Nazarene Ally

[Kevin Rector]

Kevin, what identity does the homosexual who wishes to remain within the Church of the nazarene need to take on within the current statement? what do they need to hide under this statement? What Support should they be able to look for or ask for? Are they better off just leaving the church, on the whole, no matter what the doctrinal statement says?

I'm not a fan of the word "identity" in regards to the conversation, but since you used it, I will too. The identity that a homosexual who wishes to remain within the COTN is one of a person who has an attraction to persons of the same sex but who does not act upon it (or if they do, they seek forgiveness for their sins). They need to hide nothing. They should be able to seek support for their temptations and loving care in their struggles. They are not better off leaving the church. No one with temptations are better off outside the church.

But, most homosexuals will not want to be a part of our church because we call homosexual acts sin. Many if not most homosexuals reject that idea and so we are often at odds to begin with.

[Kevin Rector]

I keep coming back to this. People will say "being gay in the church is like being an alcoholic" or "being somebody who deals with rage..." or whatever.

But all of those people, unless they've been sentenced to life in prison or something, get a chance to fall in love and get married.

Being gay is like having that thing, and also never getting to act on love, never getting to get married, always having to live alone. So what do we tell the gay person about that? That's what leads me to ask, should gay people just quit the church, period, since their whole attraction is getting written off as a horomonal issue?

This is where your position falls apart, an alcoholic that doesn't get healing never loves anything but the bottle. A rage-a-holic never experience true love only a "love" that can be controlled. Brokenness is brokenness and there are all sort of people struggling with all kinds of sins that block their path to true loving relationships (romantic or otherwise).

[Paul DeBaufer]

This is where your position falls apart, an alcoholic that doesn't get healing never loves anything but the bottle. A rage-a-holic never experience true love only a "love" that can be controlled. Brokenness is brokenness and there are all sort of people struggling with all kinds of sins that block their path to true loving relationships (romantic or otherwise).

Not true

[Kevin Rector]

Not true

true

(your turn)

[Bob Hunter]

I keep coming back to this. People will say "being gay in the church is like being an alcoholic" or "being somebody who deals with rage..." or whatever.

But all of those people, unless they've been sentenced to life in prison or something, get a chance to fall in love and get married.

Being gay is like having that thing, and also never getting to act on love, never getting to get married, always having to live alone. So what do we tell the gay person about that? That's what leads me to ask, should gay people just quit the church, period, since their whole attraction is getting written off as a horomonal issue?

Not really. A lot of people have issues that prevent (or limit) their ability to maintain a healthy relationship with someone they love or would like to love. It could be obesity, a personality/mood disorder, bad breath, hairy arm pits...you name it. We have a lady in our Church that is a 28 year single Mom and somewhat attractive, but because of her issues my wife and other Christian women have advised her NOT to date or seek a relationship with men in the Church. We have more single people in America than ever which is why all the dating websites explode with activity. And all the recent divorcees show up at the Gym to pump iron and lose weight to somehow make themselves attractive to potential mates (I've been a Gym rat for too long...)

The only other option is to say, gay is okay. Go ahead, marry, love, be a pastor, etc. And we just can't go there based in the CotN's understanding of human sexuality. But other churches embrace it, so there is a place to be open and affirming, it is just not in the CotN.

[Cam Pence]

I keep coming back to this. People will say "being gay in the church is like being an alcoholic" or "being somebody who deals with rage..." or whatever.

But all of those people, unless they've been sentenced to life in prison or something, get a chance to fall in love and get married.

Being gay is like having that thing, and also never getting to act on love, never getting to get married, always having to live alone. So what do we tell the gay person about that? That's what leads me to ask, should gay people just quit the church, period, since their whole attraction is getting written off as a horomonal issue?

And you always come back to this. You treat life as if it is not worth living in celibacy. There are all sorts of people who live life without romantic relationships, yet are completely fulfilled in life. Are Catholic priests condemned to a life horrible life because of this? A weak argument when it comes to justifying sinful behavior. Gay people and straight people alike can build meaningful relationships. To discount this for homosexuals because they are denied romantic relationships is disingenuous.

[Peggy Gray]

A lot of people have issues that prevent (or limit) their ability to maintain a healthy relationship with someone they love or would like to love. It could be obesity, a personality/mood disorder, bad breath, hairy arm pits...

Did you really say that?

[Lucas Finch]

And you always come back to this. You treat life as if it is not worth living in celibacy. There are all sorts of people who live life without romantic relationships, yet are completely fulfilled in life. Are Catholic priests condemned to a life horrible life because of this? A weak argument when it comes to justifying sinful behavior. Gay people and straight people alike can build meaningful relationships. To discount this for homosexuals because they are denied romantic relationships is disingenuous.

Thanks for this. One of the most annoying things about me being a 33 year old single man is not the fact that I am single but rather the fact that so many people seem to think that my life is any less fulfilling than theirs. I certainly hope to find that lucky girl who will fall head over heals for me someday (or maybe the inverse, or preferably both?), but I do not spend every moment of my life defining myself by my sexuality and my lack of being able to share it with another person. One of the bigger problems that I find with people who are same-sex oriented is their insistence to define themselves by that orientation as if their lives cannot be fulfilling without being able to engage in sexual intimacy. And this is not just a gay problem. It is a straight problem, too. For those who are married and have become one, then certainly it is appropriate for your spouse to be a huge part of your identity. But I am not any less of a person just because I am single.

Of course, if the church was better at extending community to those who are same-sex oriented, then perhaps they would be able to find identity in things other than their sexuality.

[Todd Erickson]

And you always come back to this. You treat life as if it is not worth living in celibacy. There are all sorts of people who live life without romantic relationships, yet are completely fulfilled in life. Are Catholic priests condemned to a life horrible life because of this? A weak argument when it comes to justifying sinful behavior. Gay people and straight people alike can build meaningful relationships. To discount this for homosexuals because they are denied romantic relationships is disingenuous.

No, church culture communicates that people are not fulfilled until they're married. Baptist culture certainly does. Here in the south, the difference between Baptist culture and Nazarene culture is...slim. I'm sure it's different in your neck of the woods.

I have never been in a church where, if I wasn't married, I would have found fellowship. Though I likely wouldn't have found my current church if I hadn't been married. I think that people who can be single and be affirmed in that are great, and we need more of that, and we need more of a culture as a society that affirms single people and their ability to accomplish things that married people can't.

I'm also part of a non-church culture where, as people get married, they stop being relevant because the single people aren't going to make a lot of room for their busy schedules or their kids. So, pluses and minuses.

Me, I don't care, I have no nostalgic attachment to the CotN, I just married a pastor's daughter. My suspicion, though, is that for folks like Neal, they've been a part of the whole CotN culture their entire lives, and if they leave it, they leave everything, family, culture, etc. Yes, there are other churches. But they'll be aliens there.

And not all of us are nomads.

Using Catholic Priests is a poor comparison, because within their mileu, they're normal. There's nothing weird among catholics about becoming a nun or a monk or a priest.

We don't have those. We have international branches of the church, as previously mentioned, where you can't even get ordained if you're not married. So this is a poor analogy.

[Bob Hunter]

Did you really say that?

Yeah, try to stay married to someone who is bipolar. Let me know how it works out. Might be easier to marry someone who braids their arm pits and has bad breath.

[Paul DeBaufer]

true

(your turn)

Ya got me

[Bob Hunter]

One of the bigger problems that I find with people who are same-sex oriented is their insistence to define themselves by that orientation as if their lives cannot be fulfilling without being able to engage in sexual intimacy.

Of course, if the church was better at extending community to those who are same-sex oriented, then perhaps they would be able to find identity in things other than their sexuality.

This is where I start to see some Freudian influence and I'll probably get myself in trouble for even mentioning it. A lot of agendas are driven by a need for sexual indulgence.

[Greg Farra]

Yeah, try to stay married to someone who is bipolar. Let me know how it works out. Might be easier to marry someone who braids their arm pits and has bad breath.

Well, my wife puts up with it!

[Ryan Scott]

Kevin, what identity does the homosexual who wishes to remain within the Church of the nazarene need to take on within the current statement?

Hopefully the same identity as everyone else: disciple of Jesus Christ.

If we're talking about any other identity, it probably doesn't belong in the Church.

[Cam Pence]

No, church culture communicates that people are not fulfilled until they're married. Baptist culture certainly does. Here in the south, the difference between Baptist culture and Nazarene culture is...slim. I'm sure it's different in your neck of the woods.

I have never been in a church where, if I wasn't married, I would have found fellowship. Though I likely wouldn't have found my current church if I hadn't been married. I think that people who can be single and be affirmed in that are great, and we need more of that, and we need more of a culture as a society that affirms single people and their ability to accomplish things that married people can't.

I'm also part of a non-church culture where, as people get married, they stop being relevant because the single people aren't going to make a lot of room for their busy schedules or their kids. So, pluses and minuses.

Me, I don't care, I have no nostalgic attachment to the CotN, I just married a pastor's daughter. My suspicion, though, is that for folks like Neal, they've been a part of the whole CotN culture their entire lives, and if they leave it, they leave everything, family, culture, etc. Yes, there are other churches. But they'll be aliens there.

And not all of us are nomads.

Using Catholic Priests is a poor comparison, because within their mileu, they're normal. There's nothing weird among catholics about becoming a nun or a monk or a priest.

We don't have those. We have international branches of the church, as previously mentioned, where you can't even get ordained if you're not married. So this is a poor analogy.

How is this a bad analogy? You used the argument of homosexuals not having a proper identity or a regular life if they cannot have romantic relationships. I countered that the situation is the same with Catholic priests and that romantic love is not necessary for one identity and fulfillment. You counter that when priests do it, there is somehow more normalcy to it. Come on Todd. The point was that romantic love is not necessary for identity or fulfillment. Your whole argument about finding ways to not single out gays falls flat when you always base your argument on how differently gay people are compared to everyone else. Has the church failed to love the gay community as people? Sometimes yes, but honestly, Todd, is there any way the church can treat gay, while stills maintaining that homosexual behavior is sinful that will ever be good enough for you, or will it always be contingent on the church "getting with it" and affirming sexual behavior as not sinful?

[Lucas Finch]

How is this a bad analogy? You used the argument of homosexuals not having a proper identity or a regular life if they cannot have romantic relationships. I countered that the situation is the same with Catholic priests and that romantic love is not necessary for one identity and fulfillment. You counter that when priests do it, there is somehow more normalcy to it. Come on Todd. The point was that romantic love is not necessary for identity or fulfillment. Your whole argument about finding ways to not single out gays falls flat when you always base your argument on how differently gay people are compared to everyone else. Has the church failed to love the gay community as people? Sometimes yes, but honestly, Todd, is there any way the church can treat gay, while stills maintaining that homosexual behavior that will ever be good enough for you, or will it always be contingent on the church "getting with it" and affirming sexual behavior as not sinful?

I actually get what Todd was saying (I think). His take is that the culture of evangelicals in America (and elsewhere, as he mentions) is such that if you're an adult and not married, you're viewed as lacking something. Thus, these homosexual people who are raised within that culture are raised thinking that they need marriage to be complete. Roman Catholic priests, on the other hand, understand that their calling will require them to forgo sexual intimacy.

So I mostly get and agree with Todd's post. I just do not think that it means that we need to legitimize practices that [I believe] Scripture condemns. Rather, I think we need to work on changing the culture so that people do not identify themselves via their sexuality. As Ryan stated, we need to find our identity as disciples of Christ.

[Gina Stevenson]

The point was that romantic love is not necessary for identity or fulfillment.

Agreed ... but life is much nicer with it, I must agree ... marriage was way too short before Danny died .......

[Cam Pence]

I actually get what Todd was saying (I think). His take is that the culture of evangelicals in America (and elsewhere, as he mentions) is such that if you're an adult and not married, you're viewed as lacking something. Thus, these homosexual people who are raised within that culture are raised thinking that they need marriage to be complete. Roman Catholic priests, on the other hand, understand that their calling will require them to forgo sexual intimacy.

So I mostly get and agree with Todd's post. I just do not think that it means that we need to legitimize practices that [I believe] Scripture condemns. Rather, I think we need to work on changing the culture so that people do not identify themselves via their sexuality. As Ryan stated, we need to find our identity as disciples of Christ.

I would agree and if that is what Todd is trying to get across than I apologize for misreading.

[Lucas Finch]

I would agree and if that is what Todd is trying to get across than I apologize for misreading.

Well, I could be wrong (I was once, so it isn't unprecedented ), but that's what I got out of it.

[Paul DeBaufer]

The RCC Priest is a flawed analogy in a couple of ways. For one the man that becomes a priest freely chooses to respond to his calling with full knowledge that celibacy is required. The gay man or lesbian woman made no such choice, yet celibacy is foisted upon them. Second both Jesus and Paul tell us that to some the gift of celibacy will be given. I would assume that those responding to the call to the RCC priesthood would feel that they have been given this gift. Thirdly, should the priest ever fel the need for romantic love he can freely leave the priesthood and pursue such a relationship without fear of the fiery pit. Gays have no such out. Some may have been gifted with celibacy. One of my lesbian friends does quite well as a single celibate person of deep faith in Christ. Her celibacy is her choice that has more to do with her physical health than any church doctrine. But, I fear she is an exception.

The single straight person, in our churches, can look forward to a possible future romantic relationship when he right person comes along. The gay person is told she cannot have any such future hope, if she is to remain in good standing within the church.

I may be wrong but I think it is these differences that Todd has been addressing. The church has a preference for married people. Marriage is something that all straight people within the church can (and are encouraged to) look forward to. Yet this is denied he gay person. They are denied what is tacitly expected of all within our church culture. If I am wrong, Todd, please correct me.

I am glad that Todd has the compassion to worry about the feelings of people who are excluded.

[Marsha Lynn]

The single straight person, in our churches, can look forward to a possible future romantic relationship when he right person comes along. The gay person is told she cannot have any such future hope, if she is to remain in good standing within the church.

This reminds me of a conversation I had 20 years ago with a young mother who had left her deadbeat husband. She was a member of a tiny Church of the Nazarene and her pastor explained to her that as a divorced woman she was not guilty of sin as long as she didn't remarry. Ever.

It didn't take long for her to figure out that spending the rest of her life as a desperately lonely but upstanding church member was probably not the choice she was going to make. She left the church and got on with life. I wonder how things would have been different if that pastor had shown a little more grace in his counsel.

Prescribing a lifetime commitment to celibacy for another person is much easier than being the one carrying out that lonely assignment with no hope for reprieve.

[Cam Pence]

The RCC Priest is a flawed analogy in a couple of ways. For one the man that becomes a priest freely chooses to respond to his calling with full knowledge that celibacy is required. The gay man or lesbian woman made no such choice, yet celibacy is foisted upon them. Second both Jesus and Paul tell us that to some the gift of celibacy will be given. I would assume that those responding to the call to the RCC priesthood would feel that they have been given this gift. Thirdly, should the priest ever fel the need for romantic love he can freely leave the priesthood and pursue such a relationship without fear of the fiery pit. Gays have no such out. Some may have been gifted with celibacy. One of my lesbian friends does quite well as a single celibate person of deep faith in Christ. Her celibacy is her choice that has more to do with her physical health than any church doctrine. But, I fear she is an exception.

The single straight person, in our churches, can look forward to a possible future romantic relationship when he right person comes along. The gay person is told she cannot have any such future hope, if she is to remain in good standing within the church.

I may be wrong but I think it is these differences that Todd has been addressing. The church has a preference for married people. Marriage is something that all straight people within the church can (and are encouraged to) look forward to. Yet this is denied he gay person. They are denied what is tacitly expected of all within our church culture. If I am wrong, Todd, please correct me.

I am glad that Todd has the compassion to worry about the feelings of people who are excluded.

And a gay person can freely choose to remain in celibacy. The RC priest will consider it sin for him to have romantic relationships. Once again the argument made was that romantic relationships were necessary for a homosexual to find identity and fulfillment. That is bogus and no matter how much you want to make a special case for gay people, the argument falls flat as romantic relationships are not necessary for ANYBODY to find identity and fulfillment, especially if to pursue those romantic relationships is considered to be sinful, such as within the CotN.

[Marsha Lynn]

The argument of a committed, long-term, same-sex relationship doesn't carry a lot of water, in my mind, simply because it doesn't fit the prescription of what God lays down for sexual expression.... If God had intended to sanction same-sex sexuality as equal with heterosexual marriage, surely he would have blessed it overtly, making it clear that these relationships do not fall under the general condemnation of same-sex sexual activity given elsewhere in Scripture.

OK, I don't want to offend, but ... Isn't this sort of along the lines of saying that if God had meant us to fly he would have given us wings? Or, more seriously, that if God expected men to treat women as equals he would have said so? Or if black people weren't inferior to white people (perhaps as a result of the curse on Canaan?), God would have made it clear instead of people having to eventually figure it out for themselves?

Just to be clear, I have never suggested that same-sex relationships are on the same level as heterosexual marriage. What I have said is that those of us who have never experienced this particular form of brokenness in a broken world are not in a good position to tell those who have what God expects of them, particularly in light of how little scriptural guidance there is on the matter.

By the way, if anyone is interested, a good book for getting inside the head of a young church member facing these issues is The God Box by Alex Sanchez. Available through your local library.*

Marsha

*Offer not valid outside the continental U.S.

[Lucas Finch]

By the way, if anyone is interested, a good book for getting inside the head of a young church member facing these issues is The God Box by Alex Sanchez. Available through your local library.*

Dr. Dan Boone's A Charitable Discourse also has some good stuff, including a chapter that he shares a number of letters he's received from people with same-sex orientation. These letters really helped me to get a better grasp of the struggle.

[Paul DeBaufer]

And a gay person can freely choose to remain in celibacy. The RC priest will consider it sin for him to have romantic relationships. Once again the argument made was that romantic relationships were necessary for a homosexual to find identity and fulfillment. That is bogus and no matter how much you want to make a special case for gay people, the argument falls flat as romantic relationships are not necessary for ANYBODY to find identity and fulfillment, especially if to pursue those romantic relationships is considered to be sinful, such as within the CotN.

So, are you creating a special category for gay people to remain celibate? I grant that it is given to some the same as it is given to some heterosexual people, but it is not given to all. The RCC priest who feels the need for a romantic relationship can leave the priesthood to pursue such a relationship. I could agree that while still a priest and pursuing a romantic relationship may be considered a sin. But a friend of mine is a RCC priest who left to get married. I don't know what happened but the RC Church called him back and he is now, again, serving as a priest.

I find it interesting that a married man so easily says that someone else should be able to find fulfillment outside a romantic relationship. Seems that you have your fulfillment in your marriage. I suggest that we are created for such, but that for a few that are given the gift of celibacy. When you go live as a single celibate then come tell me it is bogus otherwise you know not of what you speak.

[Cam Pence]

So, are you creating a special category for gay people to remain celibate? I grant that it is given to some the same as it is given to some heterosexual people, but it is not given to all. The RCC priest who feels the need for a romantic relationship can leave the priesthood to pursue such a relationship. I could agree that while still a priest and pursuing a romantic relationship may be considered a sin. But a friend of mine is a RCC priest who left to get married. I don't know what happened but the RC Church called him back and he is now, again, serving as a priest.

I find it interesting that a married man so easily says that someone else should be able to find fulfillment outside a romantic relationship. Seems that you have your fulfillment in your marriage. I suggest that we are created for such, but that for a few that are given the gift of celibacy. When you go live as a single celibate then come tell me it is bogus otherwise you know not of what you speak.

Fair enough Paul....I married so who am I to have the nerve to support my denominations stance on a Nazarene friendly site. I mean really who cares if people openly brace sin so long as they don't have to give up romantic relationships. But I mean since I am not gay and married(double whammy) who am I to trust the Biblical witness held by denomination on the matter? I mean of I stick to my guns here then I am just really not interested in conversation. I thought twice about starting this thread given the ceaseless natural of ALL the threads on this subject. Should have gone with my gut.

[Lucas Finch]

I find it interesting that a married man so easily says that someone else should be able to find fulfillment outside a romantic relationship. Seems that you have your fulfillment in your marriage. I suggest that we are created for such, but that for a few that are given the gift of celibacy. When you go live as a single celibate then come tell me it is bogus otherwise you know not of what you speak.

I'm not married and do not believe that I am called to celibacy, and yet I believe that it is possible to find fulfillment outside of a romantic relationship. Fulfillment can only come through Christ, despite relationship status. I'll admit, there are times that I am lonely. There are times when I have a rough day and I remember what it was like once when I had someone to put her arms around me and tell me that she loved me and that everything was going to be ok, despite how rough my day had been. But despite the loneliness that I sometimes experience, I am not half a man. I am not less of a person because I am not in a relationship. (I kinda thought that I said this a couple of times above, but apparently it is easier to jump on a married man's post.)

[Bob Hunter]

particularly in light of how little scriptural guidance there is on the matter.

.

I disagree.

[Greg Farra]

Fair enough Paul....I married so who am I to have the nerve to support my denominations stance on a Nazarene friendly site. I mean really who cares if people openly brace sin so long as they don't have to give up romantic relationships. But I mean since I am not gay and married(double whammy) who am I to trust the Biblical witness held by denomination on the matter? I mean of I stick to my guns here then I am just really not interested in conversation. I thought twice about starting this thread given the ceaseless natural of ALL the threads on this subject. Should have gone with my gut.

Cam,

Thank you. This is a Nazarene friendly site. We have our statements in the Manual and the GS's perspective to guide us in how we approach this Biblically. I'm sorry if anyone is offended that we hold to our church's teachings. I used to be a Lutheran. I left. I didn't agree with their views. I don't spend time going on the ELCA boards telling them how wrong they are. We know some of the people here don't agree with us. That's fine. But don't come to a place where you know we don't agree then act like we are the bad guys. Go play in your own sandbox if you don't like ours.

[Lucas Finch]

Cam,

Thank you. This is a Nazarene friendly site. We have our statements in the Manual and the GS's perspective to guide us in how we approach this Biblically. I'm sorry if anyone is offended that we hold to our church's teachings. I used to be a Lutheran. I left. I didn't agree with their views. I don't spend time going on the ELCA boards telling them how wrong they are. We know some of the people here don't agree with us. That's fine. But don't come to a place where you know we don't agree then act like we are the bad guys. Go play in your own sandbox if you don't like ours.

I mostly agree, but I will say that I enjoy reading the views of others, as long as the dialogue remains charitable. Sadly, this is not always the case. But I learn much when I read those with whom I disagree.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Fair enough Paul....I married so who am I to have the nerve to support my denominations stance on a Nazarene friendly site. I mean really who cares if people openly brace sin so long as they don't have to give up romantic relationships. But I mean since I am not gay and married(double whammy) who am I to trust the Biblical witness held by denomination on the matter? I mean of I stick to my guns here then I am just really not interested in conversation. I thought twice about starting this thread given the ceaseless natural of ALL the threads on this subject. Should have gone with my gut.

This really doesn't have anything to do with the CotN's position on homosexuality. I suggested that we are created for relationship, to be in relationship, intimate and, yes, romantic. I suggest this of all people, no special category for gays, but all people except those to whom it has been given the gift of celibacy. You said that the idea that a romantic (and by that I meant intimate also) relationship is necessary for one to feel fulfilled was bogus, heterosexual or homosexual. You said or alluded that no one needs a romantic relationship to be fulfilled or to FEEL fulfilled. I'm going to go out on a limb of assumption and suggest that you find a degree of fulfillment in your marriage, in the romantic/intimate relationship you have with your wife. That a need, a hole, is filled by the woman you love.

Todd's question, then, is how do we deal with gays in light of the feeling of fulfillment, this need for intimate/romantic relationships within the context of the BOGS pastoral letter on homosexuality? I do not see in the question anything about condoning sin or attacking the CotN position, but asking a very fair question. Todd also asked if maybe it is just better that gays leave the church altogether. Maybe that is the answer for those who have not been gifted with celibacy.

[Cam Pence]

This really doesn't have anything to do with the CotN's position on homosexuality. I suggested that we are created for relationship, to be in relationship, intimate and, yes, romantic. I suggest this of all people, no special category for gays, but all people except those to whom it has been given the gift of celibacy. You said that the idea that a romantic (and by that I meant intimate also) relationship is necessary for one to feel fulfilled was bogus, heterosexual or homosexual. You said or alluded that no one needs a romantic relationship to be fulfilled or to FEEL fulfilled. I'm going to go out on a limb of assumption and suggest that you find a degree of fulfillment in your marriage, in the romantic/intimate relationship you have with your wife. That a need, a hole, is filled by the woman you love.

Todd's question, then, is how do we deal with gays in light of the feeling of fulfillment, this need for intimate/romantic relationships within the context of the BOGS pastoral letter on homosexuality? I do not see in the question anything about condoning sin or attacking the CotN position, but asking a very fair question. Todd also asked if maybe it is just better that gays leave the church altogether. Maybe that is the answer for those who have not been gifted with celibacy.

Once again the desire for romantic intimacy, while understandable, is not necessary for fulfillment. Many people live on this way and are very happy. If you are looking for a way to make it so that homosexuals unlike everyone else absolutely NEED romantic intimacy them it is not so. I do not NEED romantic intimacy. I love my wife and if she died tomorrow, I would be devastated, however, I would not lose fulfillment in my life because that comes from Christ. Even if I never married again, my fulfillment comes from Christ. Right now as a married man, my fulfillment comes from Christ as well as my identity. I am of course happy that I have been blessed with a wife, but my fulfillment does NOT ultimately come from Lindsay. It comes from Jesus. Same way it did before I was married when I was both single and lived in celibacy. You can tell me all day long that I have no business saying that a gay person should find there fulfillment in Christ and not a romantic relationship (especially one that requires that person to live in sin), but I would argue that as someone who has found there identity and fulfillment on Christ as single, living in celibacy, and as a married man that I know exactly of what I speak. If we concede to fill people's minds with garbage that says it is ok to sin as long as they find fulfillment then we tell them that Christ is not enough and in doing so enable them on a road to destruction and unhappiness. The exact opposite of identity and fulfillment.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I'm not married and do not believe that I am called to celibacy, and yet I believe that it is possible to find fulfillment outside of a romantic relationship. Fulfillment can only come through Christ, despite relationship status. I'll admit, there are times that I am lonely. There are times when I have a rough day and I remember what it was like once when I had someone to put her arms around me and tell me that she loved me and that everything was going to be ok, despite how rough my day had been. But despite the loneliness that I sometimes experience, I am not half a man. I am not less of a person because I am not in a relationship. (I kinda thought that I said this a couple of times above, but apparently it is easier to jump on a married man's post.)

Do you allow that some feel a need to be in a relationship? That this is a valid calling? That there is a degree of fulfillment in a relationship that is missing when one is not in one? You seem to suggest that there is indeed a hole in your life that becomes apparent every now and again when you feel the pains of loneliness and desire for the touch of a partner, for the whispered, "I love you and everything is going to be alright," for that intimate companionship. That you have the strength to withstand the loneliness and longing that arise in rough times. But you do not have to, no one is telling you that this is how you must endure for all your life. This forced loneliness is something that needs to be addressed when dealing with gays in the CotN, especially with the BOGS statement (a very progressive statement compared to some denominations and churches).

[Paul DeBaufer]

Once again the desire for romantic intimacy, while understandable, is not necessary for fulfillment. Many people live on this way and are very happy. If you are looking for a way to make it so that homosexuals unlike everyone else absolutely NEED romantic intimacy them it is not so. I do not NEED romantic intimacy. I love my wife and if she died tomorrow, I would be devastated, however, I would not lose fulfillment in my life because that comes from Christ. Even if I never married again, my fulfillment comes from Christ. Right now as a married man, my fulfillment comes from Christ as well as my identity. I am of course happy that I have been blessed with a wife, but my fulfillment does NOT ultimately come from Lindsay. It comes from Jesus. Same way it did before I was married when I was both single and lived in celibacy. You can tell me all day long that I have no business saying that a gay person should find there fulfillment in Christ and not a romantic relationship (especially one that requires that person to live in sin), but I would argue that as someone who has found there identity and fulfillment on Christ as single, living in celibacy, and as a married man that I know exactly of what I speak. If we concede to fill people's minds with garbage that says it is ok to sin as long as they find fulfillment then we tell them that Christ is not enough and in doing so enable them on a road to destruction and unhappiness. The exact opposite of identity and fulfillment.

Again I am not singling out LGBT people as having special needs that straight people don't have. I am suggesting that there is a ubiquitous need, desire for companionship, intimate and romantic companionship. God Himself recognizes this: Genesis 2:18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone'. and proceeds to create for him a helper, bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh, someone who fills a hole, a need that individual humans have.

Maybe a word other than fulfillment should be used for what I and Todd are trying to convey as it seems to offend. We are created to be in relationship, it is part of the imago dei.

ETA: I am not suggesting idolatry, which it would be IF one were to try to replace the need for Christ with a romantic relationship. The woman at the well seemed to do just that and didn't find the ultimate fulfillment she was looking for. Jesus filled that need. Doesn't mean she no longer had a need to be fulfilled in other ways, like through romantic and intimate relationship with another human being. Just that that need needs to be secondary to Christ.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Once again the desire for romantic intimacy, while understandable, is not necessary for fulfillment. Many people live on this way and are very happy. If you are looking for a way to make it so that homosexuals unlike everyone else absolutely NEED romantic intimacy them it is not so. I do not NEED romantic intimacy. I love my wife and if she died tomorrow, I would be devastated, however, I would not lose fulfillment in my life because that comes from Christ. Even if I never married again, my fulfillment comes from Christ. Right now as a married man, my fulfillment comes from Christ as well as my identity. I am of course happy that I have been blessed with a wife, but my fulfillment does NOT ultimately come from Lindsay. It comes from Jesus. Same way it did before I was married when I was both single and lived in celibacy. You can tell me all day long that I have no business saying that a gay person should find there fulfillment in Christ and not a romantic relationship (especially one that requires that person to live in sin), but I would argue that as someone who has found there identity and fulfillment on Christ as single, living in celibacy, and as a married man that I know exactly of what I speak. If we concede to fill people's minds with garbage that says it is ok to sin as long as they find fulfillment then we tell them that Christ is not enough and in doing so enable them on a road to destruction and unhappiness. The exact opposite of identity and fulfillment.

I hope that this doesn't come off as flippant or insulting, it is most definitely not intended as either or any type of slight or put down.

If you were completely fulfilled and happy and fully satisfied (fulfilled) as a single celibate, why did you marry? I hope I am not being too forward in asking.

[Cam Pence]

I hope that this doesn't come off as flippant or insulting, it is most definitely not intended as either or any type of slight or put down.

If you were completely fulfilled and happy and fully satisfied (fulfilled) as a single celibate, why did you marry? I hope I am not being too forward in asking.

I dont mind you asking at all. I am just as fulfilled now as I was when I was single. The romantic love I share with my wife is awesome no doubt, but it is not what defines me. I married because I found another person who found her identity in Christ and we loved each other. Our fulfillment was there before we got married and it would still be here had we not gotten married.....ever. We still had the Church and, most importantly, we still had (and still have) Christ. Perhaps this will help you understand better where I am coming from. My wife and I dated at one point, broke up and didn't get back together until four years later, at which point we got engaged and married. After the first break up, I was broken hearted (she dumped me) and I honestly found my identity in this romantic relationship I had with her. I was a sad sack for a while and one day my friend P.C. asked me a hard question. He said "Cam, what would you do if God spoke to you clear as day and said 'Cam, I don't want you do get married. I want you instead to spend the rest of your life being in love with me.'?" He asked if that would be enough. If I could find my identity and fulfillment in Christ alone. At first I honestly thought the answer was no. But then I thought of the many many Christians who have spent their lives both single and celebant. I had to ask myself if those people either felt completely unfulfilled their whole life or if Jesus was enough for them and I just could not believe that people who loved and served Christ their whole lives somehow came to end with a regret that they never had a husband or a wife or sex. It is not good for a man/woman to be alone, but we are not alone. We have Jesus and each other (the Church). I cannot put romantic relationships on this soapbox above all other relationships. God is love. A love so much deeper than even the love I share with my wife. I was fulfilled by that love before and after I was married and if my wife passed away (God forbid) I would still be fulfilled because Jesus is enough. Enough for me, you, and everybody else. I find love and commitment and intimacy with my wife, but I do find my identity and fulfillment in Lindsay. That is only found in Christ. He is my rock and my portion forever. No human being could or should attempt to take on that role. I am not saying that it is not hard to forgo marriage and the whole shebang, but I am saying that whether we marry or are romantically intimate with someone has no bearing on our identity and fulfillment found in Jesus and that is avaiable to everyone, gay and straight, and once again it is enough.

[Ian Gentles]

Do you allow that some feel a need to be in a relationship? That this is a valid calling? That there is a degree of fulfillment in a relationship that is missing when one is not in one? You seem to suggest that there is indeed a hole in your life that becomes apparent every now and again when you feel the pains of loneliness and desire for the touch of a partner, for the whispered, "I love you and everything is going to be alright," for that intimate companionship. That you have the strength to withstand the loneliness and longing that arise in rough times. But you do not have to, no one is telling you that this is how you must endure for all your life. This forced loneliness is something that needs to be addressed when dealing with gays in the CotN, especially with the BOGS statement (a very progressive statement compared to some denominations and churches).

We can have folks who would put their arms around us and says "Its going to be OK", without being in a relationship.

[Jim Chabot]

particularly in light of how little scriptural guidance there is on the matter.

I'm with our church and the position we take in our Manual, I'm with our General Church and the statements put forth in the pastoral letter, and I'm with Bob Hunter. I disagree.

There is apt Scriptural guidance, perhaps not voluminous, but rather pointed and clear. Scripture is crystal clear, and yes we have been over the methodology and thought behind those who disagree time and time again, yet Scripture is very clear.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Lev 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it [is] confusion.

Pretty clear and concise, it's just plain flat out wrong, and it's considered along with bestiality.

Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Lev 20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood [shall be] upon them.


Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Lev 20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it [is] wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

Lev 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

Lev 20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Again, pretty clear that a man is not to lie down with a man, nor shall a woman approach a beast. Please note that we begin with the immoral act whereby a man takes his father's wife. Exactly where Paul begins in Corinthians 5.

1Cr 5:1 ¶ It is reported commonly [that there is] fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

1Cr 5:2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

Paul also notes that they are puffed up. I'll make the observation that most every discussion we have had here reflects this same condition. Those who would advocate for the affirmation of homosexuals, do so with a sense that they are superior in love. Reference to the law of love is made time and time again, and it's made in such a manner as to accuse those of us who agree with our church as if we lacked in love. You are puffed up and superior, where you should be mournful and sad because these poor unfortunate souls are surely destined for hell. Do I consign them there? No, absolutely not, in fact I hope that no one goes there. Doesn't change the fact that the inspired Word of God says that yes this is their fate.

1Cr 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

1Cr 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

1Cr 6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

1Cr 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

1Cr 6:6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

There he goes again, Paul says the they should be ashamed, he says that the church should be judging these matters, but rather to their shame, they allow the world to decide matters that God has spoken on.

And why should we be concerned out of a heart of love? Because they are on their way to hell. To our shame, we help them along should we affirm that which is sin.

1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Not going to inherit the kingdom of God! Do you disagree with Paul? Was he simply mistaken, or was he just going along with the culture of the day, much like our politicians do today. Surely Paul would speak differently to our culture? I don't think so, Paul's words come pretty much directly from that which was said thousands of years prior. Paul's words mirror that which was spoken to a culture entirely different than his own, they are still true today. God has spoken and he has not repented.

Then there is the message of holiness people, there is hope, there remains the transformational power of the Spirit of The Living God! Paul says "and such were some of you," what a message! The world tells us that nothing can be done, the world tells us that these folks are doomed to this way of life, the world says that there is no hope. The cross of Christ says otherwise, Jesus said that He would send the Spirit, Paul tells us of victories already achieved as the Spirit brings victory.

Should we speak against the message of sin and ruin, and the hope of victory and eternal life? God forbid!

1Cr 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

[Bob Hunter]

I'm with our church and the position we take in our Manual, I'm with our General Church and the statements put forth in the pastoral letter, and I'm with Bob Hunter. I disagree.

There is apt Scriptural guidance, perhaps not voluminous, but rather pointed and clear. Scripture is crystal clear, and yes we have been over the methodology and thought behind those who disagree time and time again, yet Scripture is very clear.

Jim I am with you on this, but I wouldn't get into proof texting like you did and quoting from the KJV. Holy smokes, get with the 21st Century why don't ya!

I'm really not into citing individual verses that denounce homosexuality. I don't think it makes a compelling case and almost no one is impressed with a few verses from Leviticus that require a great deal of explanation due to their context. It ends up opening a big can of worms.

If you did a structural analysis of the whole Bible, it would be quite apparent the Bible writers assumed male/female relations in their writing and not same sex relations. The whole Bible is set in a male/female context and we have entire books devoted to the idea (e.g., Song of Songs). The Bible's poetry and wisdom literature are chock full of references to male/female relations. The book of proverbs offers timely advice to men regarding women. The book of Genesis begins with the story of Adam and Eve and whether or not you view the first couple literally or representative makes no difference to me. Moreover, we have Biblical metaphors that celebrate the different sexes in complimentary fashion (bride/bridegroom). So, in Revelation we see the Bride and Bridegroom re-united at the wedding feast of the lamb. Everywhere in between there are traces of God's beauty expressed in male/female relations (Ruth & Boaz, Abraham & Sarah, Hosea & Gomer). And there are even instances where it almost seems God played matchmaker (Isaac and Rebekah).

So I find myself a little uneasy when someone claims scripture says little about the primacy of male/female relations. Or, perhaps the claim is that the Bible says little about same sex relations in the context of a committed relationship. And while that may be true, in order to justify the relationship as normative we have to work backwards with our assumptions which requires a lot of heavy lifting. And I don't think that is a helpful when you consider what is required to preserve the overall structure of relationships found in scripture.

Anyway, I hear what you are saying Jim, but you don't need to spit out a bunch of individual verses Manny Silva style.

[Hans Deventer]

It is not good for a man/woman to be alone, but we are not alone. We have Jesus and each other (the Church).

I think you hit a homerun here. The crucial thing is the Church. Adam had God in the perfection of a pre-Fall relationship and it was NOT enough. According to God Himself (so who am I to doubt Him?). So the essential part of the formula must be the other human being. People can be celibate and live in community, but we were never meant to live alone.
Which brings us to the question, does the Church provide community in such a way that I need not seek my fulfilment in the one special other? That I can indeed, if it so happens, get married without the unspoken demand that the other has to fill every hole in my life, define my identity?

It seems here as well we need a trinitarian approach in that sense that always a third person is needed. We definitely need God as the basis for our identity and any other relationship. But He alone is not enough, we were never meant to be hermits.

The problem seems to be that few communities of faith (Churches) can live up to God's intention, hence leaving people in search of the special other who will. (Yes, with all that goes wrong because nobody is perfect). And it is only too bad if you happen to be homosexually oriented and the church throws you out rather than provide the fellowship you were meant for.