As a blogger, I use this platform as a place to articulate and organize my thoughts. I'm open to re-examining issues and so here goes with some of my reactions to this subject.
My experiences with gay individuals is very limited. I have encountered a few in my working life and have found them to be just like everyone else: decent hard working people.
For a number of years, my molecular biology research work was in the area of HIV/AIDS. In the late '80s and early '90s, there was a lot of effort to understand the virus and I worked in two different labs that made some contributions to understanding the field. In a sense, all the "easy" research got done at that time when we went from knowing almost nothing about the virus to knowing some things.
At that time, I was very much moved by Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's perspective on the issue. As a traditional Christian (I believe he is presbyterian), he didn't believe that the homosexual lifestyle choice was a good one but his Christian ethics demanded he do what he could to prevent suffering.
With all the interest in genetics, there has been some interest in finding if there is a "gay" gene. I don't know what the latest is on that but my understanding of biology is that finding such a gene would be difficult as it is unlikely that one gene would correspond to a complex set of factors that go into human behavior.
As I see it, there is almost certainly some "hard wired" aspect to homosexuality or for that matter any kind of sexuality. It wouldn't be much of an admission if I were to say that if a woman as beautiful as "fill in the blank gorgeous movie star" was in my church and she lived out the faith and started to pay attention to me, I would have little "choice" in feeling attraction towards her! Thus, the biological basis of desire is probably beyond "choice." However, we have a choice in what we do about the desire that exists within us.
Thus, at an existential level, the individual with homosexual desires who also holds to traditional Christian marriage ethics is in a very difficult situation. But is it more difficult than the heterosexual single striving to abstain prior to marriage? Is it more difficult than the heterosexual married person striving to remain faithful to their spouse? Perhaps in many ways it is more difficult. But life is what it is. For some resisting getting drunk from alcohol is more difficult than for others yet the obligation for sobriety is important.
The Westminster Confession article 24 (a statement of faith that Presbyterians hold to) says of marriage:
Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.I believe this reflects the wisdom of Scripture.
At a society level, I think my perspective on the issue is shaped by Jewish radio talk show host Dennis Prager. I first heard him when he was on KABC 790 doing Religion on the Line where he would have a Protestant minister, Catholic priest and Jewish rabbi on the program to discuss some topic of the evening and then take phone calls.
He now does a general purpose talk show on KRLA 870 and covers topics from daily life like the cost of weddings to hot political items in the news. I like his motto: "Clarity before agreement." He has guests on the show and callers who don't agree and his goal is to ask questions to bring clarity to where the disagreement is.
On this questions of personal morality, he makes a distinction between how we interact at a personal level and how we plan for society. For instance, as individuals, we are guided by compassion, understanding and kindness. But at the society level, he believes that justice and standards should be retained. I think this makes sense.
As such, he has been a supporter of traditional marriage and has expressed his concern that same-sex marriage supporters are trying to alter centuries of experience defining marriage as between one man and one woman. But at a personal level, gay individuals and couples should be accorded all the respect that everyone deserves.
I hope it goes without saying that I reject those who would literally or figuratively bring out the "torches and pitchforks" against homosexuals.
In my life, I realize not everyone will hold to the ideals I hold. I know I fail to live up to all of my ideals but I (we) still need to have ideals. They give us something to strive for. Ideals give us something to advocate to the next generation.
Nonetheless, the reality is that not everyone will choose the path I think Scripture describes.
Over the years there are the occasional strained relationships with people who make choices that I feel fall outside of the Christian ideal but within the realm of what is accepted (widely or partially) by the broader society.
How does one "thread the needle" of saying, am your friend and all the best but I respectfully disagree with your decision?
These are not easy things to do but my goal is to uphold the wisdom of Scripture but also to exhibit compassion and understanding.
My personal perspective on this in a general sense has been influenced by the film, "A River Runs Through It."
Toward the end of the film, Rev. MacLean says in his sermon:
Each one of us here today will at one time in our lives look upon a loved one who is in need and ask the same question: We are willing to help, but what, if anything, is needed? For it is true we can seldom help those closest to us. Either we don't know what part of ourselves to give or, more often than not, the part we have to give is not wanted. And so it is those we live with and should know who elude us. But we can still love them - we can love completely without complete understanding.Does all these paragraphs of writing mean I'm homophobic?
I suppose for some, I sound perfectly reasonable. To some, I'm a squishy lefty. To others, I'm a bigot and homophobic.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment