect your efforts.... We need MORE sincere ministers like you. !

[RockyMissouri]

01:54 PM on 09/30/2011

Thank you! I am quoting a brilliant individual: 'One great example trumps a hundred thundering sermons.'

[Daybot]

11:19 PM on 09/29/2011

In 2050 the population is estimated to reach 9 billion, increasing the need for food by 70%, now that is food for thought.

[BornOKtheFirstTime]

02:05 AM on 09/30/2011

Exactly! Much different from biblical times when popping out as many kids as possible was a high priority. Now it's being irresponsible. Sort of puts same-sex unions in a different light. Reproduction is merely an occasional, often unwanted byproduct of sexual activity.

[hank p wall]

08:25 PM on 09/29/2011

" All sexual activity includes inherent possibilities of danger. The best protection against these dangers is to engage in sexual activity after there is intimacy on other important levels of life -- to be assured of mutual love and consent between mature adults. This holds for all couples."- this is a very true statement...it comes so close to a positive statement of abstinence as a biblical, moral and health-responsible standard before marriage....why then cannot you bring yourself to fully accept abstinence outside of marriage it as a correct teaching of the church- sexuality aside.... are those who hold fast to this likewise exclusionary, anachronistic, and bigoted? Has God's view of this really changed as you seem to think? I think people change, but the character of a loving forgiving God remains constant- loving parents are not always permissive parents, even when the children call them old-fashioned and out of touch. Finally, where does your position leave the historically orthodox and yes-loving-members of the church- please acknowledge that those who hold alternate scriptural views also bear good fruit and love...yes even love sinners as we are all called to do...no matter what the sin.

[StevenM]

07:59 AM on 09/30/2011

My church, the mainline Lutheran church (ELCA) “teaches that degrees of physical intimacy should be carefully matched to degrees of growing affection and commitment. This also suggests a way to understand why this church teaches that the greatest sexual intimacies, such as coitus, should be matched with and sheltered both by the highest level of binding commitment and by social and legal protection, such as is found in marriage.” (“Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” by the ELCA, 2009). But when governments deny marriage to same-sex couples, marriage is not the only form of commitment. More often than not, those who speak about abstinence speak about what a person should not do, where as my Church's statement on sexuality speaks about degrees of physical intimacy. Intimacy is a process, one which can begin with just talking, a walk, or a touch. In fact, the statement that "degrees of physical intimacy should be carefully matched to degrees of growing affection and commitment" is very traditional.

Re: "please acknowledg­e that those who hold alternate scriptural views also bear good fruit and love..."

Sure, but it would be nice if these people would speak out in favor of same-sex marriage, since your personal religious views shouldn't deny the civil rights of those who do not share your religious views.

[hank p wall]

08:50 AM on 09/30/2011

Yes Steven- I think we tend to agree on more things than one might think. Now if the inability to marry prevents ECLA from being able to state clearly that sexual intimacy is best reserved for marriage- then the denial of the right to marry indeed leads to very fuzzy statements about sex being tied to "levels of intimacy" or such nonsense as that instead of the vow of marriage. I am sure ECLA worked very hard on their statement (probably for days at some conference), and perhaps some are satisfied with it, but it is nothing more than a statement of individual conscience and freedom and it says nothing of a vow, or the importance of a vow- (recommend all to read Chesterton- "The Defendant- In Defense of Rash Vows") This is what is missing- marriage is not simply an example of a vow- it is the vow. If the vow is open to all...does the liberal church come back to a statement of defense of the vow, or does it continue to teach sex according to various levels of intimacy instead of according to a vow of marriage?...I wonder, but I also doubt that there is any basis for agreement on that particular point within the liberal theological point of view. It would be great news if I were wrong....cont'

[Syl 13]

06:08 PM on 09/29/2011

Beautiful piece, Reverend. It's a shame that so few Christians are Christ-like towards their fellow humans, be they LGBT or simply of another faith, and I pray that your five answers are persuasive to at least some of those who feel that God commands them to hate.

Many LGBT people are deeply religious. My gf pesters me to the read the Bible! But it is hard for many of us to remain affiliated with the religion of our birth when that sect makes hatred of people like us and the cruel denial of our basic desire for love and intimacy requirements for goodness. It's heartening to know that such hatred is not present in all people of faith, and that people can be both sincerely Christian and sincerely pro-equality.

Reverend Edwards for Pope!

[RockyMissouri]

02:03 PM on 09/30/2011

To me it seems to be however, and WHOever is interpreting the words... Jesus changed it all...
Now we see things through different, kinder eyes.....at least, we should.

[Pfalz prophet]

02:09 PM on 09/30/2011

What a great gift it is, that our DNA does not prescribe the denomination that we must attend throughout our lives. Were my own denomination, or even its geographic segment (my diocese) to become destructive of my identity, I would abandon it as surely as I would discard spoiled food, and for the same reason: my health.

[ClintBMD]

06:05 AM on 09/29/2011

Something else you should point out with respect to Jesus and affliction. One of the most important episodes (to many) in the New Testament is Jesus healing the servant of the centurion. The centurion is the first to recognize that Jesus only need say it and it is so. Jesus would have also known that servants were a perk given to centurions and those servants didn't just wash clothes. They were to act as concubines to keep the centurions satisfied while out on duty. And this centurion apparently loved his concubine. Jesus knowingly healed the male lover of a Roman. I think this should put to rest any notions about what Jesus felt toward homosexuality.

[TanzaniaTeacher]

10:41 AM on 09/29/2011

Very interesting reading the story, thanks Clint.

[Balancement]

11:32 AM on 09/29/2011

Fanned. Faved. Badged. But the brain-washed will deny it.

[Martin Eldred]

02:01 AM on 09/29/2011

Well written, Rev. Edwards. As a brother in Christ and a colleague in the Ministry, I thank you and appreciate your words here.

[Tulka2]

01:51 AM on 09/29/2011

It's not like intolerant Christians don't suffer.  It would be one thing if they were all happy creatures, but read down this thread and you get a different picture.  They cling to their suffering.

[StevenM]

08:28 AM on 09/29/2011

Saint Augustine wrote: "Sin is its own punishment." Such a notion cuts both ways. On the one hand, if Christians actually believed this, there wouldn't be that constant need to condemn others for what they merely perceive to be "sin." On the other hand, bigotry and the constant need to condemn others is its own punishment. It has made them ugly on the inside, and they have to live with that.

[gracealone]

05:26 AM on 09/30/2011

Not sure you would want to use Saint Augustine to support your opinion. Clearly Augustine would be included in these people who are "ugly on the inside" that you are scolding.

Augustine wrote: "Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God’s law, for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust.”

[PatrickforO]

12:43 AM on 09/29/2011

It is interesting to me how Christianity, which is supposed to be a religion of love, has become in our society an intolerant force of hatred and bigotry.

[RockyMissouri]

04:21 PM on 10/01/2011

And look what we've done to Uganda ....the evangelicals and their exportation of hate for their fellow human.... I don't think this is what the Creator had in mind.

[CalSailor]

11:19 PM on 09/28/2011

I am a female Christian pastor. My church has basically said: marriage or celibacy...and then society has said: gays cannot marry. And so, gays have no choice except celibacy. We have seen from our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, that mandatory celibacy is extremely difficult to maintain. I have known and been friends with a number of Catholic priests. Some have been able to maintain their vows; others have maintained their vows at the cost of heroic struggle; others simply cannot live in celibacy.

The human drives for intimacy and love are the strongest drives we have, so why are we surprised that some cannot live celibate lives? My counsel to both gay and straight: I strongly encourage abstinance until marriage; however, for those who for a variety of reasons cannot marry, then my advice is to find someone with whom you can find love and acceptance; be faithful to that one, and trust that the God who created you and loves you will welcome you. My heart aches for the people who have been so harmed by the hatred of religious people around this issue.

Pr Chris

[Angel1999]

12:38 AM on 09/29/2011

What does this have to do with anything. Gay people aren't eunuchs. And please tell us where Jesus said that sex is between married people.

[StevenM]

10:19 AM on 09/29/2011

Re: "My church has basically said: marriage or celibacy..­.and then society has said: gays cannot marry. And so, gays have no choice except celibacy."

Actually, gays can marry and have done so, not only in parts of the US, but elsewhere as well.

[LintLass]

11:48 AM on 09/29/2011

Well, the same churches have been the major forces behind trying to *prevent* LGBT people from having civil marrriage, or the same rights within them, ...they refuse to *recognize* the religious marriages of LGBT people whose religions or churches celebrate them, ...and even try to prevent it from being *called* marriage.. Just *so* they can continue to demand that catch-22.

[CalSailor]

03:19 PM on 09/30/2011

Not in my church, and in many churches (although at the present, some are rethinking their position.). When I said "gays have no choice" I meant in the context of the church. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

Pr Chris

[Franklin1776]

10:33 PM on 09/28/2011

This is a blog owned by a private company.  If you want to voice your opinion and your faith, try a street corner.

[Angel1999]

10:35 PM on 09/28/2011

Your gospel truths include calling your fellow human beings "dogs", "limp wrists" and comparing us to pollution. Is this how you propose to call sinners back to God?

It's people like you that drive me away from Christianity. What better advertisement could atheists have than you and your slander?