What, exactly are we talking about?

(For New readers of this blog I suggest that after reading this post you scroll down to the first entry and read up for some element of progression of thought)

The subject is a hot button issue, obviously, and I believe that a large part of that is the block that the word "homosexual" puts on the thinking of many simply because buzz words like "homosexual lifestyle" conjure up images of bath-houses and Gay Pride Parades with some displays of obviously profligate activity.

Put that out of your mind.

The only thing we are talking about is a committed relationship between people of the same sex who feel no attraction to people of the opposite sex.

The fact is that this is the case for a small percentage of our population and the question is whether that kind of relationship is wrong in itself.

If we hold to the idea expressed by some major denominations that the act of sex is for procreation and any participation without the possibility of procreation is wrong, then there is nothing more to be said, but the simple fact that human sexuality is different from nearly all of the animals in the world in which the possibility of procreation is the only stimulus in females for participation (let's not talk about how randy males are all the time).  Hey, some animals change shape and function for the SOLE purpose of procration with the mayfly living for only one day after turning into the adult form and procreating, (there was a cartoon of a male mayfly asking a female, "What do you MEAN 'not tonight?'")

Human sexuality is different and the difference appears to be at least strongly related to bonding family units in a form of life in which the child requires a long time to develop into a being capable of working out its own livelihood.  It is that secondary purpose on which we focus.  In ideal circumstances it is an expression of love and devotion whether the possibility of procreation exists or not and the question is whether that expression is wrong for those to whom procration is impossible....without considering the ways in which ANY such activity can be a perversion of that secondary purpose, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Does Romans 14 Apply?

`With the questions raised in the foregoing, I think it is proper to ask those who are not convinced that a homosexual relationship is an appropriate expression of devotion whether it is not a matter of individual conscience.  The chapter speaks in general terms about eating "unclean" foods and/or foods offered to idols as well as special or "holy" days, and in verse 14 Paul says that he is convinced that "nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."  Clearly, things may be harmful to eat in greater or lesser degrees, but the "abomination" of shellfish is accepted now, knowing that if there are elements that may need to be processed to avoid harm, there is nothing "abominable" about the food itself and the dietary laws, while protecting the population, were more stringent than necessary now for that purpose.  

In that there is nothing inherently more risky in committed homosexual relationships than in heterosexual, I believe that the chapter applies and we are in the position of practicing "16Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another."

These are all questions that need to be prayerfully asked and answered.

Some of us believe that the current question reflects a movement of the Spirit to redress 3,000 years of misunderstanding the intent and purpose of the applicable scripture.

The other side of the coin

Recent waves have been made about enforcement of Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice policy regarding counselling of LGBTQ youth in their care. the basic policy is:
" I.        POLICY
In accordance with state and federal laws, each juvenile under the jurisdiction of the Department for Juvenile Justice (DJJ), shall have the right to live in an environment free of harassment and discrimination. DJJ shall be committed to providing a healthy and accepting setting for juveniles placed in the care of DJJ. DJJ staff shall respect the dignity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, and intersex (LGBTQI) juveniles and create an environment that is safe and free of discrimination."

The reason for this can be found in Center for Disease Control information found at  http://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm  Which fairly well covers the difference between safe environments and those in which LGBTQ youth are subjected to varying degrees of disapproval from mere comments to outright bullying.  Such attitudes toward LGBTQ are social in nature but it cannot be denied that they are largely fueled by religious perceptions and teaching that any such orientation is "sinful" and/or degrading.  

The effect of such teaching generally is harmful even when accompanied with lessons on dealing with "sin" in love even if the basic premise is true.  

What if it is not?

The major part of the "waves" has to do with the implementation of the policy as stated:

H. DJJ staff, volunteers, interns, and contractors, in the course of their work, shall not refer to juveniles by using derogatory language in a manner that conveys bias towards or hatred of the LGBTQI community. DJJ staff, volunteers, interns, and contractors shall not imply or tell LGBTQI juveniles that they are abnormal, deviant, sinful, or that they can or should change their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The "waves" are all about whether this is a "religious test" designed to keep "Christians" out of counselling.  It is not.  It is entirely based on the perception of what constitutes an environment that is "safe and free of discrimination" both from the standpoint of indoctrinating the general population with a primarily religious perception and from the standpoint of the usually fairly fragile self-image of the youth themselves.

Another element of that question of harm from the perception of the basic action as "sin" (as opposed to the intent and effect) is the question of the feelings themselves.  That small percentage has attractions that we don't share (Honestly, I think women are nuts and when I hear a comment like "isn't he just dreamy?" I look at the guy and wait for the punch line) but we should be able to relate by realizing that there IS a difference in normal attractions and that small percentage just represents one end of a spectrum.  The point, though is how important "attraction" is both in establishing a loving relationship and in maintaining it through the years.  We are saying that that percentage of people that are different can never establish a normal, fulfilling relationship with someone who "hangs the moon" for them.  

Do you believe that a loving God would allow such feelings to leave these people twisting in the wind?

Action and consequence in "sin"

Most of us don't seem to consider the difference between an action and the consequence in assessing "sin."  For example, consider conjugal sex: it is not only not morally wrong, but blessed, but there is a little tinge of guilty pleasure that seems to be attached to having sex itself as reflected in the veneration for Mary as being "ever virgin" even though she was righteously married  and apparently the mother of other children. I think education has reduced that tinge somewhat, but the point remains that we tend to conflate action and consequence.

I was talking to a member of our Conservative branch about the question of what God's concern is and I said that I did not believe that God made arbitrary laws or rules, but everything from God indicates that it is consequences, emmediate or eventual of the action itself that are the consideration.  He said that he believe that God sometimes just says something is wrong.  How do you perceive this?

 Under the New Covenant the emphasis is not on law in and of itself, but on how love is reflected, and that deals pretty much entirely with consequences.  There are a number of scriptures that speak of the letter of the law versus the spirit and the point is that the intent of the law under consideration is what should be paramount in our investigation and perhaps the most concise statement of the fact that love fulfils the law is Romans 13:10 "Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."  The consequence is the focus.

Is the concern about "homosexuality" displayed in the Bible ONLY about selfish/profligate actions?
Under that scenario I have to wonder what consequences of a same sex committed relationship are more harmful than in a hetero-sexual relationship.

Missing the mark

If the concern of the passages on homosexuality is not the acts in themselves, but the social impact of the act, then there is room for further investigation and the final word has not been spoken. What is needed is to look into the nature of "sin" itself under the New Covenant.

I specify the New Covenant because sin is defined as transgression of the Law when the Old Covenant was in effect, but there is a new qualifier under the New.  "hamartia" is the Greek word translated as "sin" in the New Covenant and it means literally "missing the mark."  This is significant because "the mark" is different under the New Covenant; law is not enough.  There has to be a commitment to agape as the basis for our actions in society, as illustrated in James 4:17, "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them."  I will grant that the Law is not just a list of "Thou shalt nots," but the point is that it IS a list of requirements that had been subject to over-analysis in the same way that lawyers examine laws today for ways to pervert the purpose because of incompleteness or error in wording.  We work with the purpose and change the rules that express that purpose as required by the leading of the Spirit.  The current examination is just one example of that process just as the long examination into the morality of slavery was.

So, what is a cogent expression of the major, underlying purpose?  I believe Jesus gave us that when He gave us the New Commandment: "That you love one another even as I have loved you."  Honestly, this is just a restatement of the commandment to "love your neightbor," so what is "new" about it.  I believe that Jesus was saying that this is the new and immediate basis of the covenant He mediated and that it embodies the two "greatest commandments" as love of God is implied and illustrated by the assertion that " whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen," and by "7Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.8The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (Both citations from 1John)

"Sin" then is a failure of love.

The scriptures

The point of my first post, at least for Quakers is that we have in fact subjected clear and specific instructions in scripture to examination in the Spirit of the message of Christ and other scripture references which have some bearing on the question and concluded that those specific instructions should not apply, whether because we believe that they must have been instructions specific to a particular situation in Corinth at the time or for some other reason.  This is consistent with long held Quaker practice of giving the Spirit the same priority that scripture itself does (i.e. John 14:16-17 "16"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.") and with the emphasis in NWYM Faith and Practice that the authority of scripture is "as interpreted by the Spirit."

The question then is how that concept may be appropriate to our examination of scripture in regard to homosexuality.  The scriptures that to my knowledge speak specifically about same-sex actions are:
Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9-11, Rom 1:26-27, 1 Tim 1:10 and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 19.  An examination of the context of all of the references, with the possible exception of Lev 20:13* will show that the condemnation is in regard to profligate or anti-social behavior in general, so the question may be asked as to the intent of the passages: whether they are about the actual acts in themselves or about the nature of the contact in terms of exploitation as opposed to relationship.


*The reference is in a lng list os specific prohibitions which is followed by the note: "‘Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I will drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them" makes me wonder if it is not about religious observations or customs.

Determining how scripture applies

Welcome. I have created this Blog in response to a situation at NorthWest Yearly Meeting of Friends in order to have a place to discuss issues current in our fellowship. A discussion has been started in another, personal blog, and I hate to see it preempted for the purpose. If anyone knows a better way to handle the discussion and is willing to set it up, I will certainly bow out. I want to start with a little stage setting question and see what comes of it: Quakers have long held that ministry by women is as valid as that by men, how do you see us as arriving at that conclusion in spite of Paul's very explicit instructions for the women to keep silent in the church? I expect the dialogue to be in the form of comments and will add blog entries as I see the need or at the request of persons involved in the conversation. I may transcribe a blog entry submitted by such persons if I see it as appropriate, and of course such submissions denied can be sent as comments.