Okay, I've been itching to write a new blog about something and stretching my mind to figure out what that something should be. Then, as I opened my homepage today, I found yet another article regarding the recent changing to the TSA screening procedures at airports across the country. And, well, there it is. I'm going to give my thoughts on such a hot topic. So here we go.
OH MY GOD! Seriously!? I cannot believe that such criticism is popping up regarding the TSA's rules and changes in how they will keep our airlines safe. For those of you who don't even know what I'm talking about, here's a recap from my perspective.
From my understanding, the Transportation Security Administration, (TSA) recently reviewed its policies in regards to how it screens passengers entering airport security. The head of the TSA has laid out two options as it begins to implement these procedures: either a full body scan, or if a passenger chooses not to get the scan, they will get a full body pat-down, one that will potentially go into all of the pockets and folds of your body.
Since this announcement was made, I have seen non-stop on television, the internet, blog posts, and the like, people's "outrage" that they would have to be subjected to something that would strip them from their "rights."
Before I begin, I need to preface this with a couple of things. First, I don't have reports on "Does it really keep us safe?" And I really can't speak for anybody else, but myself in regards to my feeling on the matter, but I hope to voice what seems to be the minority opinion here and see if anybody else out there could potentially agree with me.
With that said, let's get back to this "right" issue. Where in the United States Constitution does it give anybody the "right" to ride as a passenger on an airplane? This is what is frustrating me. People feel that their "rights" are being taken away because some security personnel is going to look at their full body scan, or potentially pat them down before they board an aircraft carrying 200 other people on board. I've got a newsflash for you, this isn't a right. It isn't your right to ride on an airplane, to fly across the country. You pay for the ability to use the technology we have developed to do so. But, in paying for such ability, you also give up a couple of freedoms that you would have on the ground otherwise. You give up the "assumption" of others on that flight, that you are going to do no harm to anybody else on board.
Like it, love it, or hate it, that is the state of the world we live in. We can no longer assume that the person next to us has our best intentions in mind. No, whether white, black, gray, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buhdist, gay, straight, young or old, the people around us could potentially be a threat. Is it fair? No! Again, is it fair? I say HELL NO, it's not fair. But the same scrutiny I'm going to afford the person who sits next to me on a crowded bus, or who I assist at the store on a regular basis, is the same scrutiny being applied to me by others. I know I'm the safest person in the world, but he doesn't know that about me. Just as you know you're the safest person in the world, the least likely to do no harm to anybody else, but do I know that? No.
Look at the circumstances of an aircraft flying in the air. There are two big reasons why people don't like to fly. The first, well, is obvious: they don't like heights. The second reason, the one I'm going to focus on: they don't like to give up control. This is one of the biggest reasons I didn't enjoy flying for so long. It's a big reason a lot of people get scared before take off. When that plane leaves the ground, you are no longer in control. You are no longer calling the shots. You have willfully left your life in the hands of others--other people whom you have never met, and who you are trusting in to get you to your destination safely. And, so is everybody else on that flight. Everybody else places their lives in the hands of the pilots, of the staff on board, in the hands of the staff on the ground ensuring that everybody who enters that flight has nothing on them that could potentially harm the others on board. Again, this is a decision everybody on that flight voluntarily makes. There are alternatives to getting around in the world, flying is only one of them.
What I don't understand is why people have an issue with this? I for one am fully comfortable being patted down, screened, touched, searched, whatever, if it means that everybody else on board is getting the same thing done to them to ensure that when I get on that plane, it is a controlled situation. You'll hear many arguments out there, and one in particular really fries my chicken. They say "don't search everybody, target people who could potentially hurt us, or do something."
Well, you know what, there's a problem with that argument. We don't know somebody's intentions. We don't know if somebody has planned to do something in the air to hijack an airplane, or blow up a bomb. We don't know somebody's thoughts, or motivations, and because of this, how are you going to target specific people? Are you going to use race? So all middle-eastern people should be searched, but not white. So that white terrorist can get on board with a chemical bomb, no problem, because his intentions are not to harm us. Perhaps religion is a better way to determine what people to search and what people not to search. Muslims always get searched because their religion is violent. But Christians, no, leave them alone, they won't hurt anybody--especially that Pastor who wants to burn the Quaran, if he chooses to do it in the air, it's no big deal.
Doesn't anybody else see the dangers in profiling any individual? You run the risk of missing another individual who doesn't fit that profile. You run the risk of missing somebody who hasn't caused anybody any trouble, or raised any flags, but just one day decides to take a loaded gun pass the TSA officers who won't screen him because he's a former soldier, who happens to be white, and who has no reason to be suspected of anything. He brings that gun aboard an airplane and shoots a window out, bringing the plane down into a building full of people.
In my opinion, the real problem here is not that people are afraid of their rights, it's that they have become complacent. Somewhere in the nine years since September 11, 2001, people have forgotten that there are real people out there who want to kill us, there are real people out there who hate America. There are real people out there that at the first sign of weakness, at the first sign that we've let our guard down, will attempt to attack us. Those of us who live in Detroit almost realized that reality last December. There was a real person with a real bomb, who got aboard a real airplane, and that person attempted to set the bomb off. By some grace of God, that bomb malfunctioned and thankfully, tragedy was averted. I bet if you ask any one of those passengers on that airplane whether they think this new procedure by TSA agents should be as controversial as it has become, they'd say "hell no." They'd be thankful that something is happening from stopping such a situation from occurring in the future.
Let's say the TSA is tossed from major airports from around the country and instead a private security screening company is put back into place. Let's say, they have less invasive procedures at searching individuals who board planes. Maybe just metal detectors, like have been used in the past. Let's say that we return things to the way they were before 9/11. And let's say somebody slips by and an attack occurs. Somebody flies a big jumbo jet into a local shopping mall, maybe even Mall of America, murdering thousands. You know what would happen besides the wide-spread panic that we know would follow? No, the critics would get on their horns and start shouting "what more could we have done? Why weren't they properly searched? Why didn't the screening officers do more to prevent them from getting on the plane?"
The people screaming about their "rights" are hypocrites in my opinion. They have become complacent in the status quo, because the status quo has kept us safe for nine years. But, in reality, the status quo has only kept us as safe as malfunctioning bombs, and missed attacks have allowed us. We are only one major attack away from the cries for more to be done like immediately after 9/11. There was a reason why the "Patriot Act" was passed without much resistance. It's because people were scared. People wanted something more to be done, and they were willing to sacrifice a little of their freedom to ensure that collectively we were all safe. But, as time has gone by, and the little bit of danger has slowly faded, people are ready and willing to ask for that freedom back, and bring us back to the same dangers that got us into the predicament we were in back in 2001.
I'm not suggesting anything as extreme as the patriot act. Because, that went to far. But in my opinion, the screenings are a catch-all for the missed report on that one individual that some CIA agent inadvertently forgot to file, and therefore that individual didn't make it on the no-fly list. The ability for TSA agents to actually screen us, sacrificing a little bit of our privacy, gives anybody and everybody who either flies in the air, or decides to go shopping this holiday season, the security of knowing that for as best as we can control, nobody boarded a flight with the resources to fly it into a busy and crowded shopping mall. Nobody's "rights" are being violated here. No, instead, if you choose to fly on an airplane, then you are choosing to make the aircraft safe for everybody on board.
Thank you for reading. As always, comments, questions, and anything else are welcome. Be clear, be fair, and be willing to discuss. Hate-filled comments, or the like, will not be tolerated.
Thanks,
Casey
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
What the Democrats have done the past 21 months - Originally Published November 1, 2010
So, I was asked a few months ago from my friend Dustin what President Obama and the Democrats have done since they've been in office. And, I would like to thank Rachel Maddow for breaking it down. Here's a list. Think about this, in 21 months, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have done the following since he took office:
January 29, 2009 - President Obama signs into law the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay law, a law that has sat in Congress for years because of Republican opposition.
May 22, 2009 - President Obama signs into law the new law that allows the government to regulate credit card companies and what they can do with rate hikes, billing, etc.
June 22, 2009 - President Obama signs into law the ability for the FDA to regular tobacco companies and what words can be used in their warning labels, making it more obvious the effects of the tobacco.
October 11, 2009 - The Democrats pass a bill that makes it a Federal crime to commit an assault on a person based upon their sexual orientation.
January 30, 2009 - A bill passes that insures health insurance for approximately 4 million uninsured children.
March 30, 2010 - Federal government loans are now being handed out by the government instead of utilizing private banks to hand out the student loans, thereby eliminating the risk on the federal government with little return of profit.
April 21, 2009 - Triples the size of Americorp with Republican support.
August 26th, 2009 - Cash for Clunkers a huge success for the auto company (part of the auto bailout mind you).
February 17, 2009 - Economic Recovery Package (the stimulus bill). This is the single largest tax cut, EVER. It was the largest investment in clean energy EVER. It was the largest investment in education, EVER.
March 22, 2010 - Health care reform is signed into law by President Obama. As big as social security and Medicare.
July 21, 2010 - The Financial Reform Bill is signed into law. Curves the excesses on Wall Street. These are the strongest consumer financial protections in history.
Other things that have been done:
---Veterans Health Care Budget and Reform and Transparency Act of 2009.
---Consolidated Appropriates Act of 2009.
---Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010
Over the past 21 months,
---President Obama and the Democrats have passed 25 separate tax cuts.
---President Obama and the Democrats have passed the most significant land conservation bill in 2 decades.
---They created a consumer protection agency.
---They shrunk the federal deficit in the process of all this legislation.
My Response to Ryan's Response (to Prayers for Bobby ) - Republished on March 22, 2010
This was a response I wrote in response to my brother commenting on my Prayers for Bobby Blog. This is the most in-depth blog I wrote, and finally answers and challenges some of the deepest christian beliefs out there.
My Response to my Brother's Response regarding “Prayers For Bobby”
By Casey Wooley
Good morning everybody:
I posted a bulletin/blog yesterday about my response to “Prayers for Bobby,” the Lifetime Original movie. Ryan, my brother, in turn posted a response feeling the need to correct some of the statements I made. His post in full reads the following:
I dont typically do this, but again Casey posted a bulletin about homosexuality and religion that I feel needs to be corrected. I'm not here to bash anyone that feels they are or happens to be gay, I'm just correcting some false information that was put out there.
First off, Casey said "Homosexuality isn't something that can be cured. Just as a person's skin color, eye color, hair color, mental capacity, and any other genetically born trait cannot be "cured," homosexuality is something that just is."
Thats wrong. God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that a person becomes a homosexual because of sin (Romans 1:24-27), and ultimately because of their OWN CHOICE. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person choosing to sin by giving into their sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger / rage, does that make it right for them to give into those desires and go shoot up a school or market place? Of course not! The same is true for homosexuality.
Casey went on to say: "Lastly, it's not about abandoning you're religion. Gay people will be in Heaven. No, instead it's about interpreting your religion differently and realizing that everything you read in the Bible, or some other religious text was written and interpreted by those who came before you, shaped by societal views, and passed along by those in power, with the ability to make change. As the reverend in the movie, says, sometimes blind faith is just as bad as no faith at all."
The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When a person continues in sin and disbelief, the Bible tells us that God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.....BUT....
The Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God.
However the Bible also states that God’s forgiveness is JUST as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17), so Yes they will be in heaven, just as murders, adulters, theifs, all who turn away from it and accept Jesus as their savior.
Hope that helps everyone. Remember, hate the sin not the sinner.
I read his post around 9:00 pm on Sunday evening, and decided that it was time to back some of the views I had using the same passages he listed in his response. It's 1:40 in the morning now, which tells you how long I researched, and studied my own Bible, along with commentary by Dan O Via, the Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Duke University Divinity School. Be warned, this is a long blog and post, but tackles each of Ryan's arguments head-on, with fact, and interpretation, and in the end I offer a closing remark. Unlike Ryan, I don't claim this to be the “clarification” of statements he made. Instead, I point out opinion offered by other religious scholars, along with common scientific thought prevalent in the modern Christian community today. As I speak about in my closing, no interpretation is right or wrong, there just “is.” I will say that the ability to research the passages in the Bible that pertain to homosexuality, helped strengthen my belief that there is room for homosexuals in the Christian church, because context lends itself to the idea that the condemnation of homosexuality in the early writings was more of a societal influence, than a deity-influence. Enjoy!
Casey
Ryan's Arguments:
Point #1
"God does not create a person with homosexual desires." He cites Romans 1: 24 -27 as his evidence.
Romans 1:24-27 states:
“Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity, for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Because of this,God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
RESPONSE: The problem with Ryan's use of this particular passage to support his argument, is that Ryan does not consider context. I cannot blame Ryan for not considering context, because in fact, this is a common mistake used among many Christians when trying to defend their stance against homosexuality. In fact, homosexuality is oftentimes never afforded the same rules as other passages within the Bible. Basically, Christian scholars are saying that under no circumstances is the act of homosexuality permissible, because the Bible says it. However, they don't apply this same standard to other ethical issues that the Bible raises (i.e. slavery, theft, murder, women clergy, etc.). For other ethical issues, context is always used, or at least considered, and therefore a double standard is created on the ethical issue of homosexuality.
In Ryan's case, the above can be said. The passage he states above as his evidence, is in fact taken out of context, and without proper look at the historical contexts of the time, it cannot be properly used to defend his hypothesis. The idea that homosexuality can be termed “unnatural” needs to be addressed from Paul's viewing lens. It is unclear, whether or not Paul was aware of the homosexual sexual orientation, though some scholars lean towards the idea that he was not. Presumably at some point near birth, all men and women develop an orientation. Just as heterosexuals “know” who they physically attracted to, homosexuals “know” who they are attracted. It is impossible for a homosexual man to “know” the attraction to a woman as a heterosexual man does. Just as it is impossible for a heterosexual man to know the attraction to a man, as a homosexual man does. Paul, in saying that homosexuality is “unnatural,” says this simply because he is unaware that this orientation actually does exist, even in his time. Even if he was aware, Paul is obviously of the heterosexual orientation, and therefore it is difficult for him, especially in the historical context of the Roman society, to comprehend the idea of a homosexual sexual orientation. In either case, modern science has proven that there is a sexual orientation in all humans.
How do we know that it exists? Well, the Bible does make room for Christians to put their faith in the sciences of the society of which they live. The question really is, should Bible-believing Christians take serious the claims of scientific studies that show that sexual orientation is in fact a reality and then draw ethical conclusions from it? According to Dan O Via, a professor of New Testament at Duke University Divinity School, “there is a strand in the Bible, especially of the Wisdom tradition, which attests that the natural world and human nature and experience are possible clues to knowledge of God and of moral propriety.” These examples can be found in Romans 1:19-20, 2:14-15, Acts 10:34-35, and in Psalms 19:1-2 where the Bible says “The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands, day after day they pour forth speech, night after night they display knowledge.”
According to O Via, part of the Wisdom teacher's task was to observe the natural world for evidence of God, just as modern science studies the world with its own technical method, not for evidence of God, but just to understand the world. He says the Bible does itself imply that some findings of science may be recontextualized and made theologically and ethically useful. He says science is the technical extension of the Wisdom teacher's observation of nature.
Obviously not all science will be useful, and scientific claims, like all human claims, are subject to questioning and revisions. However, the Bible does allow, that in principle, scientific understanding may be theologically important. And the gospel, according to O Via, calls on believers to be faithful in the particular culture they are placed in by God. So he surmises that the church “should listen—critically and in light of its own theological horizon—to the best cultural voices.”
In other words, listen to what modern science has been telling us. There are really two views by most modern scientists on the origin of homosexuality within humans. Some view that sexual orientation is in fact innate—biologically or genetically caused, while others view that it results from the interaction of psychological and social forces on the person. As of now, there appears to be evidence for both.
Again O Via alludes to studies on homosexual and heterosexual people who are not psychiatric patients which suggest that there are no significant differences between the two with “regard to psychological health, criminality, dependability, or social responsibility.” This also implies that homosexuality is not pathological, and also suggests that “homosexual practice need not injure—deform the hearts—of those involved.” Basically the studies show, that the orientation exists, and is not harmful to those who participate in homosexual acts.
To surmise, there is evidence that homosexual desire comes from genetics and biology and there is evidence that homosexual desire comes from the environment of which a person is part of. The point is that homosexual desire does exist, and despite what Ryan, and some Christians want to believe, in a “choice” of one's sexual desires, the majority of homosexuals don't “choose” their orientation—there is a desire to be attracted to the same sex that is usually prevalent at birth or is quickly determined by the environment factors of the child. And, if we follow the Bible's guidance to give credibility to modern science, then, we can assume that homosexual desire is something to understand and take as reality.
Point #2
Ryan then makes an analogy. He states that “a person may be born with a great susceptibility to homosexuality, just as people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins.” He compares the predisposition of anger/rage to the predisposition of homosexual desire. He says that somebody may be born with a predisposition of anger/rage and CHOOSE to shoot up a marketplace or a school, and compares this act to the act of homosexual sexual activity.
RESPONSE: A man who has a predisposition of anger/rage who chooses to take a gun into a crowded marketplace and shoot others, or into a school full of children to shoot others, has committed harm, mainly to others, but to himself as well. So to make this link of the two acts Ryan has listed, we must assume that homosexual sex in itself causes injury, or harm to either others, or to oneself. Studies have shown that it cannot be demonstrated that homosexual acts are harmful in themselves—speaking specifically of mutual, and consensual, committed relationships. (See the reference above to modern scientific studies).
What Ryan has actually done in one paragraph is contradict himself. He first says that homosexual desire is a choice, and then with this argument says that some people are prone to homosexual desire, but choose whether or not to act on it. That's beside that point now, because if we as Christians are to follow the Bible's guidance, we can put faith into modern scientific thought, and give credibility to the fact that sexual orientation does exist (point #1).
Along Ryan's vein of thought, we can compare the predisposition of alcoholism, which most scientists agree is genetically inherited, to an alcoholic taking a drink. We know that it is harmful for alcoholics to drink alcohol. But again, homosexual desire, and a homosexual act cannot be compared—because again, homosexual acts do not cause harm in the context of mutual, and consensual committed relationships.
Point #3
Ryan quotes my original blog entry, and then makes a point of his own. Ryan says:
“The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9).”
RESPONSE: The stance against homosexuality is, in fact, in the verses Ryan has listed above. And for any reasonable discussion for the view of homosexuality to take place, we must look at each verse, and consider it within the context of which it was written. So that's what we'll do.
There are in fact four old testament texts that in fact seem to condemn the homosexual lifestyle. Two of which are narrative, and two of which are legal.
The narrative texts of the old testament
Genesis 19:1-29 is the story of Sodom. Lot, Abraham's nephew, welcomes two Angels of the Lord into his home. The men of the city come to Lot's door demanding to see the two men, so they may have sex with them. Lot says no, and in fact offers his daughters up instead, but the Angels pull Lot back into the house and tell him and his family to get out of the city, because of the depravities of the city, the Lord is going to destroy it.
Judges 19 is a similar story to that of Sodom. In this passage, a Levite from Ephraim goes to Bethlehem to bring back his concubine who had become angry with him, and had run away. On his way back home with this woman he spent the night in Gibeah, and an old man takes him in as his guest. The men of the town want to have sex with the male guest, but the old man offers instead his virgin daughters, and the concubine. The concubine does go out and was repeatedly raped until she died the next morning.
These two passages, according to Christian scholars such as Dan O Via, have no bearing on the validity of contemporary consensual homosexual relationships, but instead are told in such a way as to condemn homosexual gang rape. They also provide context as to how ancient Israel understood homosexuality. Specifically homosexuality compromises the ability to produce male heirs to rule the land. Homosexual sex is not for procreation, but rather for pleasure, and as such, Israel viewed this as a compromise to produce heirs to rule in generations to come. Secondly, in a patriarchal society, such as ancient Israel, for one homosexual partner to become the passive partner—the one who is penetrated—is seen as a violation of his masculinity. This attitude is seen across centuries. For example, the Christian preacher John Chrysostom, believes that homosexuality is worse than fornication, because it makes a man into a woman.
However, this societal view, is just that—a societal view. This view is within a context of the society of which the narrative was written and gives credibility to why it appears in the old testament—a historical text of ancient Israel. It would appear, because that was the view of the society.
The legal passages of the old testament
As mentioned, there are two passages in the old testament that center around homosexuality that are legal in context.
Leviticus 18:22 -- “Do no lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13 -- “If a man lie with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood with be on their own heads.”
Again we have to look to context for clarification on these two seemingly linked passages. In ancient Israel there were in fact two types of human evil, or conditions and acts that are against God, and create distance from the divine, and injure the human subjects. These two were sin, and uncleanness or impurity. So the question we have to ask, of which of these things does homosexuality belong?
Let's start by defining them, as Dan O Via does. Sin is “a conscious, intentional, personal attitude and act. It originates in a corrupted heart, the seat of will and understanding.” Evidence to support this can be found in the Bible in Genesis 3:1-7, Isa 1:2-5, Jer 7:13-14; 13:10; 17:1, 9-10. Basically it's religious rebellion against God. Rebellion against the Will of God was also seen as an offense against one's human community. Uncleanness, however, occurs “from contact with some physical object or process—certain animals or foods, corpses, pagan rites, sexual process, etc. It is like a contagion, it gets on you.” Evidence of this can be found in Leviticus 15:19, Number 29:22. And it has nothing to do with motive, intention, or the disposition of the heart. The only thing that matters is physical contact with the source of the uncleanness, and the effect is automatic.
Ancient Israel had many consequences for uncleanness. You may not be able to enter the sanctuary to worship God, or in less serious cases you may be able to have a sacrifice or ritual washing to remove the impurity. The most radical cases involved death.
The question now is what makes something “unclean.” And, there is no direct answer to this. However, a contemporary Christian scholar, Mary Douglas argues that it may have something to do with Israel's idea that the human body should be a perfect, unflawed, unblemished container. Sexual emissions and other bodily discharges would make a person unclean, such as menstruation in women (Lev 15:19), childbearing (Lev 12:1-5), and marital sexual intercourse (Lev 15:18). These all breach the body as a perfect container. She argues that the quest for holiness requires that individuals conform completely to the class that they belong to. The requirement of completeness, or perfection, means that classes or categories must be kept distinct and not mixed. Leviticus 19:19, for example, points out that garments made of different kinds of material are not to be worn.
So if we apply this principle of the unclean to the acts of homosexuality—we can see the context of which ancient Israel was implementing this law. An individual cannot belong to two different classes at the same time. A person cannot be both human and animal; a man cannot be both a husband and son; a man cannot be both a male and a female. So as O Via points out, using Biblical support to prove his claims, “hence sexual intercourse with an animal (Lev 18:23), incest (18:6-18), and homosexuality (Lev 18:22, 20:13), are condemned as defiling—as unclean.”
The point to take away from this is that the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus, when looked at in a historical context, is condemned as “unclean” not as a “sin.” Motive, intention, and disposition of the heart are not looked at.
Technically, Ryan's argument still holds—it's in the old testament, it's from God because it's unclean, so therefore, it should not be done. The ironic part though, is that the New testament annuls this idea. It cancels it out, it invalidates it. It invalidates the very principle of uncleanness and impurity. And even more so, Jesus himself is the one who invalidates it to the Pharisees in Mark 7.
The Pharisees have just seen Jesus' disciples eating food with “unclean” hands, and criticize Jesus for not having his followers follow the way of the elders. In Mark 7:14, the Bible says
“Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said: “listen to me, everyone, and understand this, nothing outside a man can make him “unclean” by going into him. Rather it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.” He continues in verse 18, “are you so dull? He asked. Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him “unclean?” For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body. (In saying this, Jesus declared all food clean). He went on “what comes out of a man is what makes him “unclean.” For from within, out of men's hearts come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean.”
What Jesus has done is declare that the rules of Ancient Israel no longer apply, and in fact, it is what comes out of a man that makes him, in fact, “unclean.” As such, any old testament passage that speaks of homosexuality as “unclean” is no longer validated. And as such, the laws of the old testament that revolve around homosexuals no longer are valid in post-Jesus societies.
New Testament Passages that pertain to Homosexuality
There are in fact two passages in the new testament that pertain to homosexuality. Both of which were authored by Paul. The first of which, Romans 1:26-27, has already been discussed in Point #1. The second, Ryan also points out is 1 Corinthians 6:9.
As stated, both of these passages are authored by Paul, a man who was unaware of what modern science has proven—homosexual desire does exist among humans. Sexual orientation is part of nature. What Ryan is trying to say, or at least, what I think he's trying to say, is that even though somebody may have the feelings of being gay, he can turn away from them. And he's using these passages as proof that it is in fact against God's will.
The problem is that these passages include other things that are not singled out nearly as much as the ethical question of homosexuality in today's society. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul calls out sexually immoral, the idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, the thieves, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, and swindlers, and says they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. In that context, he also includes those who practice homosexuality.
Homosexuality in the time, believed by many Christian scholars, included many forms of pedastry—or pedophilia, older men having sex with young boys. It is possible, as many scholars believe, that Paul viewed this as the only type of homosexual activity, and wasn't speaking of grown, consensual, mutual homosexual relationships. But that's where the problem lies—interpretation.
In Closing
The church is at a cross-road. For too long, we have held a traditionalist view of the few passages in the cannon of religious texts known as the Bible, that have condemned homosexual practices. But modern science, other historical texts, and of course, the issue of context, has brought a non-traditionalist view into perspective. For too long, homosexuality has been singled out as a sin separate from all others, without context to give it clarity.
The problem facing the church is what view to take. The problem facing Christians is that an increasing number of people identify themselves as Christians and as gay. I'm one of them. Perhaps the words of Dale Martin, a gay Christian, and a distinguished New Testament scholar can put it into perspective:
He says “Any interpretation of scripture that hurts people, oppresses people, or destroys people cannot be the right interpretation, no matter how traditional, historical, or exegetically respectable. There can be no debate about the fact that the church's stand on homosexuality has caused oppressions, loneliness, self-hatred, violence, sickness, and suicide for millions of people. If the church wishes to continue with its traditional interpretation it must demonstrate, not just CLAIM, that it is more loving to condemn homosexuality than to affirm homosexuals. Can the church show that same-sex loving relationships damage those involved in them? Can the church give compelling reasons to believe that it really would be better for all lesbian and gay Christians to live alone, without the joy of intimate touch, without hearing a lover's voice when they go to sleep or awake? Is it really better for lesbian and gay teenagers to despise themselves and endlessly pray that their very personalities be reconstructed so that they may experience romance like their straight friends? Is it really more loving for the church to continue its worship of “heterosexual fulfillment” (a “nonbiblical” concept, by the way) while consigning thousands of its members to a life of celibacy or endless psychological manipulations that masquerade as “healing?”
He continues: “The burden of proof in the last twenty years has shifted. There are too many of us who are not sick, or inverted, or perverted, or even “effeminate,” but who just have knack for falling in love with people of our own sex. When we have been damaged, it has not been due to our homosexuality, but to your and our denial of it. The burden of proof now is not on us, to show that we are not sick, but rather on those who insist that we would be better off going back into the closet. What will “build the double love of God and of our Neighbor?”
Ryan closes his argument by preaching the word of God in regards to salvation of the sinner. The two of us are brothers, who were raised in the same church, by the same Pastor (PJ), around the same Christian people teaching the same Christian philosophy of sinners go to hell unless forgiven by the blood of Jesus Christ. And while I still hold true to the beliefs that all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and without Jesus Christ will not make it to Heaven, I also realize that unless we take a view of the Bible within context, we will only see it as those members of Main Street Baptist Church taught us.
He says “hate the sin, not the sinner.” I will agree—in cases where a person has committed a sin, we should love the sinner, and hate the sin. However, I'm not 8, I'm not 12, I'm not even 17 anymore. At a certain point you have stop regurgitating what Pastor Jeff and all our Sunday School teachers taught us, and take it upon ourselves to research, understand, learn, and see what a passage of the Bible could really mean according to other interpretations. It's not as black and white as he makes it out to be. The Bible may say specific things—but there are very many schools out there who interpret these things very differently. Add to that any historical and societal context, it makes it very cloudy to say “the Bible says it, so it must be.” Because every time you use that argument, another person can ask “the Bible says what? Because I'm reading it like this.”
Perhaps it's true that you can twist and contort the words of the Bible to support or oppose any ethical question you may ever encounter in your life. I don't really have an answer for that. The answer I do have though pertains to interpretation. My interpretation of a passage, of a text, of a book, or of the entire cannon of the Bible is no more right or wrong than yours, or any other Christian who takes it upon themselves to research and respectfully reason why it says what it says. All I can say is that in the world today, where we have so many injustices—poverty, racial inequality, drug use, child obesity, disease, sickness, rape, torture, war, terror—why, WHY is it so important to judge somebody based upon who they fall in love with, based upon your interpretation of a 2000-year old text?
Thank you for taking the time to read. God bless.
My Response to my Brother's Response regarding “Prayers For Bobby”
By Casey Wooley
Good morning everybody:
I posted a bulletin/blog yesterday about my response to “Prayers for Bobby,” the Lifetime Original movie. Ryan, my brother, in turn posted a response feeling the need to correct some of the statements I made. His post in full reads the following:
I dont typically do this, but again Casey posted a bulletin about homosexuality and religion that I feel needs to be corrected. I'm not here to bash anyone that feels they are or happens to be gay, I'm just correcting some false information that was put out there.
First off, Casey said "Homosexuality isn't something that can be cured. Just as a person's skin color, eye color, hair color, mental capacity, and any other genetically born trait cannot be "cured," homosexuality is something that just is."
Thats wrong. God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that a person becomes a homosexual because of sin (Romans 1:24-27), and ultimately because of their OWN CHOICE. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person choosing to sin by giving into their sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger / rage, does that make it right for them to give into those desires and go shoot up a school or market place? Of course not! The same is true for homosexuality.
Casey went on to say: "Lastly, it's not about abandoning you're religion. Gay people will be in Heaven. No, instead it's about interpreting your religion differently and realizing that everything you read in the Bible, or some other religious text was written and interpreted by those who came before you, shaped by societal views, and passed along by those in power, with the ability to make change. As the reverend in the movie, says, sometimes blind faith is just as bad as no faith at all."
The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When a person continues in sin and disbelief, the Bible tells us that God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.....BUT....
The Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God.
However the Bible also states that God’s forgiveness is JUST as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17), so Yes they will be in heaven, just as murders, adulters, theifs, all who turn away from it and accept Jesus as their savior.
Hope that helps everyone. Remember, hate the sin not the sinner.
I read his post around 9:00 pm on Sunday evening, and decided that it was time to back some of the views I had using the same passages he listed in his response. It's 1:40 in the morning now, which tells you how long I researched, and studied my own Bible, along with commentary by Dan O Via, the Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Duke University Divinity School. Be warned, this is a long blog and post, but tackles each of Ryan's arguments head-on, with fact, and interpretation, and in the end I offer a closing remark. Unlike Ryan, I don't claim this to be the “clarification” of statements he made. Instead, I point out opinion offered by other religious scholars, along with common scientific thought prevalent in the modern Christian community today. As I speak about in my closing, no interpretation is right or wrong, there just “is.” I will say that the ability to research the passages in the Bible that pertain to homosexuality, helped strengthen my belief that there is room for homosexuals in the Christian church, because context lends itself to the idea that the condemnation of homosexuality in the early writings was more of a societal influence, than a deity-influence. Enjoy!
Casey
Ryan's Arguments:
Point #1
"God does not create a person with homosexual desires." He cites Romans 1: 24 -27 as his evidence.
Romans 1:24-27 states:
“Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity, for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Because of this,God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
RESPONSE: The problem with Ryan's use of this particular passage to support his argument, is that Ryan does not consider context. I cannot blame Ryan for not considering context, because in fact, this is a common mistake used among many Christians when trying to defend their stance against homosexuality. In fact, homosexuality is oftentimes never afforded the same rules as other passages within the Bible. Basically, Christian scholars are saying that under no circumstances is the act of homosexuality permissible, because the Bible says it. However, they don't apply this same standard to other ethical issues that the Bible raises (i.e. slavery, theft, murder, women clergy, etc.). For other ethical issues, context is always used, or at least considered, and therefore a double standard is created on the ethical issue of homosexuality.
In Ryan's case, the above can be said. The passage he states above as his evidence, is in fact taken out of context, and without proper look at the historical contexts of the time, it cannot be properly used to defend his hypothesis. The idea that homosexuality can be termed “unnatural” needs to be addressed from Paul's viewing lens. It is unclear, whether or not Paul was aware of the homosexual sexual orientation, though some scholars lean towards the idea that he was not. Presumably at some point near birth, all men and women develop an orientation. Just as heterosexuals “know” who they physically attracted to, homosexuals “know” who they are attracted. It is impossible for a homosexual man to “know” the attraction to a woman as a heterosexual man does. Just as it is impossible for a heterosexual man to know the attraction to a man, as a homosexual man does. Paul, in saying that homosexuality is “unnatural,” says this simply because he is unaware that this orientation actually does exist, even in his time. Even if he was aware, Paul is obviously of the heterosexual orientation, and therefore it is difficult for him, especially in the historical context of the Roman society, to comprehend the idea of a homosexual sexual orientation. In either case, modern science has proven that there is a sexual orientation in all humans.
How do we know that it exists? Well, the Bible does make room for Christians to put their faith in the sciences of the society of which they live. The question really is, should Bible-believing Christians take serious the claims of scientific studies that show that sexual orientation is in fact a reality and then draw ethical conclusions from it? According to Dan O Via, a professor of New Testament at Duke University Divinity School, “there is a strand in the Bible, especially of the Wisdom tradition, which attests that the natural world and human nature and experience are possible clues to knowledge of God and of moral propriety.” These examples can be found in Romans 1:19-20, 2:14-15, Acts 10:34-35, and in Psalms 19:1-2 where the Bible says “The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands, day after day they pour forth speech, night after night they display knowledge.”
According to O Via, part of the Wisdom teacher's task was to observe the natural world for evidence of God, just as modern science studies the world with its own technical method, not for evidence of God, but just to understand the world. He says the Bible does itself imply that some findings of science may be recontextualized and made theologically and ethically useful. He says science is the technical extension of the Wisdom teacher's observation of nature.
Obviously not all science will be useful, and scientific claims, like all human claims, are subject to questioning and revisions. However, the Bible does allow, that in principle, scientific understanding may be theologically important. And the gospel, according to O Via, calls on believers to be faithful in the particular culture they are placed in by God. So he surmises that the church “should listen—critically and in light of its own theological horizon—to the best cultural voices.”
In other words, listen to what modern science has been telling us. There are really two views by most modern scientists on the origin of homosexuality within humans. Some view that sexual orientation is in fact innate—biologically or genetically caused, while others view that it results from the interaction of psychological and social forces on the person. As of now, there appears to be evidence for both.
Again O Via alludes to studies on homosexual and heterosexual people who are not psychiatric patients which suggest that there are no significant differences between the two with “regard to psychological health, criminality, dependability, or social responsibility.” This also implies that homosexuality is not pathological, and also suggests that “homosexual practice need not injure—deform the hearts—of those involved.” Basically the studies show, that the orientation exists, and is not harmful to those who participate in homosexual acts.
To surmise, there is evidence that homosexual desire comes from genetics and biology and there is evidence that homosexual desire comes from the environment of which a person is part of. The point is that homosexual desire does exist, and despite what Ryan, and some Christians want to believe, in a “choice” of one's sexual desires, the majority of homosexuals don't “choose” their orientation—there is a desire to be attracted to the same sex that is usually prevalent at birth or is quickly determined by the environment factors of the child. And, if we follow the Bible's guidance to give credibility to modern science, then, we can assume that homosexual desire is something to understand and take as reality.
Point #2
Ryan then makes an analogy. He states that “a person may be born with a great susceptibility to homosexuality, just as people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins.” He compares the predisposition of anger/rage to the predisposition of homosexual desire. He says that somebody may be born with a predisposition of anger/rage and CHOOSE to shoot up a marketplace or a school, and compares this act to the act of homosexual sexual activity.
RESPONSE: A man who has a predisposition of anger/rage who chooses to take a gun into a crowded marketplace and shoot others, or into a school full of children to shoot others, has committed harm, mainly to others, but to himself as well. So to make this link of the two acts Ryan has listed, we must assume that homosexual sex in itself causes injury, or harm to either others, or to oneself. Studies have shown that it cannot be demonstrated that homosexual acts are harmful in themselves—speaking specifically of mutual, and consensual, committed relationships. (See the reference above to modern scientific studies).
What Ryan has actually done in one paragraph is contradict himself. He first says that homosexual desire is a choice, and then with this argument says that some people are prone to homosexual desire, but choose whether or not to act on it. That's beside that point now, because if we as Christians are to follow the Bible's guidance, we can put faith into modern scientific thought, and give credibility to the fact that sexual orientation does exist (point #1).
Along Ryan's vein of thought, we can compare the predisposition of alcoholism, which most scientists agree is genetically inherited, to an alcoholic taking a drink. We know that it is harmful for alcoholics to drink alcohol. But again, homosexual desire, and a homosexual act cannot be compared—because again, homosexual acts do not cause harm in the context of mutual, and consensual committed relationships.
Point #3
Ryan quotes my original blog entry, and then makes a point of his own. Ryan says:
“The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9).”
RESPONSE: The stance against homosexuality is, in fact, in the verses Ryan has listed above. And for any reasonable discussion for the view of homosexuality to take place, we must look at each verse, and consider it within the context of which it was written. So that's what we'll do.
There are in fact four old testament texts that in fact seem to condemn the homosexual lifestyle. Two of which are narrative, and two of which are legal.
The narrative texts of the old testament
Genesis 19:1-29 is the story of Sodom. Lot, Abraham's nephew, welcomes two Angels of the Lord into his home. The men of the city come to Lot's door demanding to see the two men, so they may have sex with them. Lot says no, and in fact offers his daughters up instead, but the Angels pull Lot back into the house and tell him and his family to get out of the city, because of the depravities of the city, the Lord is going to destroy it.
Judges 19 is a similar story to that of Sodom. In this passage, a Levite from Ephraim goes to Bethlehem to bring back his concubine who had become angry with him, and had run away. On his way back home with this woman he spent the night in Gibeah, and an old man takes him in as his guest. The men of the town want to have sex with the male guest, but the old man offers instead his virgin daughters, and the concubine. The concubine does go out and was repeatedly raped until she died the next morning.
These two passages, according to Christian scholars such as Dan O Via, have no bearing on the validity of contemporary consensual homosexual relationships, but instead are told in such a way as to condemn homosexual gang rape. They also provide context as to how ancient Israel understood homosexuality. Specifically homosexuality compromises the ability to produce male heirs to rule the land. Homosexual sex is not for procreation, but rather for pleasure, and as such, Israel viewed this as a compromise to produce heirs to rule in generations to come. Secondly, in a patriarchal society, such as ancient Israel, for one homosexual partner to become the passive partner—the one who is penetrated—is seen as a violation of his masculinity. This attitude is seen across centuries. For example, the Christian preacher John Chrysostom, believes that homosexuality is worse than fornication, because it makes a man into a woman.
However, this societal view, is just that—a societal view. This view is within a context of the society of which the narrative was written and gives credibility to why it appears in the old testament—a historical text of ancient Israel. It would appear, because that was the view of the society.
The legal passages of the old testament
As mentioned, there are two passages in the old testament that center around homosexuality that are legal in context.
Leviticus 18:22 -- “Do no lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13 -- “If a man lie with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood with be on their own heads.”
Again we have to look to context for clarification on these two seemingly linked passages. In ancient Israel there were in fact two types of human evil, or conditions and acts that are against God, and create distance from the divine, and injure the human subjects. These two were sin, and uncleanness or impurity. So the question we have to ask, of which of these things does homosexuality belong?
Let's start by defining them, as Dan O Via does. Sin is “a conscious, intentional, personal attitude and act. It originates in a corrupted heart, the seat of will and understanding.” Evidence to support this can be found in the Bible in Genesis 3:1-7, Isa 1:2-5, Jer 7:13-14; 13:10; 17:1, 9-10. Basically it's religious rebellion against God. Rebellion against the Will of God was also seen as an offense against one's human community. Uncleanness, however, occurs “from contact with some physical object or process—certain animals or foods, corpses, pagan rites, sexual process, etc. It is like a contagion, it gets on you.” Evidence of this can be found in Leviticus 15:19, Number 29:22. And it has nothing to do with motive, intention, or the disposition of the heart. The only thing that matters is physical contact with the source of the uncleanness, and the effect is automatic.
Ancient Israel had many consequences for uncleanness. You may not be able to enter the sanctuary to worship God, or in less serious cases you may be able to have a sacrifice or ritual washing to remove the impurity. The most radical cases involved death.
The question now is what makes something “unclean.” And, there is no direct answer to this. However, a contemporary Christian scholar, Mary Douglas argues that it may have something to do with Israel's idea that the human body should be a perfect, unflawed, unblemished container. Sexual emissions and other bodily discharges would make a person unclean, such as menstruation in women (Lev 15:19), childbearing (Lev 12:1-5), and marital sexual intercourse (Lev 15:18). These all breach the body as a perfect container. She argues that the quest for holiness requires that individuals conform completely to the class that they belong to. The requirement of completeness, or perfection, means that classes or categories must be kept distinct and not mixed. Leviticus 19:19, for example, points out that garments made of different kinds of material are not to be worn.
So if we apply this principle of the unclean to the acts of homosexuality—we can see the context of which ancient Israel was implementing this law. An individual cannot belong to two different classes at the same time. A person cannot be both human and animal; a man cannot be both a husband and son; a man cannot be both a male and a female. So as O Via points out, using Biblical support to prove his claims, “hence sexual intercourse with an animal (Lev 18:23), incest (18:6-18), and homosexuality (Lev 18:22, 20:13), are condemned as defiling—as unclean.”
The point to take away from this is that the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus, when looked at in a historical context, is condemned as “unclean” not as a “sin.” Motive, intention, and disposition of the heart are not looked at.
Technically, Ryan's argument still holds—it's in the old testament, it's from God because it's unclean, so therefore, it should not be done. The ironic part though, is that the New testament annuls this idea. It cancels it out, it invalidates it. It invalidates the very principle of uncleanness and impurity. And even more so, Jesus himself is the one who invalidates it to the Pharisees in Mark 7.
The Pharisees have just seen Jesus' disciples eating food with “unclean” hands, and criticize Jesus for not having his followers follow the way of the elders. In Mark 7:14, the Bible says
“Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said: “listen to me, everyone, and understand this, nothing outside a man can make him “unclean” by going into him. Rather it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.” He continues in verse 18, “are you so dull? He asked. Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him “unclean?” For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body. (In saying this, Jesus declared all food clean). He went on “what comes out of a man is what makes him “unclean.” For from within, out of men's hearts come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean.”
What Jesus has done is declare that the rules of Ancient Israel no longer apply, and in fact, it is what comes out of a man that makes him, in fact, “unclean.” As such, any old testament passage that speaks of homosexuality as “unclean” is no longer validated. And as such, the laws of the old testament that revolve around homosexuals no longer are valid in post-Jesus societies.
New Testament Passages that pertain to Homosexuality
There are in fact two passages in the new testament that pertain to homosexuality. Both of which were authored by Paul. The first of which, Romans 1:26-27, has already been discussed in Point #1. The second, Ryan also points out is 1 Corinthians 6:9.
As stated, both of these passages are authored by Paul, a man who was unaware of what modern science has proven—homosexual desire does exist among humans. Sexual orientation is part of nature. What Ryan is trying to say, or at least, what I think he's trying to say, is that even though somebody may have the feelings of being gay, he can turn away from them. And he's using these passages as proof that it is in fact against God's will.
The problem is that these passages include other things that are not singled out nearly as much as the ethical question of homosexuality in today's society. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul calls out sexually immoral, the idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, the thieves, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, and swindlers, and says they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. In that context, he also includes those who practice homosexuality.
Homosexuality in the time, believed by many Christian scholars, included many forms of pedastry—or pedophilia, older men having sex with young boys. It is possible, as many scholars believe, that Paul viewed this as the only type of homosexual activity, and wasn't speaking of grown, consensual, mutual homosexual relationships. But that's where the problem lies—interpretation.
In Closing
The church is at a cross-road. For too long, we have held a traditionalist view of the few passages in the cannon of religious texts known as the Bible, that have condemned homosexual practices. But modern science, other historical texts, and of course, the issue of context, has brought a non-traditionalist view into perspective. For too long, homosexuality has been singled out as a sin separate from all others, without context to give it clarity.
The problem facing the church is what view to take. The problem facing Christians is that an increasing number of people identify themselves as Christians and as gay. I'm one of them. Perhaps the words of Dale Martin, a gay Christian, and a distinguished New Testament scholar can put it into perspective:
He says “Any interpretation of scripture that hurts people, oppresses people, or destroys people cannot be the right interpretation, no matter how traditional, historical, or exegetically respectable. There can be no debate about the fact that the church's stand on homosexuality has caused oppressions, loneliness, self-hatred, violence, sickness, and suicide for millions of people. If the church wishes to continue with its traditional interpretation it must demonstrate, not just CLAIM, that it is more loving to condemn homosexuality than to affirm homosexuals. Can the church show that same-sex loving relationships damage those involved in them? Can the church give compelling reasons to believe that it really would be better for all lesbian and gay Christians to live alone, without the joy of intimate touch, without hearing a lover's voice when they go to sleep or awake? Is it really better for lesbian and gay teenagers to despise themselves and endlessly pray that their very personalities be reconstructed so that they may experience romance like their straight friends? Is it really more loving for the church to continue its worship of “heterosexual fulfillment” (a “nonbiblical” concept, by the way) while consigning thousands of its members to a life of celibacy or endless psychological manipulations that masquerade as “healing?”
He continues: “The burden of proof in the last twenty years has shifted. There are too many of us who are not sick, or inverted, or perverted, or even “effeminate,” but who just have knack for falling in love with people of our own sex. When we have been damaged, it has not been due to our homosexuality, but to your and our denial of it. The burden of proof now is not on us, to show that we are not sick, but rather on those who insist that we would be better off going back into the closet. What will “build the double love of God and of our Neighbor?”
Ryan closes his argument by preaching the word of God in regards to salvation of the sinner. The two of us are brothers, who were raised in the same church, by the same Pastor (PJ), around the same Christian people teaching the same Christian philosophy of sinners go to hell unless forgiven by the blood of Jesus Christ. And while I still hold true to the beliefs that all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and without Jesus Christ will not make it to Heaven, I also realize that unless we take a view of the Bible within context, we will only see it as those members of Main Street Baptist Church taught us.
He says “hate the sin, not the sinner.” I will agree—in cases where a person has committed a sin, we should love the sinner, and hate the sin. However, I'm not 8, I'm not 12, I'm not even 17 anymore. At a certain point you have stop regurgitating what Pastor Jeff and all our Sunday School teachers taught us, and take it upon ourselves to research, understand, learn, and see what a passage of the Bible could really mean according to other interpretations. It's not as black and white as he makes it out to be. The Bible may say specific things—but there are very many schools out there who interpret these things very differently. Add to that any historical and societal context, it makes it very cloudy to say “the Bible says it, so it must be.” Because every time you use that argument, another person can ask “the Bible says what? Because I'm reading it like this.”
Perhaps it's true that you can twist and contort the words of the Bible to support or oppose any ethical question you may ever encounter in your life. I don't really have an answer for that. The answer I do have though pertains to interpretation. My interpretation of a passage, of a text, of a book, or of the entire cannon of the Bible is no more right or wrong than yours, or any other Christian who takes it upon themselves to research and respectfully reason why it says what it says. All I can say is that in the world today, where we have so many injustices—poverty, racial inequality, drug use, child obesity, disease, sickness, rape, torture, war, terror—why, WHY is it so important to judge somebody based upon who they fall in love with, based upon your interpretation of a 2000-year old text?
Thank you for taking the time to read. God bless.
Prayers for Bobby - Republished on March 22, 2010
A quick response to Lifetime Movie's "Prayers for Bobby."
Prayers for Bobby
By Casey Wooley
Lifetime premiered a movie tonight called "Prayers for Bobby." The movie was about a young man who realizes he is gay, comes out to his family, and in turn his overly religious and ignorant mother attempts to "cure" him of his gayness. Trapped in a world where his entire life he's been taught being gay is a sin, and a family who is trying to love him for the person he can be, he is lost, and believes that there is no way out. In a way to escape the pain, he jumps off a bridge and into the path of an 18-wheel truck. A tragedy indeed.
I encourage all people to watch this movie. From both perspectives--gay people and religious people alike will find common ground, and those who are bigots and preach hatred towards those who are gay, I hope, will understand that the Bible can be interpreted in very many ways, and was interpreted by men when written, and as such holds many of the societal views of the time. Personally, I will say that everything that this young man went through--every emotion, every thought, every question, every belief, every denial, everything he thought, I at one point have thought about and lived through. This movie was very real to me.
It isn't very often that a movie can come along and touch me the way this particular movie did. I only thank God that I didn't allow my disillusions to cause me to take it to the final step that Bobby did--suicide. I thank God that even though my family still has a hard time here and there with accepting homosexuality, that they still love me; that they aren't trying to "cure" me. Homosexuality isn't something that can be cured. Just as a person's skin color, eye color, hair color, mental capacity, and any other genetically born trait cannot be "cured," homosexuality is something that just "is."
As we as a new generation begin to rear our children, I ask the question--how will we do it? Will the subtle comments about "when a boy meets a girl that he really likes," do damage? Will it cause a young boy or a young girl to feel trapped into a stereotypical societal role that they must find somebody of the opposite sex attractive. Will the blue blanket, or the pink blanket we give a child at birth signify that pink is only for girls and blue is only for boys? Will we raise our children and as we get to the birds and the bees talk, only mention the opposite sex--never giving any thought that the same sex may be an option? We as a society have a lot to think about when it comes to what we say around our children. Even the slightest remarks that we may think of innocent could effect a person for the rest of their life. Self esteem is a fragile thing, and growing up is difficult enough without having to feel we don't belong to the ones we love.
Lastly, it's not about abandoning you're religion. Gay people will be in Heaven. No, instead it's about interpreting your religion differently and realizing that everything you read in the Bible, or some other religious text was written and interpreted by those who came before you, shaped by societal views, and passed along by those in power, with the ability to make change. As the reverend in the movie, says, sometimes blind faith is just as bad as no faith at all. With that, I say goodnight to you. I'd love to hear your comments, and even better, have a conversation with you.
Prayers for Bobby
By Casey Wooley
Lifetime premiered a movie tonight called "Prayers for Bobby." The movie was about a young man who realizes he is gay, comes out to his family, and in turn his overly religious and ignorant mother attempts to "cure" him of his gayness. Trapped in a world where his entire life he's been taught being gay is a sin, and a family who is trying to love him for the person he can be, he is lost, and believes that there is no way out. In a way to escape the pain, he jumps off a bridge and into the path of an 18-wheel truck. A tragedy indeed.
I encourage all people to watch this movie. From both perspectives--gay people and religious people alike will find common ground, and those who are bigots and preach hatred towards those who are gay, I hope, will understand that the Bible can be interpreted in very many ways, and was interpreted by men when written, and as such holds many of the societal views of the time. Personally, I will say that everything that this young man went through--every emotion, every thought, every question, every belief, every denial, everything he thought, I at one point have thought about and lived through. This movie was very real to me.
It isn't very often that a movie can come along and touch me the way this particular movie did. I only thank God that I didn't allow my disillusions to cause me to take it to the final step that Bobby did--suicide. I thank God that even though my family still has a hard time here and there with accepting homosexuality, that they still love me; that they aren't trying to "cure" me. Homosexuality isn't something that can be cured. Just as a person's skin color, eye color, hair color, mental capacity, and any other genetically born trait cannot be "cured," homosexuality is something that just "is."
As we as a new generation begin to rear our children, I ask the question--how will we do it? Will the subtle comments about "when a boy meets a girl that he really likes," do damage? Will it cause a young boy or a young girl to feel trapped into a stereotypical societal role that they must find somebody of the opposite sex attractive. Will the blue blanket, or the pink blanket we give a child at birth signify that pink is only for girls and blue is only for boys? Will we raise our children and as we get to the birds and the bees talk, only mention the opposite sex--never giving any thought that the same sex may be an option? We as a society have a lot to think about when it comes to what we say around our children. Even the slightest remarks that we may think of innocent could effect a person for the rest of their life. Self esteem is a fragile thing, and growing up is difficult enough without having to feel we don't belong to the ones we love.
Lastly, it's not about abandoning you're religion. Gay people will be in Heaven. No, instead it's about interpreting your religion differently and realizing that everything you read in the Bible, or some other religious text was written and interpreted by those who came before you, shaped by societal views, and passed along by those in power, with the ability to make change. As the reverend in the movie, says, sometimes blind faith is just as bad as no faith at all. With that, I say goodnight to you. I'd love to hear your comments, and even better, have a conversation with you.
Balancing Religion and Homosexuality - Republished on March 22, 2010
I finally did it...I finally reconciled the ideas of being both gay and christian. This was the note where I brought the two together:
Balancing Religion and Homosexuality
By Casey Wooley
Okay everybody, I'm feeling contemplative tonight, and thoughts of religion and God have been on my mind as of late, with everything going on the world, and the death of a dear-friend at work, I wanted to take a moment to explain how I feel about balancing my faith in God with my homosexuality.
Let me first clarify something, because religion can come in many contexts, and I want to tell people who may not have always seen it in me, I am a God-fearing man, somebody who has been a saved, born again Christian since he was 12 years old.
Now how is being a catholic different from being a Christian--well very simply, to be Catholic means that you go to a Catholic church who teaches Christian principles from a Catholic version of a Christian Bible. Christians and Catholics can be two very different things, but they can also be one in the same, it all depends on where your heart lies. I identify myself as a Christian, because I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, and understood years ago, just as I do now, that he's the only way to Heaven. To be Catholic, you can believe those very same principles, or very simply, you can go to a Catholic church. I don't believe just being a "good person" makes you a Christian. Just as people who went to the Southern-Baptist church I went to may not be a Christian, and some who go there are. Again, it's where your heart lies.
Now, before I delve into the issue at hand, the reconciliation of my homosexuality with my Christianity, I want you to know, that I understand that there are many out there who do not believe as I do. There are many who may not be Christians, many who are religious, and many who don't support my ways as a homosexual. I'm not here to judge you, nor do I wish your judgement upon me. These are merely my thoughts on the subject, and my feelings, so please be respectful of them.
Now we delve into the conversation at hand:
I have been asked many times how being gay plays a part in my Christian day-to-day beliefs. And for many years, and still now, I don't necessarily know that I have the answer to this. A few years ago I wrote a blog on my Myspace where I attempted to explain away the parts of the Bible where it talks about homosexuality, and reason with God as many attempt to do. I think I can finally come to a point in my life where I can I say that I really don't have an answer to this, because of two very different conflicting feelings inside of me.
Now, on one hand, I have always felt the attraction to other men in my life, as far back as I can remember. I can recall times in high school attractions to other guys, but even more so, I can recall times in junior high, attractions to other boys. As I have grown the attractions have become more real. As a boy, I didn't necessarily know how to deal with these. Now, on the other hand, I have my Christian beliefs, the principles that whatever the Bible teaches is the Law, that the Bible is infallable.
Now, place yourself in my shoes at the age of 12, 13, 14 years old when these feelings first started to present themselves to me. I had my most cherished beliefs challenging the very feelings I had rumbling around inside of me. At the time it was very easy to push the feelings to a very dark place that I couldn't see or even draw from for a very long time. But, as I matured physically, emotionally, and spiritually, those feelings resurfaced, over and over again. I recall writing in my journal back in 1999 after hearing a rumor about another student in my grade that others had thought I was gay. I remember asking myself in the journal, and I recall reading the journal entry just last year, asking myself "am I gay?"
It was at this point that I indeed first questioned it. But, fearing what admitting to anybody, including myself, would bring about, again I pushed it back into a place that I couldn't draw from. I found solice in the church, and doing the work of the Lord. And that's what I did. Through high school, to avoid the emptiness I had on the inside, and the void left by very few friends because of it, I worked at the church, directing a vacation bible school, teaching sunday school, and serving as best as I could.
As I entered college, I found solice in other things--the ability to experience new things. I was introduced to a new world of critical thinking, that I first rejected. Suddenly, for the first time in my life, I had others saying "it's okay to be gay," or "it's okay to be different." Acceptance was everywhere, yet everything I ever believed, everything I was ever taught told me to reject these claims--to be gay was to be a sin, was against God's will. I held onto my ways through my freshmen year of college, still teaching Sunday School, and staying involved with those who had helped me through junior high and high school. I even became a youth leader.
But then, sophomore year is when I finally experienced the final straw to break the camel's back, perse. I became a Resident Advisor, and instead of just having people tell me "it's okay to be gay, " and "it's okay to be you," I was the one who had to make these claims to others who may very well have been experiencing them. I accepted all but one--the belief that being gay was in fact okay, that it wasn't a sin. I spent many nights in my boss's office talking about it, about not letting my personal beliefs influence the work I was doing as an RA.
As I traversed my way through my first year on staff, I slowly began to understand that in fact there was a whole other world that existed beyond Westland, and beyond my church. And slowly my commitment to God wained. Being an RA and being a Sunday School teacher became too much, and I gave up my duties as a Sunday School teacher. Eventually I found a group of friends who, after many times of reassurance they were my friends, accepted me for me. Eventually I soon made the decision to accept people for who they were, even if that meant they were gay. Yet, during all this time, I knew I was battling my own demons on my inside. I knew I was attracted to men and I knew that I wasn't attracted to women. But I still wasn't ready to admit it to myself, or anybody around me. I still wasn't ready to actually say the words to myself that I was "gay."
Then came the fateful evening where I began to blog, and blog to myself. I started a Microsoft Word document on my computer, relieving much of the stress I was having from being an RA. In it, I began describing various residents, and their antics, and just allowed it to help vent off all the emotions. But one night, I wrote even deeper--I used it as an opportunity to describe myself. I used it as an opportunity to finally describe who I was. I started to list all of the attributes of who I was, and then I broke down and wrote it--"I'm Casey, and I'm gay." I couldn't believe I finally made the actual decision to admit it to myself that I was, in fact, attracted to men, and even more so, I was gay.
It was at that point that life became as clear as it could be. But, it was at that point that I also realized that it was something I could never tell anybody. I couldn't tell anybody about it, because it would change my life too radically. I could keep it under wraps, I could keep it secret, I could live a life as a straight man if I wanted to, and that is exactly what I intended to do. But, I kept writing, I kept writing about my attractions to various people, and for the first time I felt a very liberating experience in admitting something that I had never admitted before.
As the end of the year slowly came to a close, I began to wain on wanting to attend church anymore, attend sunday school anymore, because in my heart I "knew" I was sinning against God. I couldn't keep the charade up anymore with church, with the people who had been in my life for so long. And so, one day I didn't go. The next Sunday I didn't go, and eventually I stopped going all together. I know it hurt my mom the most, because it was a tradition that the three of us (Ryan, Mom, and myself) would all go, but I just couldn't feed the lie anymore. I know my mom suffered because she thought I stopped believing in God, which couldn't be farther from the truth. I always kept my belief in God, I just simply lost the focus for a while.
As the next school year came into view, I was going to ride out the lie that I committed to msyelf--that I was straight. I couldn't fully admit it. The pressure kept building, and the friendships I had built became stronger and stronger. And then, I remember sitting in my room, online, talking with a friend of mine, and for some reason I felt it was time to tell just one person--somebody I could trust. And I told her I had something to tell her, and sobbing like a baby I blurted it out online. With it I listed all the reasons why I couldn't be, why it was wrong, what my parents would do if they found out, and everything I had been keeping pent up for years and years. But somehow she comforted me. Her reaction was accepting, and she comforted me. And she told me something that I held true until the day I came out to my family, "you can't keep living a lie, eventually you'll have to tell people."
Slowly throughout that year, I did just that, I started to tell people whom I was close to the truth, and with everybody came a sense of comforting and a burden being lifted off of me. As my senior year of college came into perspective, I was entering my third year of being on staff, and I was feeling pretty good. I wasn't out, but I was out to all those in my life whom I cared about, minus my family. But, the pressure was still mounting. I would eventually have to tell my family. September of 2004 was an extremely hard time. My cousin Rachel killed herself, and I found myself rebattling with the issues of Christianity and my homosexuality. I saw my pastor several times at the viewings, and the funeral, and I saw people whom were part of my life previously, whom I had slipped away from. I felt they all knew, and that they were judging me, which just made me frustrated and upset. Though they probably weren't judging me, they all wondered why I had left, and I just chalked it up to growing up in college, never admitting why I did. When Rachel killed herself, I went into a downward spiral. I failed all of my classes, and I was feeling the pressure of the homosexuality weigh me down. In fact, it got so bad, that I had put the knife to my wrist one night because I wanted to end the pain, for it to all go away, and killing myself in fact would have been easier than telling me family. But knowing what Rachel had done to the family, all the hurt inside, I put it down, and realized there were better ways to deal with it.
I finally snapped in November after all of the stress just got to be too much, and I found myself to a guidance counselor within the First Year Center and I exploded in tears to him everything and anything on my chest, and everything I was balancing--from religion to my sexuality, to my cousin, to wanting to leave the staff of the residence hall, to everything. And finally for the first time I was being honest with myself, and with another person. Logically, step by step, he walked me through everything, and helped me realize that keeping it a secret was what was eating me up, and that I would eventually have to make that step to telling all in my life.
After the semester ended, I did indeed leave my position as an RA and for the first time I was able to work on my problems, and not on the problems of others on my floor. And it was during this time period, in the early part of 2005 that I finally figured out who I was. It was time to admit to everybody that I was in fact, gay. And in May of 2005, I came out to all my friends, and even more importantly my family.
It's hard to explain the place you have to get to in order to come out to the most important people in your life. Imagine the worst possible place, the worst possible outcome that you could experience by telling your loved ones something you think they'd never want to hear, and then imagine, being okay with it. For me, I had to put myself into an alternate reality where my family would reject me, and kick me out of their lives because of something I had no choice in. And then, I had to imagine myself in that reality, being able to survive with it, being okay with it. On that faithful May day, I was able to place myself there, and for a 24-hour period, before making the announcement, I lived in a very dark and lonely hole with no comfort from anybody.
The reason why you have to place yourself there, is because anything else that is less than that, anything less severe, is that much easier to swallow, is that much easier to deal with. Thankfully the worst case possible scenario did not happen with my parents, or my family, and life in fact because less of a burden, and I was finally able to breathe without the weight of the homosexual world upon me. I remember making a phone call to my friend Justin on the way home, saying "I did it." And I really remember, a simple change that meant all the difference-- changing the "interested in" option on Myspace and Facebook to "men."
My mom found solice in my pastor, which made things for me even more difficult in trying to reconcile my homosexual world and my christian world. She found solice in her family, in which she attempted to garner any kind of negative reaction from my aunts, my uncles, yet all she found was collective comments of support for me. Ultimately the general consensus was "he's still Casey, so big deal." And because of that, my life went from "under pressure" to "he's just Casey," a feeling that is too liberating to put down in words here.
My dad, a few weeks after I came out sat me down and we talked more about it--something I never expected. In that conversation he again conveyed how much he loved me, and that nothing I could have brought to them would have in fact made them stop loving me. He told me that he wished I wasn't gay because of how difficult my road ahead would be, but he also said that if I am lucky enough to find somebody in life to share life's ups and downs with, and whom I love and who loves me, then he'll support me in it. That was almost three years ago, and those are probably the most comforting words I still replay in my head.
As I said, my mom did find solice in my pastor. And as I said, it made it more difficult to reconcile my homosexual world with my Christian world. And that, is, what I guess would bring me here to you, to this place. In the three years since I admitted to myself and to my family that I was gay, it's been a hard road, trying to figure out exactly what makes me tick, but I've ultimately come to this conclusion:
My name is Casey Wooley. I'm 25 years old, with, in my opinion, an optimstic attitude on life. I'm a Christian, because of my belief in Jesus Christ when I was 12 years old, and my belief now. I'm a Wooley, proud son of Chuck and Sheilah, and brother of Ryan. I love writing, and am passionate about treating everybody in this world with the respect they deserve. Oh yeah, I happen to like guys too. I graduated from Eastern Michigan University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Communication, and a minor in journalism. My friends and family mean the world to me. Overall I'm a fun-loving, yet studious, and respectful person who will brighten your day.
You see, I'm able to reconcile the fact that I'm gay and I'm a Christian, because neither is an overwhelming characterstic of me. They both make up a part of who I am. One doesn't dominate the other. As far as answering to what the Bible says about homosexuality--I don't have answer for that, and I think I'm okay with that. You know why? Because, IF being gay is a sin, like the bible says, then my sin is no worse than yours. The Bible does say that all have sinned and fall short of the glory God. As such, my "sin" of being gay gets me no closer to hell than your sin--whatever it may be. The Bible also does say that nothing will pluck me from the hand of God--which in my opinion means, that no sin is great enough to remove me from the Love of God once I have made the decision to accept him into my heart. Eventually I'll have to answer for it, I get that. But my ultimate response to God very simply will be, as His word says "God, I deserve Heaven, because your son died for my sins, and I accepted Him as my personal Lord and Savior when I was 12 years old."
There are many in this world who cannot say that. There are also many in this world who would condemn me, because I'm living the life of a sinner. I'll admit, I've fallen short of living God's plan for my life, and it's something that I'm missing. And eventually, hopefully, that's something I will reconcile. But make no mistake--I still believe in God. I still believe in Jesus Christ. I still believe in God's plan of Salvation, and I still KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if I were to die today, right now, typing this, that I'm going to be opening my eyes in Heaven. I reconcile my "religion" and my homosexuality, because of my faith in God. My hope lies in Jesus, not in those in this world who would seek to judge me.
Comments are welcome, but even more so, I would love to engage any questions you may have. This blog wasn't hate-filled, nor did it judge you. It merely states where I stand on a very important issue in my life, so please be respectful with any comments you may have. Thanks for reading!
Balancing Religion and Homosexuality
By Casey Wooley
Okay everybody, I'm feeling contemplative tonight, and thoughts of religion and God have been on my mind as of late, with everything going on the world, and the death of a dear-friend at work, I wanted to take a moment to explain how I feel about balancing my faith in God with my homosexuality.
Let me first clarify something, because religion can come in many contexts, and I want to tell people who may not have always seen it in me, I am a God-fearing man, somebody who has been a saved, born again Christian since he was 12 years old.
Now how is being a catholic different from being a Christian--well very simply, to be Catholic means that you go to a Catholic church who teaches Christian principles from a Catholic version of a Christian Bible. Christians and Catholics can be two very different things, but they can also be one in the same, it all depends on where your heart lies. I identify myself as a Christian, because I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, and understood years ago, just as I do now, that he's the only way to Heaven. To be Catholic, you can believe those very same principles, or very simply, you can go to a Catholic church. I don't believe just being a "good person" makes you a Christian. Just as people who went to the Southern-Baptist church I went to may not be a Christian, and some who go there are. Again, it's where your heart lies.
Now, before I delve into the issue at hand, the reconciliation of my homosexuality with my Christianity, I want you to know, that I understand that there are many out there who do not believe as I do. There are many who may not be Christians, many who are religious, and many who don't support my ways as a homosexual. I'm not here to judge you, nor do I wish your judgement upon me. These are merely my thoughts on the subject, and my feelings, so please be respectful of them.
Now we delve into the conversation at hand:
I have been asked many times how being gay plays a part in my Christian day-to-day beliefs. And for many years, and still now, I don't necessarily know that I have the answer to this. A few years ago I wrote a blog on my Myspace where I attempted to explain away the parts of the Bible where it talks about homosexuality, and reason with God as many attempt to do. I think I can finally come to a point in my life where I can I say that I really don't have an answer to this, because of two very different conflicting feelings inside of me.
Now, on one hand, I have always felt the attraction to other men in my life, as far back as I can remember. I can recall times in high school attractions to other guys, but even more so, I can recall times in junior high, attractions to other boys. As I have grown the attractions have become more real. As a boy, I didn't necessarily know how to deal with these. Now, on the other hand, I have my Christian beliefs, the principles that whatever the Bible teaches is the Law, that the Bible is infallable.
Now, place yourself in my shoes at the age of 12, 13, 14 years old when these feelings first started to present themselves to me. I had my most cherished beliefs challenging the very feelings I had rumbling around inside of me. At the time it was very easy to push the feelings to a very dark place that I couldn't see or even draw from for a very long time. But, as I matured physically, emotionally, and spiritually, those feelings resurfaced, over and over again. I recall writing in my journal back in 1999 after hearing a rumor about another student in my grade that others had thought I was gay. I remember asking myself in the journal, and I recall reading the journal entry just last year, asking myself "am I gay?"
It was at this point that I indeed first questioned it. But, fearing what admitting to anybody, including myself, would bring about, again I pushed it back into a place that I couldn't draw from. I found solice in the church, and doing the work of the Lord. And that's what I did. Through high school, to avoid the emptiness I had on the inside, and the void left by very few friends because of it, I worked at the church, directing a vacation bible school, teaching sunday school, and serving as best as I could.
As I entered college, I found solice in other things--the ability to experience new things. I was introduced to a new world of critical thinking, that I first rejected. Suddenly, for the first time in my life, I had others saying "it's okay to be gay," or "it's okay to be different." Acceptance was everywhere, yet everything I ever believed, everything I was ever taught told me to reject these claims--to be gay was to be a sin, was against God's will. I held onto my ways through my freshmen year of college, still teaching Sunday School, and staying involved with those who had helped me through junior high and high school. I even became a youth leader.
But then, sophomore year is when I finally experienced the final straw to break the camel's back, perse. I became a Resident Advisor, and instead of just having people tell me "it's okay to be gay, " and "it's okay to be you," I was the one who had to make these claims to others who may very well have been experiencing them. I accepted all but one--the belief that being gay was in fact okay, that it wasn't a sin. I spent many nights in my boss's office talking about it, about not letting my personal beliefs influence the work I was doing as an RA.
As I traversed my way through my first year on staff, I slowly began to understand that in fact there was a whole other world that existed beyond Westland, and beyond my church. And slowly my commitment to God wained. Being an RA and being a Sunday School teacher became too much, and I gave up my duties as a Sunday School teacher. Eventually I found a group of friends who, after many times of reassurance they were my friends, accepted me for me. Eventually I soon made the decision to accept people for who they were, even if that meant they were gay. Yet, during all this time, I knew I was battling my own demons on my inside. I knew I was attracted to men and I knew that I wasn't attracted to women. But I still wasn't ready to admit it to myself, or anybody around me. I still wasn't ready to actually say the words to myself that I was "gay."
Then came the fateful evening where I began to blog, and blog to myself. I started a Microsoft Word document on my computer, relieving much of the stress I was having from being an RA. In it, I began describing various residents, and their antics, and just allowed it to help vent off all the emotions. But one night, I wrote even deeper--I used it as an opportunity to describe myself. I used it as an opportunity to finally describe who I was. I started to list all of the attributes of who I was, and then I broke down and wrote it--"I'm Casey, and I'm gay." I couldn't believe I finally made the actual decision to admit it to myself that I was, in fact, attracted to men, and even more so, I was gay.
It was at that point that life became as clear as it could be. But, it was at that point that I also realized that it was something I could never tell anybody. I couldn't tell anybody about it, because it would change my life too radically. I could keep it under wraps, I could keep it secret, I could live a life as a straight man if I wanted to, and that is exactly what I intended to do. But, I kept writing, I kept writing about my attractions to various people, and for the first time I felt a very liberating experience in admitting something that I had never admitted before.
As the end of the year slowly came to a close, I began to wain on wanting to attend church anymore, attend sunday school anymore, because in my heart I "knew" I was sinning against God. I couldn't keep the charade up anymore with church, with the people who had been in my life for so long. And so, one day I didn't go. The next Sunday I didn't go, and eventually I stopped going all together. I know it hurt my mom the most, because it was a tradition that the three of us (Ryan, Mom, and myself) would all go, but I just couldn't feed the lie anymore. I know my mom suffered because she thought I stopped believing in God, which couldn't be farther from the truth. I always kept my belief in God, I just simply lost the focus for a while.
As the next school year came into view, I was going to ride out the lie that I committed to msyelf--that I was straight. I couldn't fully admit it. The pressure kept building, and the friendships I had built became stronger and stronger. And then, I remember sitting in my room, online, talking with a friend of mine, and for some reason I felt it was time to tell just one person--somebody I could trust. And I told her I had something to tell her, and sobbing like a baby I blurted it out online. With it I listed all the reasons why I couldn't be, why it was wrong, what my parents would do if they found out, and everything I had been keeping pent up for years and years. But somehow she comforted me. Her reaction was accepting, and she comforted me. And she told me something that I held true until the day I came out to my family, "you can't keep living a lie, eventually you'll have to tell people."
Slowly throughout that year, I did just that, I started to tell people whom I was close to the truth, and with everybody came a sense of comforting and a burden being lifted off of me. As my senior year of college came into perspective, I was entering my third year of being on staff, and I was feeling pretty good. I wasn't out, but I was out to all those in my life whom I cared about, minus my family. But, the pressure was still mounting. I would eventually have to tell my family. September of 2004 was an extremely hard time. My cousin Rachel killed herself, and I found myself rebattling with the issues of Christianity and my homosexuality. I saw my pastor several times at the viewings, and the funeral, and I saw people whom were part of my life previously, whom I had slipped away from. I felt they all knew, and that they were judging me, which just made me frustrated and upset. Though they probably weren't judging me, they all wondered why I had left, and I just chalked it up to growing up in college, never admitting why I did. When Rachel killed herself, I went into a downward spiral. I failed all of my classes, and I was feeling the pressure of the homosexuality weigh me down. In fact, it got so bad, that I had put the knife to my wrist one night because I wanted to end the pain, for it to all go away, and killing myself in fact would have been easier than telling me family. But knowing what Rachel had done to the family, all the hurt inside, I put it down, and realized there were better ways to deal with it.
I finally snapped in November after all of the stress just got to be too much, and I found myself to a guidance counselor within the First Year Center and I exploded in tears to him everything and anything on my chest, and everything I was balancing--from religion to my sexuality, to my cousin, to wanting to leave the staff of the residence hall, to everything. And finally for the first time I was being honest with myself, and with another person. Logically, step by step, he walked me through everything, and helped me realize that keeping it a secret was what was eating me up, and that I would eventually have to make that step to telling all in my life.
After the semester ended, I did indeed leave my position as an RA and for the first time I was able to work on my problems, and not on the problems of others on my floor. And it was during this time period, in the early part of 2005 that I finally figured out who I was. It was time to admit to everybody that I was in fact, gay. And in May of 2005, I came out to all my friends, and even more importantly my family.
It's hard to explain the place you have to get to in order to come out to the most important people in your life. Imagine the worst possible place, the worst possible outcome that you could experience by telling your loved ones something you think they'd never want to hear, and then imagine, being okay with it. For me, I had to put myself into an alternate reality where my family would reject me, and kick me out of their lives because of something I had no choice in. And then, I had to imagine myself in that reality, being able to survive with it, being okay with it. On that faithful May day, I was able to place myself there, and for a 24-hour period, before making the announcement, I lived in a very dark and lonely hole with no comfort from anybody.
The reason why you have to place yourself there, is because anything else that is less than that, anything less severe, is that much easier to swallow, is that much easier to deal with. Thankfully the worst case possible scenario did not happen with my parents, or my family, and life in fact because less of a burden, and I was finally able to breathe without the weight of the homosexual world upon me. I remember making a phone call to my friend Justin on the way home, saying "I did it." And I really remember, a simple change that meant all the difference-- changing the "interested in" option on Myspace and Facebook to "men."
My mom found solice in my pastor, which made things for me even more difficult in trying to reconcile my homosexual world and my christian world. She found solice in her family, in which she attempted to garner any kind of negative reaction from my aunts, my uncles, yet all she found was collective comments of support for me. Ultimately the general consensus was "he's still Casey, so big deal." And because of that, my life went from "under pressure" to "he's just Casey," a feeling that is too liberating to put down in words here.
My dad, a few weeks after I came out sat me down and we talked more about it--something I never expected. In that conversation he again conveyed how much he loved me, and that nothing I could have brought to them would have in fact made them stop loving me. He told me that he wished I wasn't gay because of how difficult my road ahead would be, but he also said that if I am lucky enough to find somebody in life to share life's ups and downs with, and whom I love and who loves me, then he'll support me in it. That was almost three years ago, and those are probably the most comforting words I still replay in my head.
As I said, my mom did find solice in my pastor. And as I said, it made it more difficult to reconcile my homosexual world with my Christian world. And that, is, what I guess would bring me here to you, to this place. In the three years since I admitted to myself and to my family that I was gay, it's been a hard road, trying to figure out exactly what makes me tick, but I've ultimately come to this conclusion:
My name is Casey Wooley. I'm 25 years old, with, in my opinion, an optimstic attitude on life. I'm a Christian, because of my belief in Jesus Christ when I was 12 years old, and my belief now. I'm a Wooley, proud son of Chuck and Sheilah, and brother of Ryan. I love writing, and am passionate about treating everybody in this world with the respect they deserve. Oh yeah, I happen to like guys too. I graduated from Eastern Michigan University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Communication, and a minor in journalism. My friends and family mean the world to me. Overall I'm a fun-loving, yet studious, and respectful person who will brighten your day.
You see, I'm able to reconcile the fact that I'm gay and I'm a Christian, because neither is an overwhelming characterstic of me. They both make up a part of who I am. One doesn't dominate the other. As far as answering to what the Bible says about homosexuality--I don't have answer for that, and I think I'm okay with that. You know why? Because, IF being gay is a sin, like the bible says, then my sin is no worse than yours. The Bible does say that all have sinned and fall short of the glory God. As such, my "sin" of being gay gets me no closer to hell than your sin--whatever it may be. The Bible also does say that nothing will pluck me from the hand of God--which in my opinion means, that no sin is great enough to remove me from the Love of God once I have made the decision to accept him into my heart. Eventually I'll have to answer for it, I get that. But my ultimate response to God very simply will be, as His word says "God, I deserve Heaven, because your son died for my sins, and I accepted Him as my personal Lord and Savior when I was 12 years old."
There are many in this world who cannot say that. There are also many in this world who would condemn me, because I'm living the life of a sinner. I'll admit, I've fallen short of living God's plan for my life, and it's something that I'm missing. And eventually, hopefully, that's something I will reconcile. But make no mistake--I still believe in God. I still believe in Jesus Christ. I still believe in God's plan of Salvation, and I still KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if I were to die today, right now, typing this, that I'm going to be opening my eyes in Heaven. I reconcile my "religion" and my homosexuality, because of my faith in God. My hope lies in Jesus, not in those in this world who would seek to judge me.
Comments are welcome, but even more so, I would love to engage any questions you may have. This blog wasn't hate-filled, nor did it judge you. It merely states where I stand on a very important issue in my life, so please be respectful with any comments you may have. Thanks for reading!
Yeah I Chose It - Republished on March 22, 2010
Homosexuality Note #4 - "Yeah I Chose It..."
by Casey Wooley on Monday, March 22, 2010 at 9:14pm
So I get irritated with people who say to be gay is a choice. Well, this was a satirical piece I wrote to answer that one...
“Yeah I chose it...”
By Casey Wooley
Yeah, I chose it...
I chose to never fully disclose my life to those in my life.
I chose to be afraid of the reactions of people in my life when they find out.
I chose to feel like an outcast among friends and family, even though they know---not knowing full emotions, always being judged.
I chose to lose faith in the church because of the people in it.
I chose to never have the experience of a mother/son dance at a wedding where those around me are celebrating the wonderful commitment I made with the one I love.
I chose to the inability to relate with some of my closest friends regarding the "guy-to-guy" chat that others get to have.
I chose to feel uncomfortable in my own body.
I chose the constant rejection that only a selection of 10% of the population can bring.
I chose the inability to walk up to somebody I find attractive and offer to buy them a drink, because I don't know if they are attracted to the same sex as me.
Yeah I chose this, I chose this lifestyle. I chose to be a degenerate to society, I chose to be alone like this, to have the hardest time finding somebody who is decent and is kind, somebody to love. Yeah, I chose it...
Bull crap. Nobody would choose this. I no more chose to be gay than you chose to be straight.
“Yeah I chose it...”
By Casey Wooley
Yeah, I chose it...
I chose to never fully disclose my life to those in my life.
I chose to be afraid of the reactions of people in my life when they find out.
I chose to feel like an outcast among friends and family, even though they know---not knowing full emotions, always being judged.
I chose to lose faith in the church because of the people in it.
I chose to never have the experience of a mother/son dance at a wedding where those around me are celebrating the wonderful commitment I made with the one I love.
I chose to the inability to relate with some of my closest friends regarding the "guy-to-guy" chat that others get to have.
I chose to feel uncomfortable in my own body.
I chose the constant rejection that only a selection of 10% of the population can bring.
I chose the inability to walk up to somebody I find attractive and offer to buy them a drink, because I don't know if they are attracted to the same sex as me.
Yeah I chose this, I chose this lifestyle. I chose to be a degenerate to society, I chose to be alone like this, to have the hardest time finding somebody who is decent and is kind, somebody to love. Yeah, I chose it...
Bull crap. Nobody would choose this. I no more chose to be gay than you chose to be straight.
My Thoughts on Gay Marriage - Republished on March 22, 2010
A note a wrote in response to my friend's blurb about not legalizing gay marriage that hurt me. This was my response to him:
My Thoughts on Gay Marriage
By Casey Wooley
My friend had filled out a survey yesterday regarding his thoughts on gay marriage. He posted it to a bulletin, and his opinion really surprised me. So as such, he and I had a very long discussion tonight, which resulted basically in this pseudo-blog.
Let's first start with his arguments, so you'll understand how my responses tie into it.
When asked "do you think gay marriage should be legalized?" His response was:
This may hurt one individual I hold true to my heart but I have to say no. It states in the bible God created Woman for Men and this is what I believe. Above and beyond that he had destroyed 2 cities that were of homosexuals; Sodom and Gomorrah.
Now I sent him a response saying I'd like to discuss his beliefs further, without using the "Biblical" references. Despite the fact that I am a Christian, I don't believe it's fair to use Biblical arguments to justify a secular status quo change. Anyway, this was the response I got, and what sparked me into the blog below:
I just wanted to clarify what was said in thats survey. I got love for ya, we've been friends all of our lives and I accept whatever decisions you make in your life. I said it before I am proud of you for being proud to be who you are and not have to hide from the world. But accept is the keyword, I dont have to like them or even agree with things you do as long as I accept you and don't treat you differently it shouldn't matter my opinion on such a contraversial topic.
I then asked him if he felt whether I deserved to have the same rights as him, and whether or not he believed I was born gay or whether or not I chose it. He said:
Their is two sides to that though honostly. Everyone deserves to be happy, you deserve to be happy and if marrying another man is going to make you happy then I accept it, but I do not feel that going against Gods will for two people of the same sex male or female is the right. You say you can't help liking men, just as majority of the rest of men can't help liking women okay. Essentially w/every controversial subject their is no right or wrong person. It all comes down to acceptance of each others opinions because their really is no happy medium other than that.
These were his arguments. I then wrote the following to him to I could precisely record my thoughts:
My thoughts on gay marriage, controvesial subjects, and the like:
Okay, you are entitled to your opinion, and I would be doing you a dis-service if I didn't let you have an opinion and just shut my mind to it. But, until you're successfully able to tell me your logic, I won't understand your opinion, and as such, will not believe you've accepted me for me despite what you say. There are many things at play here. Let's start with them and my feelings:
It offends me to no end that you don't feel that me, as you "brother from another mother" as you once put it, would like to see me have the same rights afforded to me by the laws regulating this land as you and your fiance. It doesn't make any sense.The argument you've laid out is flawed. Just as you are Christian and believe the same things in the Bible as I do, it's not fair to use some parts of the Bible to justify arguments in your favor and other parts not to (ie premarital sex). It has taken me a very long time to truly come to grips with my Christianity and homosexuality and to reconcile the two together. It is possible to be a gay Christian, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that if I were to die tomorrow I'd be going to Heaven to see my God, my Lord Jesus, and all those who went before me. And the way I've reconciled the two is that I believe, and as my pastor has even admitted, that the Bible is not infallable. There are contradictions,
and in fact, the Bible was put together by a council of religious men who went by the rule of "if it contradicts a previous statement, throw it out." So with this thought process, societal rules and mindsets have had to influence it throughout the ages. Even so, let's say it was placed their by God, and homosexuality somehow IS A SIN. Then, like all my other sins, which according to the Bible are equal in God's eyes, I am prepared to answer for it when I get to Heaven. Regardless, I know that no matter what I've done on this earth, nothing can rip me from the love of God.
Okay, all that being said, let me take a breather. Truthfully I wouldn't be so upset if gay marriage wasn't allowed, because afterall marriage is technically a religous institution. The government shouldnt be allowed to tell a relgion how to govern its body of believers. However, the government has no right to tell two consenting adults whether or not they can have the same tax rights, death rights, and all the individual priveleges that come with being married. So call it a civil union that men and women, or two men, or two women can enter into and let me be the one who can sit by my partner's side in fifty years if he is dying and I can make the decisions for him, and be there to hold his hand. Don't tell me that those bonds, those relationships are not worth the same as a heterosexual relationship between a man and a wife.
Now onto your argument on that there is never a right or a wrong with any controversial subject. That's bullshit. If we followed that logic then mankind wouldn't be sitting here. Take such controversial subjects as slavery. Sure was a hot-button issue in the mid 1800's now wasn't it? I mean, some people said they agreed with it, others said they didn't. But we all know that enslaving any man or woman, or child is wrong. You can't take away a person's freedom for no reason, it's inhumane. With your argument, you'd be saying that the people who support slavery have their opinion, and the people who don't have theirs, so let's just go with the status quo. Well, technically, the status quo at the time was to keep slaves if you could afford them. Doesn't seem like we'd be in a very good predicament now if we still had slaves around, now does it?
Let's look at another in history shall we? How about giving WOMEN the right to vote. I mean, after all, they're women--they're second class citizens right? They shouldn't be able to vote. I mean, that was the argument in the 1920's. Some people felt they deserved the right, others did not. So by your logic, neither is right, neither is wrong--there is only opinion. So by your logic again, we'd be stuck with the status quo, leaving things alone, and therefore women wouldn't be voting.
Throughout history mankind has battled subjects like these because enlightened people have realized that the status quo isn't working. I mean, technically we as Americans shouldn't be here by your logic. Those englightened fore-fathers sure as heck had a different idea for the Americas when compared to those in England. Had we followed your logic, neither America or England would be right, and the status quo would remain the same and we'd be drinking tea at high noon and eating biscuits for brunch. America wouldn't exist and we'd be bowing to Queen Elizabeth. Again, doesn't seem like it would make much sense.
The point of the matter is simply the status quo is an ever-changing melting pot of ideas of humans throughout history who have dared to challenge it. Whenever there is an injustice, those who dare to say something usually do so in the face of those afraid to change it, as though it is some great sacrifice to be had. Slavery was a Biblically-supported activity, and people who argued for it argued that the Bible said it was okay. Yet, we know today that it's not okay. The Bible says women should take a secondary position in their homes and in the lives of the church, yet today we have women pastors and women who are the bread-winners of their homes. Religion has always been a crutch of individuals throughout history because they're afraid that somehow mixing up the status quo, suddenly will throw the world into chaos. But it never has. It has advanced us as a civilization. It has made us better thinkers, it has made us a better people.
So applying your logic to gay marriage, once again, doesn't make much sense. You say you've accepted me, yet you don't want to see me have the same rights as you. Suddenly, whether you directly or indirectly meant to do it, have suddenly told me that you are better than me. That somehow I'm a second-class citizen. You say you've accepted me, yet you'll be the first in the voting booth to tell the government "no, don't give him the right to marry, he doesn't deserve it because MY RELIGION tells me that he doesn't deserve it." How does that speak acceptance? How does that tell me that you are okay with the life I was born with? No, it tells me that you are judging me based upon a trait that should not be judged. If you are going to judge somebody, judge them by the internal qualities they exhibit. Judge them by their character, their integrity, how hard they work, what they do to support themselves, their family and their friends, judge them by their honest or lack thereof, judge them because of the type of person they are, not the color person they are or the type of person they like. Use the measurable traits as determining factors on how a person should be looked at. Not their race, their sex, their sexual orientation, their creed, their culture, their abilities, their age, or any other difference not chosen by them.
There is a grave difference between acceptance and tolerance. Tolerance means you'll deal with it because it's not affecting you. Acceptance means that despite our differences, we're on an equal level with each other--and at this moment in time, we're not.
My Thoughts on Gay Marriage
By Casey Wooley
My friend had filled out a survey yesterday regarding his thoughts on gay marriage. He posted it to a bulletin, and his opinion really surprised me. So as such, he and I had a very long discussion tonight, which resulted basically in this pseudo-blog.
Let's first start with his arguments, so you'll understand how my responses tie into it.
When asked "do you think gay marriage should be legalized?" His response was:
This may hurt one individual I hold true to my heart but I have to say no. It states in the bible God created Woman for Men and this is what I believe. Above and beyond that he had destroyed 2 cities that were of homosexuals; Sodom and Gomorrah.
Now I sent him a response saying I'd like to discuss his beliefs further, without using the "Biblical" references. Despite the fact that I am a Christian, I don't believe it's fair to use Biblical arguments to justify a secular status quo change. Anyway, this was the response I got, and what sparked me into the blog below:
I just wanted to clarify what was said in thats survey. I got love for ya, we've been friends all of our lives and I accept whatever decisions you make in your life. I said it before I am proud of you for being proud to be who you are and not have to hide from the world. But accept is the keyword, I dont have to like them or even agree with things you do as long as I accept you and don't treat you differently it shouldn't matter my opinion on such a contraversial topic.
I then asked him if he felt whether I deserved to have the same rights as him, and whether or not he believed I was born gay or whether or not I chose it. He said:
Their is two sides to that though honostly. Everyone deserves to be happy, you deserve to be happy and if marrying another man is going to make you happy then I accept it, but I do not feel that going against Gods will for two people of the same sex male or female is the right. You say you can't help liking men, just as majority of the rest of men can't help liking women okay. Essentially w/every controversial subject their is no right or wrong person. It all comes down to acceptance of each others opinions because their really is no happy medium other than that.
These were his arguments. I then wrote the following to him to I could precisely record my thoughts:
My thoughts on gay marriage, controvesial subjects, and the like:
Okay, you are entitled to your opinion, and I would be doing you a dis-service if I didn't let you have an opinion and just shut my mind to it. But, until you're successfully able to tell me your logic, I won't understand your opinion, and as such, will not believe you've accepted me for me despite what you say. There are many things at play here. Let's start with them and my feelings:
It offends me to no end that you don't feel that me, as you "brother from another mother" as you once put it, would like to see me have the same rights afforded to me by the laws regulating this land as you and your fiance. It doesn't make any sense.The argument you've laid out is flawed. Just as you are Christian and believe the same things in the Bible as I do, it's not fair to use some parts of the Bible to justify arguments in your favor and other parts not to (ie premarital sex). It has taken me a very long time to truly come to grips with my Christianity and homosexuality and to reconcile the two together. It is possible to be a gay Christian, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that if I were to die tomorrow I'd be going to Heaven to see my God, my Lord Jesus, and all those who went before me. And the way I've reconciled the two is that I believe, and as my pastor has even admitted, that the Bible is not infallable. There are contradictions,
and in fact, the Bible was put together by a council of religious men who went by the rule of "if it contradicts a previous statement, throw it out." So with this thought process, societal rules and mindsets have had to influence it throughout the ages. Even so, let's say it was placed their by God, and homosexuality somehow IS A SIN. Then, like all my other sins, which according to the Bible are equal in God's eyes, I am prepared to answer for it when I get to Heaven. Regardless, I know that no matter what I've done on this earth, nothing can rip me from the love of God.
Okay, all that being said, let me take a breather. Truthfully I wouldn't be so upset if gay marriage wasn't allowed, because afterall marriage is technically a religous institution. The government shouldnt be allowed to tell a relgion how to govern its body of believers. However, the government has no right to tell two consenting adults whether or not they can have the same tax rights, death rights, and all the individual priveleges that come with being married. So call it a civil union that men and women, or two men, or two women can enter into and let me be the one who can sit by my partner's side in fifty years if he is dying and I can make the decisions for him, and be there to hold his hand. Don't tell me that those bonds, those relationships are not worth the same as a heterosexual relationship between a man and a wife.
Now onto your argument on that there is never a right or a wrong with any controversial subject. That's bullshit. If we followed that logic then mankind wouldn't be sitting here. Take such controversial subjects as slavery. Sure was a hot-button issue in the mid 1800's now wasn't it? I mean, some people said they agreed with it, others said they didn't. But we all know that enslaving any man or woman, or child is wrong. You can't take away a person's freedom for no reason, it's inhumane. With your argument, you'd be saying that the people who support slavery have their opinion, and the people who don't have theirs, so let's just go with the status quo. Well, technically, the status quo at the time was to keep slaves if you could afford them. Doesn't seem like we'd be in a very good predicament now if we still had slaves around, now does it?
Let's look at another in history shall we? How about giving WOMEN the right to vote. I mean, after all, they're women--they're second class citizens right? They shouldn't be able to vote. I mean, that was the argument in the 1920's. Some people felt they deserved the right, others did not. So by your logic, neither is right, neither is wrong--there is only opinion. So by your logic again, we'd be stuck with the status quo, leaving things alone, and therefore women wouldn't be voting.
Throughout history mankind has battled subjects like these because enlightened people have realized that the status quo isn't working. I mean, technically we as Americans shouldn't be here by your logic. Those englightened fore-fathers sure as heck had a different idea for the Americas when compared to those in England. Had we followed your logic, neither America or England would be right, and the status quo would remain the same and we'd be drinking tea at high noon and eating biscuits for brunch. America wouldn't exist and we'd be bowing to Queen Elizabeth. Again, doesn't seem like it would make much sense.
The point of the matter is simply the status quo is an ever-changing melting pot of ideas of humans throughout history who have dared to challenge it. Whenever there is an injustice, those who dare to say something usually do so in the face of those afraid to change it, as though it is some great sacrifice to be had. Slavery was a Biblically-supported activity, and people who argued for it argued that the Bible said it was okay. Yet, we know today that it's not okay. The Bible says women should take a secondary position in their homes and in the lives of the church, yet today we have women pastors and women who are the bread-winners of their homes. Religion has always been a crutch of individuals throughout history because they're afraid that somehow mixing up the status quo, suddenly will throw the world into chaos. But it never has. It has advanced us as a civilization. It has made us better thinkers, it has made us a better people.
So applying your logic to gay marriage, once again, doesn't make much sense. You say you've accepted me, yet you don't want to see me have the same rights as you. Suddenly, whether you directly or indirectly meant to do it, have suddenly told me that you are better than me. That somehow I'm a second-class citizen. You say you've accepted me, yet you'll be the first in the voting booth to tell the government "no, don't give him the right to marry, he doesn't deserve it because MY RELIGION tells me that he doesn't deserve it." How does that speak acceptance? How does that tell me that you are okay with the life I was born with? No, it tells me that you are judging me based upon a trait that should not be judged. If you are going to judge somebody, judge them by the internal qualities they exhibit. Judge them by their character, their integrity, how hard they work, what they do to support themselves, their family and their friends, judge them by their honest or lack thereof, judge them because of the type of person they are, not the color person they are or the type of person they like. Use the measurable traits as determining factors on how a person should be looked at. Not their race, their sex, their sexual orientation, their creed, their culture, their abilities, their age, or any other difference not chosen by them.
There is a grave difference between acceptance and tolerance. Tolerance means you'll deal with it because it's not affecting you. Acceptance means that despite our differences, we're on an equal level with each other--and at this moment in time, we're not.
Homosexuality and the Bible, Read it and you'll be enlightened - Republished March 22, 2010
My first attempt at reconciling my faith with homosexuality. Crude research, but it formed the basis for my beliefs and led me to the ability to be both gay and Christian at the same time.
The Bible and Homosexuality -- Read it, you'll be enlightened
By Casey Wooley
Hey everyone,
After reading a very disheartening post from my brother concerning my homosexual orientation that I know I had no choice in, I needed to do some research to figure some stuff out. I've been a Christian since I was twelve years old and accepted Jesus Christ into my heart. I've taught Sunday School, Children's Church, VBS, and even delievered a message on the pulplit one Youth Sunday. The problem that has been prevalent in my life, although hidden, have been the attraction I have for other men. I dismissed these attractions as unnatural and sinful because of what I was taught, and what I was teaching others. I equated homosexuality as a sin, like murder, until I realize that this was something that was always there. And, during my junior year of college I finally told somebody, and then told somebody else, and slowly but sure I was able to be me.
But, as I've told my family, the people I care about most in my life are the ones who are struggling with this characteristic of my life the most. Especially my brother. It hurts me not to be able to share my glories with him, my happiness, and my sadness--all because he cannot accept something that he has absolutely no control over. I understand his position, because I was there, I lived it. I know what the Bible has to say about homosexuality; I've read every passage, studied, researched, and understand it. I know that by "church" standards, to be gay is to be a sin. But, that's just it, it's by church standards and nothing else. Then I stumbled across some pretty convincing argument--something that reaffirmed what I believed but couldn't voice myself. The following is taken from http://christianlesbians.com/articles/biblehomosexuality.php, and is a synopsis of several articles that seek to explain the various passages in the Bible that "condemn" homosexuality.
Because you may not have an open mind, you may choose not to view what I'm trying to say. But I ask, and challenge that if I've been kind enough to consider and live your viewpoint, you can at least consider mine and perhaps see that to be gay is not a sin. To be gay is simply another way to live. It is not a choice I made--I didn't just suddenly choose to let my heterosexuality fly away in the wind, but rather have had these urges, these attractions, these feelings my entire life. I want to love another man; I want to share life's up's and down's with this person, whoever it may be, and that, in reality has nothing to do with anybody else in my life. Thankfully most of the people close to me have accepted and have encouraged my life, and encouraged the person I finally have become and admitted to myself. But those select few people--my family--my mom, my dad, and my brother--have not. While my dad is somewhat supportive and taking on the role of "holding the family together," I know it still bothers him. I just can't understand how somebody cannot understand that it's not something I'm doing to hurt them, to embarass or humilate the family. For it's not something to be considered humilating.
Ryan, if you can't understand that, I'm sorry. I don't know what else I can say to you. I'm not going to change simply because you have relgious convictions that really are not grounded in anything more than a church telling you something that's not true. I've gone to the same church that you've gone to for the same amount of time, and the beleifs that you have are a mismatch of beliefs from God, from the Bible, from the Pastor, and from others in the church. That's what happens. I've not lost my faith in God, and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I will find my home in Heaven when I take my last breath on earth here. So, why you can't be happy for me, is beyond any rationale that I can possibly understand. If you were hurt, I'd be there in a second. I've welcomed Michelle back into my life because you love her, despite any reservations I may have about things that she did to you in your past. I've chosen not to judge her, because it's not my place to judge. Yet, in your zeal to stop me from being gay, you're judging me and calling me something that I'm not.
Ryan, I long for the days ten years from now when you've got kids and and a house, and a hotrod in the garage and me and whoever it may be (Andy or somebody else) can come over and have a barbeque with you without fear of judgement or ridicule. Obviously some laws have to change before that can happen, but I still want a family, I still want a life that is normal (whatever normal may be). But, until you can accept me for me, that life seems to be put on hold. The entire time I've sat here writing this, I've trembled for fear that you will not like what you hear, and yell and scream and tell me that you'll never accept me.
I've realized that the only person I can control in my life is me--not you, not my friends, not mom, not dad. I am responsible ONLY for my actions, and at this point, this action, this trait of mine doesn't deem any appropriate responsibility except to say that I have the right to be me, regardless of how you feel or how you stand. I feel you need to do the same thing, take responsibility for your own actions and stop trying to change mine. Even your own best friend Chris gave me a strong arm of support when he found out and didn't understand why you won't even talk to him about it. But, at this point, it's not my concern. I ask that you read the summaries that I post here, and see if they make any sense, because they have to me.
These article offer some historical context into how the Bible was written and how some of the words condemning homsexuality are actually mistranslated. In other ways, they offer that if we're going to take everything the Bible says literally, then we need to immediately let women stop being religous leaders, stop letting men have long hair, stop eating pork on Fridays, and stop allowing men and women to sleep together during a woman's menstrual cycle. It makes sense. I can see your counterargument already brewing, that it's from Satan, that I can find anything that twists or contorts the Bible in any way that I want to see fit to live my lifestyle. Well, I give the same argument back, that it's possible to take anything from the Bible, and look at it however works for you too. And, if that's the case, how are we suppose to know that the Bible is really infallable? I'll leave that question unanswered.
Here are the articles, please enjoy:
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSISTENCY
I realize from my own encounters that when it comes to having discussions on homosexuality with conservative Christians, particularly those among our circle of family, friends, and church, most of the information covered above will be discounted. After all, the argument goes, "The words are clear and you're just trying to complicate things to justify homosexuality. The Bible says 'A man will not lie with another man as with a woman.' That's clearly about homosexuality and you're deceiving yourself to think otherwise."
Okay then, let's suspend everything already discussed and assume for a moment that yes, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 are clear-cut prohibitions against all homosexual relationships. The issue at this point becomes much more simple and much more difficult to answer. If we are to bring these passages into our current setting, putting aside the reasons why they were put in place originally and what type of worldview on gender and sexuality served as the basis for their establishment, then the only way we can remain consistent as Christians in the treatment of the Biblical text is to do the same with all the surrounding passages. To carry one prohibition across the centuries requires that we carry all the prohibitions along with it. This raises a problem for many Christians since most ignore the prohibitions against eating pork or shelled fish, shaving their hair near the temples, not marking their bodies with a tattoo, not touching a pigskin, wearing blended fabrics or having sexual relations between a husband and wife during menstruation among a long laundry list of other requirements and prohibitions.
Not only do we need to be consistent in treating all the law equally but we need to be consistent in applying the prescribed penalty for disobedience to the law. There exists a radical fringe of anti-gay people who call for the "death of homosexuals." Most Christians, even those who oppose homosexuality, are appalled by their violent rhetoric and yet, to truly honor the mandate of Leviticus concerning this prohibition, the radical fringe, no matter how offensive their position, are arguing for consistency in obeying all the law. How can the church decide the prohibition is in place and yet not the penalty for its violation? If they insist that this passage is still in place within our world then so must the penalty be, including death for those who engage in homosexuality as well as stoning for children who curse their parents..
A simple reality is that as Christians the Bible is the basis for our personal sexual ethics and yet there are vast differences between our sexual ethics and those of the Bible. In his article "Homosexuality and the Bible" in Homosexuality and the Christian Faith, Walter Wink highlights the inconsistencies in our use of the Bible as being authoritative to our lives.
"Most modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting incest (Note: The Bible actually offers no rejection or mention of father-daughter incest, mainly because in antiquity the father owned the daughter as one owns property), rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned or discouraged the following behaviors which we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy (some texts), exogamy (marriage with non-Israelites), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation (some Christians still condemn this) and birth control. The Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean which most of us do not. Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn or have discontinued: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (ages 11-13 for the girl). The Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it."
"Why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices. Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary." (Homosexuality and the Christian Faith, page 43) The full article, Homosexuality and the Bible, is available to read online.
Despite the claims of many Christians, there seems to be a tendency to pick and choose from Scriptural law, those which most fit with our existing belief system on what is right and what is wrong sexually.
In conclusion, how does the Christian Testament refer to the Law? Jesus declared he hadn't come to do away with a portion of the Law but to fulfill all the Law (Matthew 5:17-18). Paul said that "Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe" (Romans 10:4) and he tells us that we have been released from the Law and are dead to that which had us bound (Romans 7:6). Finally, in a passage familiar to all of us we read an exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees where they asked: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40). The question left to ask then is does the love between a gay or lesbian couple violate the first and greatest commandment?
ACCORDING TO PAUL
"I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles. I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome. I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.' The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?"
Romans I
In conservative Christian circles questioning Paul is tantamount to questioning God or Jesus and while I believe Paul was a man after God's heart and had clearly gone through a life-transforming experience on the road to Damascus, I'm concerned by our tendency to avoid any critical examination of some of Paul's teaching, even though Paul himself occasionally attributes his teaching to his personal views rather than that which comes from Jesus (1 Corinthians 7:6). Can I be so bold as to say that there's about three thousand miles of difference between questioning Paul's theology on certain points and questioning God or does that earn me the label of heretic? If so, I gladly wear it.
When speaking of women, Paul clearly reflects the culture of his time. "Women are to be silent in the church...for it is a shame for a woman to speak in church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), and women are to dress in modest apparel, avoiding " braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment (I Timothy 2:9). If Paul's teaching is the word of God and as relevant today as it was within the ancient world then what are we to do with conservative Christian female evangelists and pastors like Joyce Meyers or Jan Crouch? How is it that in many Christian circles going to church is an occasion to dress up in one's finest clothing including expensive jewelry and designer clothing? Somehow Evangelical Christians have managed to ignore these passages and yet cling to Paul's clearly negative message concerning homoeroticism, most certainly influenced by Pauls' exposure to negative same-sex activities in the ancient world and apply it across the board to gays and lesbians in our current world. As I mentioned in my treatment of Leviticus, I'm concerned by the obvious lack of consistency by many Christians in their treatment of Biblical teaching whether in the Hebrew or Christian Testaments. A continual charge made toward gay and lesbian Christians is that they avoid dealing with the passages that condemn same-sex attraction and yet, even if this were true, is the charge any less toward those who highlight the negative comments regarding homoeroticism while ignoring passages that would affect their
Paul connected same-sex eroticism with idolatry.
The Penalty: God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (verses 28b-31)
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (verses 26-27)
From what we've already discussed, both here and with the passages from Leviticus, we have certain things we understand that seem to be very much in keeping with the words of Paul in Romans 1:26-27. We also need to be honest enough to admit that we don't know exactly what Paul might have meant or what Paul might have thought concerning our current day understanding of homosexuality. It seems clear that in verses 26-27 Paul has a negative view of homoeroticism and while we can't know with any precision what Paul meant, we can make several general assumptions:
Unnatural (para physin) is better understood as that which is out of the ordinary or beyond the ordinary rather than as perversion.
Sex was for the purpose of procreation and had to include a dominant partner (male) and a passive partner (female). Anything that didn't meet that normative form was para physin.
One of the men in a same-sex encounter would dishonor himself by assuming the role of the passive partner and lowering his status to that of a woman. The other man brought dishonor on himself by allowing his kinsman to assume the role of the passive partner.
Paul, as his contemporaries, saw all passions as uncontrolled and negative. As a result passion was always dishonorable and would obviously result in being consumed by it. The passion that a husband might have for his wife would be seen as equally negative. Paul's not so much interested in condemning homoerotic behavior but on uncontrolled passions and lack of moderation.
In the ancient world there was no understanding of a homosexual orientation or a heterosexual orientation for that matter. Paul saw idolatry as the cause of same-sex eroticism rather than a person's sexual orientation or even a choice. It was a penalty exacted by God on the idolatrous Gentiles.
Unnatural relations for women could refer to any sexual activity where procreation wasn't a possibility. This could include sex during menstruation, anal sex or homoeroticism. Unnatural relationship for women could also refer to any sexual activity that was beyond the ordinary. Because women were expected in every sexual encounter to be the passive partner it would be against nature for a woman to be the aggressor in a heterosexual encounter or to take the dominant role in sex with another woman.
There are those who use this chapter to condemn homosexuality but in doing so they're choosing to emphasize wrongly one portion of a progressive descent into sin by a particular people whose original sin was idolatry. Remember that everything that follows their adulterous practices are a direct result of God giving them up to behaviors that would cause them to dishonor themselves. Their deliberate choice was to practice idolatry but the rest was punishment imposed on them by God.
I would propose that this passage does not speak of gay men and lesbians within our culture but to the Gentile idolaters located in Rome. If anyone uses this passage as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality within our current world then there are several premises that they must hold as true.
Everyone who is gay and lesbian was first an idolater, even those who realized they were homosexual from their earliest youth.
Everyone who is gay or lesbian is that way because God made them to be homosexual. Homosexuality at this point ceases to be either a sexual orientation OR a choice.
Everyone who is gay and lesbian is without faith and hates God, including those who proclaim Jesus as their Savior, whether they are practicing homosexuals or living as celibates within the church community.
For those of you who are gay and lesbian and continue to struggle with this passage I'd encourage you to consider these three points explicitly stated in Romans One and ask yourself some questions to see if Paul is referring to you in this writing.
Did you practice idolatry prior to your first awareness of your homosexuality?
Do you remember a fixed moment in time when you felt your heterosexuality (an exclusive attraction to the opposite sex) replaced with homosexuality (an exclusive attraction to the same sex)?
Are you void of all faith and filled with hate for God? Are you filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, and malice? How about envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, gossip, slanderer, insolent, haughty and boastfulness? Are you an inventor of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless and ruthless?
Would you describe your relationship with the person you love as centered solely in uncontrolled passions and lust?
For this passage to be speaking of all gays and lesbians and more specifically of you, you have to be able to answer in the affirmative to every question. If you answer no to any or all of them then perhaps it's time to let go of this passage as being what stands between reconciling your faith and sexuality. While there's a clearly negative word here regarding homoeroticism, it's exclusively a punishment of God for idolaters in Paul's understanding and so remains an empty closet for those of us today who are gay and lesbian and continue to worship God and God alone.
Words Matter: 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 and 1 Timothy 1: 9-10
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), nor abusers of themselves (arsenokoitai) with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."
1 Timothy 1: 9-10
If the word "homosexual" appears in your Bible in either of these passages then you're holding a version that was written after 1946, since the word "homosexual" didn't even reach common usage until the late 1800's. Prior to the 1946 Edition of the Revised Standard Version, the words that "homosexual" has replaced in many modern versions have included "boy prostitutes, effeminate, those who make women of themselves, sissies, catamites, the self-indulgent, sodomites, lewd persons, male prostitutes, and the unchaste." In What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak offers that "until the Reformation in the 16th Century and in Roman Catholicism until the 20th Century, the word malakoi was thought to mean "masturbators." Among the early Greek-speaking Christian theologians who condemned homosexuality the words malakoi and arsenokoitai were never used. John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.) preached in Greek against homosexuality and like others including Clement of Alexandra, never used these words, not even was the issue of homosexuals mentioned when he preached on these two passages. (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, pages 335-353.)
What am I saying here? If church tradition is part of what shapes our Christian theology then we have to recognize that church tradition and the understanding of earlier Christian theologians doesn't support the more recent translations that have placed the word "homosexuals" or "practicing homosexuals" within these two passages. At different times within church history there have been varying understandings of these passages and their exact meaning has changed from one generation to the next, now to the current time when two separate words have been collapsed into one to mean "homosexual." Along with this acknowledgment, it seems both helpful and honest to recognize that what often finds it's way into current biblical interpretation is not a more informed understanding of the biblical text based on years of accumulative knowledge but on imposing our own culture, complete with its prejudices into the interpretative work. What else would explain the shift in meaning and the narrowing of focus in the interpretation of these two passages over the last fifty years?
IT'S ALL GREEK TO ME
Rest assured that I'm no expert in the Greek language. The truth of the matter is there are days when fluent English escapes me. While studying the languages of the Bible are clearly helpful to a richer and more educated understanding of what lies within its pages, it's just as beneficial if you have the heart of an explorer. With that in mind, cast aside the studious burrows etched across your forehead and open your eyes wide to an adventure with words.
The first appearance of the word arsenokoitai in any ancient Greek literature is found in I Corinthians 6:9. While it might have been a word common in Paul's time, it can't be found anywhere else in material dated prior to or current with Paul that has already been discovered. It only begins to make its appearance in literature following Paul. An important tool in discovering the meaning of a word is to trace how it's been used previously but because arsenokoitai is invisible prior to I Corinthians this means of defining the word is missing. The times arsenokoitai is used following Paul seem dependent on Paul's usage of the word. In the Latin Vulgate that follows Paul some 500 years later, Jerome translates it as a male concubine although nothing in the word specifies whether the concubine was involved with a same-sex or opposite-sex individual. What we do know is at the time Paul was writing there were terms common for persons involved in homoeroticism and Paul chose to not use those words but to instead use a word that remains mysterious to us. What this means is that Greek scholars and theologians (among which you and I don't count ourselves) come to arsenokoitai with no previous context for understanding it's meaning and so the best that anyone, whether pro-gay or anti-gay can reason is a guess. In the early work the "New Testament and Homosexuality" Robin Scroggs comes to an understanding of arsenokoitai by looking at the two separate words it combines; arseno (men) and koitai (bed). From this Scroggs concluded that the literal meaning of arsenokoitai was "male bed" which he understood as descriptive of the active male (penetrator) in same-sex intercourse. The problem with this method of interpretation can be seen with examples in English like "lady-killer", "manhole" or "butterfly." You don't arrive at the true meaning of the word "butterfly" by defining the words "butter" and "fly" anymore than it's possible to define the accurate meaning of arsenokoitai by combining "male" and "bed."
malakoi is a word common to the Greek language which means "soft." Jesus uses the word malakoi when speaking of "a man dressed in soft (malakoi) raiment" (Matthew 11:8).
Historically, church tradition has often understood malakoi to imply a moral weakness. In antiquity however, malakoi was sometimes used as a descriptive word of eromenos. If you check back to the discussion on pederasty, you'll be reminded that eromenos was the passive partner in the pederastic relationship between an older mentor and the younger boy or the beloved. It was also used in a much broader sense than exclusive to a homoerotic relationship. malakoi also described those men who had too much sex with women. In ancient Rome, the effeminate looking man often presented himself that way to attract women rather than men because a feminine man would have been a turn off to men. In the ancient world being effeminate including such behavior as bathing frequently, shaving, frequent dancing or laughing, wearing cologne, eating too much or wearing fine undergarments! Effeminate is the best understanding of the word and in its cultural context was threatening to the whole structure of society by crossing the fragile line between man and woman in a world where to be male was to be superior and to be woman was to be intrinsically inferior. While being effeminate might have been deemed a sin in antiquity we would never consider preaching against the "sin of femininity" in a world where men are encouraged to get in touch with their more gentle side and where good hygiene, a pair of silk briefs and Old Spice After Shave would catapult the male populace in most churches into this category.
The Bible and Homosexuality -- Read it, you'll be enlightened
By Casey Wooley
Hey everyone,
After reading a very disheartening post from my brother concerning my homosexual orientation that I know I had no choice in, I needed to do some research to figure some stuff out. I've been a Christian since I was twelve years old and accepted Jesus Christ into my heart. I've taught Sunday School, Children's Church, VBS, and even delievered a message on the pulplit one Youth Sunday. The problem that has been prevalent in my life, although hidden, have been the attraction I have for other men. I dismissed these attractions as unnatural and sinful because of what I was taught, and what I was teaching others. I equated homosexuality as a sin, like murder, until I realize that this was something that was always there. And, during my junior year of college I finally told somebody, and then told somebody else, and slowly but sure I was able to be me.
But, as I've told my family, the people I care about most in my life are the ones who are struggling with this characteristic of my life the most. Especially my brother. It hurts me not to be able to share my glories with him, my happiness, and my sadness--all because he cannot accept something that he has absolutely no control over. I understand his position, because I was there, I lived it. I know what the Bible has to say about homosexuality; I've read every passage, studied, researched, and understand it. I know that by "church" standards, to be gay is to be a sin. But, that's just it, it's by church standards and nothing else. Then I stumbled across some pretty convincing argument--something that reaffirmed what I believed but couldn't voice myself. The following is taken from http://christianlesbians.com/articles/biblehomosexuality.php, and is a synopsis of several articles that seek to explain the various passages in the Bible that "condemn" homosexuality.
Because you may not have an open mind, you may choose not to view what I'm trying to say. But I ask, and challenge that if I've been kind enough to consider and live your viewpoint, you can at least consider mine and perhaps see that to be gay is not a sin. To be gay is simply another way to live. It is not a choice I made--I didn't just suddenly choose to let my heterosexuality fly away in the wind, but rather have had these urges, these attractions, these feelings my entire life. I want to love another man; I want to share life's up's and down's with this person, whoever it may be, and that, in reality has nothing to do with anybody else in my life. Thankfully most of the people close to me have accepted and have encouraged my life, and encouraged the person I finally have become and admitted to myself. But those select few people--my family--my mom, my dad, and my brother--have not. While my dad is somewhat supportive and taking on the role of "holding the family together," I know it still bothers him. I just can't understand how somebody cannot understand that it's not something I'm doing to hurt them, to embarass or humilate the family. For it's not something to be considered humilating.
Ryan, if you can't understand that, I'm sorry. I don't know what else I can say to you. I'm not going to change simply because you have relgious convictions that really are not grounded in anything more than a church telling you something that's not true. I've gone to the same church that you've gone to for the same amount of time, and the beleifs that you have are a mismatch of beliefs from God, from the Bible, from the Pastor, and from others in the church. That's what happens. I've not lost my faith in God, and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I will find my home in Heaven when I take my last breath on earth here. So, why you can't be happy for me, is beyond any rationale that I can possibly understand. If you were hurt, I'd be there in a second. I've welcomed Michelle back into my life because you love her, despite any reservations I may have about things that she did to you in your past. I've chosen not to judge her, because it's not my place to judge. Yet, in your zeal to stop me from being gay, you're judging me and calling me something that I'm not.
Ryan, I long for the days ten years from now when you've got kids and and a house, and a hotrod in the garage and me and whoever it may be (Andy or somebody else) can come over and have a barbeque with you without fear of judgement or ridicule. Obviously some laws have to change before that can happen, but I still want a family, I still want a life that is normal (whatever normal may be). But, until you can accept me for me, that life seems to be put on hold. The entire time I've sat here writing this, I've trembled for fear that you will not like what you hear, and yell and scream and tell me that you'll never accept me.
I've realized that the only person I can control in my life is me--not you, not my friends, not mom, not dad. I am responsible ONLY for my actions, and at this point, this action, this trait of mine doesn't deem any appropriate responsibility except to say that I have the right to be me, regardless of how you feel or how you stand. I feel you need to do the same thing, take responsibility for your own actions and stop trying to change mine. Even your own best friend Chris gave me a strong arm of support when he found out and didn't understand why you won't even talk to him about it. But, at this point, it's not my concern. I ask that you read the summaries that I post here, and see if they make any sense, because they have to me.
These article offer some historical context into how the Bible was written and how some of the words condemning homsexuality are actually mistranslated. In other ways, they offer that if we're going to take everything the Bible says literally, then we need to immediately let women stop being religous leaders, stop letting men have long hair, stop eating pork on Fridays, and stop allowing men and women to sleep together during a woman's menstrual cycle. It makes sense. I can see your counterargument already brewing, that it's from Satan, that I can find anything that twists or contorts the Bible in any way that I want to see fit to live my lifestyle. Well, I give the same argument back, that it's possible to take anything from the Bible, and look at it however works for you too. And, if that's the case, how are we suppose to know that the Bible is really infallable? I'll leave that question unanswered.
Here are the articles, please enjoy:
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSISTENCY
I realize from my own encounters that when it comes to having discussions on homosexuality with conservative Christians, particularly those among our circle of family, friends, and church, most of the information covered above will be discounted. After all, the argument goes, "The words are clear and you're just trying to complicate things to justify homosexuality. The Bible says 'A man will not lie with another man as with a woman.' That's clearly about homosexuality and you're deceiving yourself to think otherwise."
Okay then, let's suspend everything already discussed and assume for a moment that yes, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 are clear-cut prohibitions against all homosexual relationships. The issue at this point becomes much more simple and much more difficult to answer. If we are to bring these passages into our current setting, putting aside the reasons why they were put in place originally and what type of worldview on gender and sexuality served as the basis for their establishment, then the only way we can remain consistent as Christians in the treatment of the Biblical text is to do the same with all the surrounding passages. To carry one prohibition across the centuries requires that we carry all the prohibitions along with it. This raises a problem for many Christians since most ignore the prohibitions against eating pork or shelled fish, shaving their hair near the temples, not marking their bodies with a tattoo, not touching a pigskin, wearing blended fabrics or having sexual relations between a husband and wife during menstruation among a long laundry list of other requirements and prohibitions.
Not only do we need to be consistent in treating all the law equally but we need to be consistent in applying the prescribed penalty for disobedience to the law. There exists a radical fringe of anti-gay people who call for the "death of homosexuals." Most Christians, even those who oppose homosexuality, are appalled by their violent rhetoric and yet, to truly honor the mandate of Leviticus concerning this prohibition, the radical fringe, no matter how offensive their position, are arguing for consistency in obeying all the law. How can the church decide the prohibition is in place and yet not the penalty for its violation? If they insist that this passage is still in place within our world then so must the penalty be, including death for those who engage in homosexuality as well as stoning for children who curse their parents..
A simple reality is that as Christians the Bible is the basis for our personal sexual ethics and yet there are vast differences between our sexual ethics and those of the Bible. In his article "Homosexuality and the Bible" in Homosexuality and the Christian Faith, Walter Wink highlights the inconsistencies in our use of the Bible as being authoritative to our lives.
"Most modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting incest (Note: The Bible actually offers no rejection or mention of father-daughter incest, mainly because in antiquity the father owned the daughter as one owns property), rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned or discouraged the following behaviors which we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy (some texts), exogamy (marriage with non-Israelites), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation (some Christians still condemn this) and birth control. The Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean which most of us do not. Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn or have discontinued: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (ages 11-13 for the girl). The Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it."
"Why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices. Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary." (Homosexuality and the Christian Faith, page 43) The full article, Homosexuality and the Bible, is available to read online.
Despite the claims of many Christians, there seems to be a tendency to pick and choose from Scriptural law, those which most fit with our existing belief system on what is right and what is wrong sexually.
In conclusion, how does the Christian Testament refer to the Law? Jesus declared he hadn't come to do away with a portion of the Law but to fulfill all the Law (Matthew 5:17-18). Paul said that "Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe" (Romans 10:4) and he tells us that we have been released from the Law and are dead to that which had us bound (Romans 7:6). Finally, in a passage familiar to all of us we read an exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees where they asked: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40). The question left to ask then is does the love between a gay or lesbian couple violate the first and greatest commandment?
ACCORDING TO PAUL
"I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles. I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome. I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.' The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?"
Romans I
In conservative Christian circles questioning Paul is tantamount to questioning God or Jesus and while I believe Paul was a man after God's heart and had clearly gone through a life-transforming experience on the road to Damascus, I'm concerned by our tendency to avoid any critical examination of some of Paul's teaching, even though Paul himself occasionally attributes his teaching to his personal views rather than that which comes from Jesus (1 Corinthians 7:6). Can I be so bold as to say that there's about three thousand miles of difference between questioning Paul's theology on certain points and questioning God or does that earn me the label of heretic? If so, I gladly wear it.
When speaking of women, Paul clearly reflects the culture of his time. "Women are to be silent in the church...for it is a shame for a woman to speak in church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), and women are to dress in modest apparel, avoiding " braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment (I Timothy 2:9). If Paul's teaching is the word of God and as relevant today as it was within the ancient world then what are we to do with conservative Christian female evangelists and pastors like Joyce Meyers or Jan Crouch? How is it that in many Christian circles going to church is an occasion to dress up in one's finest clothing including expensive jewelry and designer clothing? Somehow Evangelical Christians have managed to ignore these passages and yet cling to Paul's clearly negative message concerning homoeroticism, most certainly influenced by Pauls' exposure to negative same-sex activities in the ancient world and apply it across the board to gays and lesbians in our current world. As I mentioned in my treatment of Leviticus, I'm concerned by the obvious lack of consistency by many Christians in their treatment of Biblical teaching whether in the Hebrew or Christian Testaments. A continual charge made toward gay and lesbian Christians is that they avoid dealing with the passages that condemn same-sex attraction and yet, even if this were true, is the charge any less toward those who highlight the negative comments regarding homoeroticism while ignoring passages that would affect their
Paul connected same-sex eroticism with idolatry.
The Penalty: God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (verses 28b-31)
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (verses 26-27)
From what we've already discussed, both here and with the passages from Leviticus, we have certain things we understand that seem to be very much in keeping with the words of Paul in Romans 1:26-27. We also need to be honest enough to admit that we don't know exactly what Paul might have meant or what Paul might have thought concerning our current day understanding of homosexuality. It seems clear that in verses 26-27 Paul has a negative view of homoeroticism and while we can't know with any precision what Paul meant, we can make several general assumptions:
Unnatural (para physin) is better understood as that which is out of the ordinary or beyond the ordinary rather than as perversion.
Sex was for the purpose of procreation and had to include a dominant partner (male) and a passive partner (female). Anything that didn't meet that normative form was para physin.
One of the men in a same-sex encounter would dishonor himself by assuming the role of the passive partner and lowering his status to that of a woman. The other man brought dishonor on himself by allowing his kinsman to assume the role of the passive partner.
Paul, as his contemporaries, saw all passions as uncontrolled and negative. As a result passion was always dishonorable and would obviously result in being consumed by it. The passion that a husband might have for his wife would be seen as equally negative. Paul's not so much interested in condemning homoerotic behavior but on uncontrolled passions and lack of moderation.
In the ancient world there was no understanding of a homosexual orientation or a heterosexual orientation for that matter. Paul saw idolatry as the cause of same-sex eroticism rather than a person's sexual orientation or even a choice. It was a penalty exacted by God on the idolatrous Gentiles.
Unnatural relations for women could refer to any sexual activity where procreation wasn't a possibility. This could include sex during menstruation, anal sex or homoeroticism. Unnatural relationship for women could also refer to any sexual activity that was beyond the ordinary. Because women were expected in every sexual encounter to be the passive partner it would be against nature for a woman to be the aggressor in a heterosexual encounter or to take the dominant role in sex with another woman.
There are those who use this chapter to condemn homosexuality but in doing so they're choosing to emphasize wrongly one portion of a progressive descent into sin by a particular people whose original sin was idolatry. Remember that everything that follows their adulterous practices are a direct result of God giving them up to behaviors that would cause them to dishonor themselves. Their deliberate choice was to practice idolatry but the rest was punishment imposed on them by God.
I would propose that this passage does not speak of gay men and lesbians within our culture but to the Gentile idolaters located in Rome. If anyone uses this passage as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality within our current world then there are several premises that they must hold as true.
Everyone who is gay and lesbian was first an idolater, even those who realized they were homosexual from their earliest youth.
Everyone who is gay or lesbian is that way because God made them to be homosexual. Homosexuality at this point ceases to be either a sexual orientation OR a choice.
Everyone who is gay and lesbian is without faith and hates God, including those who proclaim Jesus as their Savior, whether they are practicing homosexuals or living as celibates within the church community.
For those of you who are gay and lesbian and continue to struggle with this passage I'd encourage you to consider these three points explicitly stated in Romans One and ask yourself some questions to see if Paul is referring to you in this writing.
Did you practice idolatry prior to your first awareness of your homosexuality?
Do you remember a fixed moment in time when you felt your heterosexuality (an exclusive attraction to the opposite sex) replaced with homosexuality (an exclusive attraction to the same sex)?
Are you void of all faith and filled with hate for God? Are you filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, and malice? How about envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, gossip, slanderer, insolent, haughty and boastfulness? Are you an inventor of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless and ruthless?
Would you describe your relationship with the person you love as centered solely in uncontrolled passions and lust?
For this passage to be speaking of all gays and lesbians and more specifically of you, you have to be able to answer in the affirmative to every question. If you answer no to any or all of them then perhaps it's time to let go of this passage as being what stands between reconciling your faith and sexuality. While there's a clearly negative word here regarding homoeroticism, it's exclusively a punishment of God for idolaters in Paul's understanding and so remains an empty closet for those of us today who are gay and lesbian and continue to worship God and God alone.
Words Matter: 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 and 1 Timothy 1: 9-10
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), nor abusers of themselves (arsenokoitai) with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."
1 Timothy 1: 9-10
If the word "homosexual" appears in your Bible in either of these passages then you're holding a version that was written after 1946, since the word "homosexual" didn't even reach common usage until the late 1800's. Prior to the 1946 Edition of the Revised Standard Version, the words that "homosexual" has replaced in many modern versions have included "boy prostitutes, effeminate, those who make women of themselves, sissies, catamites, the self-indulgent, sodomites, lewd persons, male prostitutes, and the unchaste." In What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak offers that "until the Reformation in the 16th Century and in Roman Catholicism until the 20th Century, the word malakoi was thought to mean "masturbators." Among the early Greek-speaking Christian theologians who condemned homosexuality the words malakoi and arsenokoitai were never used. John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.) preached in Greek against homosexuality and like others including Clement of Alexandra, never used these words, not even was the issue of homosexuals mentioned when he preached on these two passages. (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, pages 335-353.)
What am I saying here? If church tradition is part of what shapes our Christian theology then we have to recognize that church tradition and the understanding of earlier Christian theologians doesn't support the more recent translations that have placed the word "homosexuals" or "practicing homosexuals" within these two passages. At different times within church history there have been varying understandings of these passages and their exact meaning has changed from one generation to the next, now to the current time when two separate words have been collapsed into one to mean "homosexual." Along with this acknowledgment, it seems both helpful and honest to recognize that what often finds it's way into current biblical interpretation is not a more informed understanding of the biblical text based on years of accumulative knowledge but on imposing our own culture, complete with its prejudices into the interpretative work. What else would explain the shift in meaning and the narrowing of focus in the interpretation of these two passages over the last fifty years?
IT'S ALL GREEK TO ME
Rest assured that I'm no expert in the Greek language. The truth of the matter is there are days when fluent English escapes me. While studying the languages of the Bible are clearly helpful to a richer and more educated understanding of what lies within its pages, it's just as beneficial if you have the heart of an explorer. With that in mind, cast aside the studious burrows etched across your forehead and open your eyes wide to an adventure with words.
The first appearance of the word arsenokoitai in any ancient Greek literature is found in I Corinthians 6:9. While it might have been a word common in Paul's time, it can't be found anywhere else in material dated prior to or current with Paul that has already been discovered. It only begins to make its appearance in literature following Paul. An important tool in discovering the meaning of a word is to trace how it's been used previously but because arsenokoitai is invisible prior to I Corinthians this means of defining the word is missing. The times arsenokoitai is used following Paul seem dependent on Paul's usage of the word. In the Latin Vulgate that follows Paul some 500 years later, Jerome translates it as a male concubine although nothing in the word specifies whether the concubine was involved with a same-sex or opposite-sex individual. What we do know is at the time Paul was writing there were terms common for persons involved in homoeroticism and Paul chose to not use those words but to instead use a word that remains mysterious to us. What this means is that Greek scholars and theologians (among which you and I don't count ourselves) come to arsenokoitai with no previous context for understanding it's meaning and so the best that anyone, whether pro-gay or anti-gay can reason is a guess. In the early work the "New Testament and Homosexuality" Robin Scroggs comes to an understanding of arsenokoitai by looking at the two separate words it combines; arseno (men) and koitai (bed). From this Scroggs concluded that the literal meaning of arsenokoitai was "male bed" which he understood as descriptive of the active male (penetrator) in same-sex intercourse. The problem with this method of interpretation can be seen with examples in English like "lady-killer", "manhole" or "butterfly." You don't arrive at the true meaning of the word "butterfly" by defining the words "butter" and "fly" anymore than it's possible to define the accurate meaning of arsenokoitai by combining "male" and "bed."
malakoi is a word common to the Greek language which means "soft." Jesus uses the word malakoi when speaking of "a man dressed in soft (malakoi) raiment" (Matthew 11:8).
Historically, church tradition has often understood malakoi to imply a moral weakness. In antiquity however, malakoi was sometimes used as a descriptive word of eromenos. If you check back to the discussion on pederasty, you'll be reminded that eromenos was the passive partner in the pederastic relationship between an older mentor and the younger boy or the beloved. It was also used in a much broader sense than exclusive to a homoerotic relationship. malakoi also described those men who had too much sex with women. In ancient Rome, the effeminate looking man often presented himself that way to attract women rather than men because a feminine man would have been a turn off to men. In the ancient world being effeminate including such behavior as bathing frequently, shaving, frequent dancing or laughing, wearing cologne, eating too much or wearing fine undergarments! Effeminate is the best understanding of the word and in its cultural context was threatening to the whole structure of society by crossing the fragile line between man and woman in a world where to be male was to be superior and to be woman was to be intrinsically inferior. While being effeminate might have been deemed a sin in antiquity we would never consider preaching against the "sin of femininity" in a world where men are encouraged to get in touch with their more gentle side and where good hygiene, a pair of silk briefs and Old Spice After Shave would catapult the male populace in most churches into this category.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)