Creation
Lawson Smith | Friday, July 15, 2011 The third piece in our series on homosexuality is contributed by Lawson Smith. Rather than speaking out against homosexuality directly, Lawson focuses on the creation story and what it means to be created in the image of God, male and female. He draws passages together that suggest that the highest use we can perform in this world would be to raise children who can come to know the Lord and serve Him. -Editor.
Coleman did a very good job introducing this difficult subject. He referred us to a site where we can find several studies from doctrine on it. Dylan brought in a key teaching from the New Testament on love toward the neighbor. Perhaps it would be useful to look through some passages in bite-sized pieces, rather than in the form of an extended dissertation. Here are some reflections on one passage, the creation story.
When we open the Word, the first story is creation. That in itself tells us a lot about who the Lord God is.
On the sixth day, when God created mankind, it says, “And God created man in His [own] image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply…” (Gen. 1:27-28)
From these verses, we can infer a couple of things. One is that the image of God consists in male and female together. “Man,” meaning mankind or the human race, is incomplete without both male and female. The Heavenly Doctrine says that married love makes both a husband and a wife become more and more truly “man,” that is, human: “In a marriage that is of love truly conjugial each becomes a more and more interior man (homo)1; for that love opens the interiors of their minds, and as these are opened man becomes more and more a man (homo), and to become more a man on the part of the wife is to become the more a wife, and on the part of the husband it is to become the more a husband” (Conjugial Love 200).
Another thing we can see is that God blessed us by making us male and female, and thus providing for marriage between husband and wife. Over and over the Doctrine teaches that the happiness of heaven springs from married love as its fountain (see Conjugial Love 316:3 for example). Sometimes the differences between masculine and feminine approaches to life can be perplexing, but the distinct and complementary natures are what allow men and women to bring unique gifts to each other. “Form makes one more perfectly in proportion as those things which enter into it are distinct from one another and yet are united” (Divine Providence 4).
A third point we can see is that one of the main points of marriage is to be fruitful and multiply. Clearly these words have a spiritual meaning, which is the soul and life of what the Lord is saying to us here. Fruitfulness consists in receiving new states of love to the Lord and toward the neighbor, and multiplication refers to the multiplication of truths and insights that form a good and wise life.
But the literal sense is also very important. The Lord’s purpose in creating the universe and mankind in it is that there may be a heaven from the human race, where angels who have been people on earth love Him and are eager to be with Him, and so are willing to receive the blessings He longs to give. To achieve this purpose, human beings need to be born in the natural world, where we have the opportunity to learn about God and choose whether or not to believe in Him and follow Him. This is “job number one” in creation: that human beings may be born and equipped to make a free, rational choice for heaven and the Lord, if they are willing.
The Doctrine says that the reason that all joys and all delights from first to last are gathered into married love is that marriage has the highest use, namely, to participate in the creation of human beings along with the Lord (Conjugial Love 68). Happiness, peace and satisfaction come with the performance of useful services. There is no higher service than “to let the little children come to Me” (Mark 10:14), by having children and raising them for a useful life both in this world and forever. All other uses, from government to business, professions and trades, all the formal and informal ways in which we help each other, essentially are in support of this greatest use, that children may be born and grow up into a useful life with the Lord. The Lord blesses us by sharing His uses with us.
A husband and wife become fruitful and multiply spiritually and grow closer to one another in the work of raising children more than in any other way (see Conjugial Love 174175176).
These are some points that stand out to me in this first story of the Word. What do you see? Maybe you would like to bring in some other passages.
Foot Note
1In the Latin original, homo is a word that means a human being, while vir means a male. Unfortunately English does not have words to distinguish these meanings very well.
Lawson Smith
Lawson is the husband of Shanon Jungé, father of eight, and pastor of the Kempton New Church.Wondering about the inspiration for this article? Look up the New Church, which is based on the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.
Reader Comments (55)
Kristin,
I think the Lord ensures that we are only measured against the choices we make with sufficient freedom and rationality (and repetativeness) that we have fully owned, loved and committed ourselves to them and would take nothing else in exchange.
But there are also many instances described where people do not receive full freedom and rationality. Children who die young, people mentally handicapped or severely abused etc.
I do think that the Writings imply that a 95 year old never-married woman has missed the expression of the highest ideal on earth. No reason she can't be married in the next life. But what does this imply?
Is this woman responsibile for failing to attain the highest ideal? No, at least probably not, though she could be in part.
Should her case (and there are many of them) re-define the idea of marriage as the highest ideal? No.
Should we give extra credit and praise to people who do get married and have children? The people themselves should not get special credit, but I do think its appropriate that society honor and support marriages because they are of such great value to society and because they are an expression of the Lord's ideal.
I guess I think that we are dealt wildly different hands of cards to play, with massive desparities in all sorts of areas. We should expect this just by looking at the world around us.
This doesn't mean that person A has any greater intrinsic worth than person B. Nor that person B necessarily has a poorer shot at eternal happiness.
Thus there is no reason to accept the practice of homosexuality as good just because some people were dealt that challenge in life and we want life to all look fair and equal. The sentiment seems nice perhaps, but it also seem like wishful thinking, not based in any of the reality we observe elsewhere.
Hm. I like your thinking, Brian, but I see it a bit differently. To continue with my obnoxious poker analogy -- we agree that the best hand out there is true married love (topped off with regeneration on this earth); a royal flush. Most people never get there. Someone who never felt heterosexual attraction just never had the chance at that royal flush. The same is true of a person who never falls in love, or is married but his wife leaves him for someone else, or who is wrongfully convicted of a crime, or cast away on an island with only a soccer ball for company, or a thousand other things. So, I think that in a sense the ideal changes for each person according to their circumstances. Through divine providence, sometimes you can still "win the hand" with a pair of sixes, or a high card, or a full house. You can still be happy, useful, close to the Lord, charitable toward your neighbor, and heaven-bound. There are many heterosexual married couples whose spiritual state is less healthy than plenty of gay, assexual, single, or divorced individuals and couples out there.
I think that because of the tremendous weight we in the New Church put on ideals, we alienate that vast (but silent) majority of people who fall outside of them. Most of us aren't holding a royal flush, but our position in society depends on pretending that we are.
It seems to me that a lifetime of self-censure, sexual repression, shame and loneliness gives a person much poorer odds at spiritual success than a loving, open-hearted and committed same-sex relationship. Maybe homosexuality isn't "as good as" heavenly marriage, but that doesn't make it the worst thing.
Kristin, I see your point. And to me you touched on a critical aspect of the issue (though I don't know if this is what you intended): "Maybe homosexuality isn't "as good as" heavenly marriage..."
I think neither divorce nor homosexuality is ideal. You're right. A divorced person who has turned homosexual may be further ahead in her spiritual development in many other aspects of her life than a married woman with kids. BUT, that doesn't make either the divorce or the homosexuality part of the Lord's ideal for His people. The married woman with kids may be a profaner, which if I have my doctrine right, is one of the worst sins ever and will end her up as a skeleton in a desert (or some other lovely eternal destiny).
We can't judge people's internal states; however, as a culture - as a New Church culture - I think we have to, on one hand, be clear about what the ideal is (if we can figure it out) and, on the other hand, be merciful to ourselves and others as we try to attain the ideals which to the best of our understanding we are espousing.
I agree with your sentiment that "because of the tremendous weight we in the New Church put on ideals, we alienate that vast (but silent) majority of people who fall outside of them." I'm convinced the Lord is way more merciful on us and on others than we are. Over the years I've come across passages that indicate that if we are but trying, He's willing to honor our efforts. (Oh, would that I had a steel trap memory and could cite actual passages!) But the point is, I don't the solution is to decrease the weight we place on ideals, but rather to work harder as individuals and as a church to let people know it's OK to try, and it's OK to fail, as long as in failing we don't justify what we did.
I think a physical analogy works here: I do believe that a diet high in vegetables accompanied by 20 minutes of exercise at least 4 times a week is critical to good health. But, I also know that I hate almost all vegetables and I have yet to find any regular exercise I am willing to do 4 times a week, much less for 20 minutes at a time. That doesn't mean the ideal is wrong. It does mean I will suffer some physical consequences. However, I think that it's better to exercise for 5 minutes a day and eat a 1/2 cup of veggies per day rather than to say, "I can't meet the ideal, so I'll blow it off entirely."
So with spiritual health. There is a reasonably well defined body of information about what is need for ideal spiritual health. And if we lived the ideal, we'd be God. So, anything short of that is OK...as long as we don't try to justify that our version of the ideal is right in order to avoid acknowledging that we fell short. And, in this particular case, there appears to be room for discussion about what the ideal is.
Freya, I love it. Some thoughts: I think your comparison would be closer if you had no arms or legs, you were genetically obese, and allergic to all green food. And I also don't think that practicing gays are "blowing it off entirely," they are actually seeking an approximation that's possible for them. They are seeking love.
Sorry for my rushed words, I'm late and need to head out the door. But I really did like what you had to say.
Kristin,
This is good, I think your obnoxious poker analogy has helped clarify something for me.
I was on about the fact that we should not redefine the ideal just because many people fail to attain it (for reason of their choosing and reasons not of their choosing). It sounds like you accept that.
But the "pair of sixes" (loving homosexual relationship) is a good example.
We have direct teachings that people can be "on the good road," even when acting on and motivated by loves which fall short of the ideal - things like a desire to physically look good (inspiring exercise) or a desire to achieve greatness (inspiring hard work).
I believe that in many cases, we can even be "on the good road" in taking actions which are objectively evil.
This could be the because an evil action is the next closest stepping stone in the right direction out fo adark or hard starting place. Say, a 16 year old kidnapped person killshis captor. It is obviously far from ideal that a 16 year old murder someone, but the situation has elevated the action of murder to "the next right choice."
In addition to situationally adjusted morality, I think it is worth offering an example of ignorance.
A person raised in Europre, surrounded by a culture and parents who affirm the same-sex attractions he has experienced from a young age, get's "married" to another man and works to stay married. I would call this an "evil" set of actions or situation that he is in, but, I would guess that he is not doing it "sinfully" in any way. (ie, with willfulness and knowledge that it is wrong).
So, if you (or anyone) concedes that faithful, heterosexual marriage is the ideal and that the act of homosexuality is wrong, but not always condemning, then we can switch to a discussion about how to hold ideals and how best to be loving towards other people.
For me the work of loving practicing homosexuals clearly does not mean always accosting them with my ideas about what is true and good. But in the public arena it does mean continuing to stand for what is said in Revelation, and fight for the definition of the word "marriage" both in our common usuage and in the technical legal sense. (this is how I currently feel called to be loving around the practice of homosexuality)
You point out that the New Church (and many churches, I would add) fall into the problem of alienating people, apparently by the way they hold high idealism. I agree that this often happens and to great detrement. But to my mind, it happens not because of the ideals themselves, but because of four ubiquotous flaws in our human nature (which come from hell).
a) that we confuse the person with his/her actions/thoughts/feelings/words.
b) that we assume that we can make accurate judgments about another's spirit (intentions/feelings/loves/deepest thoughts) rather than only limited judgments about the nature of what we see expressed.
c) that we CONSTANTLY think in terms of intrisical superiority and inferiority in our dealings with other people. The idea of greater or lesser intrinsic worth in a person is complete falsity, but we just need the slightest drip of that idea to be present in our thinking and it will leak out into our tone of voice and facial expressions if not actions and words. This rapidly leads to the church culture you alude to in which people do not feel safe.
d) We are poor thinkers, and we often do not hold ideals correctly, which is to say, that we might place a lesser ideal (like health) above attention to our children.
Love
Brian
On point C), I think it is important to notice the error on both sides. Thinking that I'm intrinsically more valuable than another is a obvious problem. But buying the lie that I am intrinsically less valuable than another can be equally as harmful, and lead me to slink away from family, friends, church and community that I may really need. (I should note that the Writings do refer to a state of humily which is valuable to go through, which is so intense that we feel worth less than all others around us, not just humble before the Lord).
Kristin,
This is good, I think your obnoxious poker analogy has helped clarify something for me.
I was on about the fact that we should not redefine the ideal just because many people fail to attain it (for reason of their choosing and reasons not of their choosing). It sounds like you accept that.
But the "pair of sixes" (loving homosexual relationship) is a good example.
We have direct teachings that people can be "on the good road," even when acting on and motivated by loves which fall short of the ideal - things like a desire to physically look good (inspiring exercise) or a desire to achieve greatness (inspiring hard work).
I believe that in many cases, we can even be "on the good road" in taking actions which are objectively evil.
This could be the because an evil action is the next closest stepping stone in the right direction out fo adark or hard starting place. Say, a 16 year old kidnapped person killshis captor. It is obviously far from ideal that a 16 year old murder someone, but the situation has elevated the action of murder to "the next right choice."
In addition to situationally adjusted morality, I think it is worth offering an example of ignorance.
A person raised in Europre, surrounded by a culture and parents who affirm the same-sex attractions he has experienced from a young age, get's "married" to another man and works to stay married. I would call this an "evil" set of actions or situation that he is in, but, I would guess that he is not doing it "sinfully" in any way. (ie, with willfulness and knowledge that it is wrong).
So, if you (or anyone) concedes that faithful, heterosexual marriage is the ideal and that the act of homosexuality is wrong, but not always condemning, then we can switch to a discussion about how to hold ideals and how best to be loving towards other people.
For me the work of loving practicing homosexuals clearly does not mean always accosting them with my ideas about what is true and good. But in the public arena it does mean continuing to stand for what is said in Revelation, and fight for the definition of the word "marriage" both in our common usuage and in the technical legal sense. (this is how I currently feel called to be loving around the practice of homosexuality)
You point out that the New Church (and many churches, I would add) fall into the problem of alienating people, apparently by the way they hold high idealism. I agree that this often happens and to great detrement. But to my mind, it happens not because of the ideals themselves, but because of four ubiquotous flaws in our human nature (which come from hell).
a) that we confuse the person with his/her actions/thoughts/feelings/words.
b) that we assume that we can make accurate judgments about another's spirit (intentions/feelings/loves/deepest thoughts) rather than only limited judgments about the nature of what we see expressed.
c) that we CONSTANTLY think in terms of intrisical superiority and inferiority in our dealings with other people. The idea of greater or lesser intrinsic worth in a person is complete falsity, but we just need the slightest drip of that idea to be present in our thinking and it will leak out into our tone of voice and facial expressions if not actions and words. This rapidly leads to the church culture you alude to in which people do not feel safe.
d) We are poor thinkers, and we often do not hold ideals correctly, which is to say, that we might place a lesser ideal (like health) above attention to our children.
Love
Brian
On point C), I think it is important to notice the error on both sides. Thinking that I'm intrinsically more valuable than another is a obvious problem. But buying the lie that I am intrinsically less valuable than another can be equally as harmful, and lead me to slink away from family, friends, church and community that I may really need. (I should note that the Writings do refer to a state of humily which is valuable to go through, which is so intense that we feel worth less than all others around us, not just humble before the Lord).
Brian, this is all great. I want to try and identify our few remaining disagreements.
1) I believe that lots of gay people feel same-sex attraction by nature, not by choice.
2) As a corollary to number one, they cannot be cured from it and made to feel heterosexual attraction instead.
3) Therefore, I don't think that homosexuality can be called wrong, even though it falls short of the ideal, because I see it as the best chance for love and happiness available to those people.
4) I see the legal definition of marriage and the role of the state as a completely separate conversation.
5) I think that Bryn Athyn culture (because that is all I can fairly speak to), does need to tone down its emphasis on ideals, in favor of the attitude that there are many, many paths to heaven. In fact, I think that in some cases we preach ideals in ways that the doctrine doesn't even suggest.
Kristin,
I fully agree with point 1.
I agree with point 2, with the modification that I believe some people can change. And I am not certain that there are people who could not ever change in this world - however, that is my suspicion.
But these former two points don't lead me decide that therefore homosexuality cannot be evil. Even though cancer is mostly not of people's choosing and in many cases, unable able to be changed this does not mean that it is not a manifestation of evil.
I also assume that strong friendships and community combined with abstenance is the person's best chance of love and happiness.
I mentioned the definition of marriage and the role of the state as part of the distinct conversation around "how to be involved" rather than "whether its right or wrong." However, the conversation around word meaning is very closely tied to this discussion of ideals. We enshrine and communicate our ideals in the way we use words. For this reason, I don't think many gay advocates would actually be content merely to receive the same legal advantages of a heterosexual couple, rather, I think the battle is to win the word battle such that homosexual relationships are put on equal footing to the ideal of marriage.
Brian
Hi Brian,
My comment has to do with the "word battle" you were referring to. I started thinking about this topic about a decade ago after a discussion with a professor of mine. She is an atheist and got married to her boyfriend because there are certain assumptions people make about married people (like a level of seriousness, commitment and exclusivity) that she wanted people to assume were true in her relationship. More recently, I became friends with a man who married a German woman simply to enable her to get a green card in the U.S. There are countless other reasons people get married. My point is that when the state controls the definition of marriage, it is a loosing battle to try and write spiritual ideals into its meaning. Drawing a line in the sand in front of homosexual marriage because it does not represent your ideals seems to be picking on this one community, when there are many other (heterosexual) examples that equally misrepresent a man-woman concept of marriage.
Although I disagree with your general orientation towards the gay community, perhaps instead of digging in your heels about the legal definitions of marriage, you could invent a new word that can fully embody the concepts you clearly have about what a marriage is. You might have better luck.
cheerfully,
Normandy
Normandy,
I think that pragmatically you are right. The people opposed to changing the definition of "marriage" to include homosexual union will be forced to give up the word battle and may at some point be served by regrouping around a different term, like "Christian Marriage" (for example).
I am not very interested in the state having a hand in defining marriage. However, I understand how language works and know that as the state shifts its usage it will heavily effect the common usage and that is one of the primary reasons I'm interested in the political side of this discussion. The example of an atheist seeking the title of marriage shows that the term still retains a status value despite the abuse it has taken from rampant divorce and marriages of convenience such as the green card example. Its this status that I think most gay couples are interested in, even more than the legal rights and its that status that I would happily deny.
So even though I think a retreat will be required soon I see no reason not to engage in the battle of words until that battle is lost.
Brian
Kristin,
You suggest the New Church should "tone down it's emphasis on Ideals" regarding marriage. So, if I may guide you out of the political thickets for a moment- I'd like to remind you of an important spiritual occurence:
When Swedenborg published "Conjugial Love" the angels rejoiced! Why? Because the very IDEAL you wish us to "tone down" is the very IDEAL the whole of the heavens wishes us to promote! Please feel free to exempt yourself, but let the New Church continue to carry the standard of marriage revealed to Swedenborg from the Lord. "......as it is in heaven, so upon the earth!".
Not- as it is in San Francisco, so it should be in heaven."
Brian, I think word battle is a good term to use for what a lot of this is really about, but I strongly disagree with you about what the stakes of this battle might be. Most gay people who want to marry want to do so for the same exact reasons most straight people do - because as a societal institution, it's valuable and meaningful. They're trying to actively take part in cultural rituals that represent loving commitment, demonstrating to their friends, family and community that they stand for these things and don't just exist in an ambiguous void on the fringes of society. They *do* also want marriage for the same reasons you don't want them to have it, but that word battle isn't about scoring political points, but about rejecting the hateful notion that they are lesser than straight people. We can talk all we want about loving the sinner and hating the sin, but when you, as a person, are compared to pedophiles, murderers, thieves, and "retards" (analogies which have all been used in these last few articles) - the words are communicating hatred, straight-up, regardless of any high-minded caveats that might accompany those analogies.
Finding love, and seeking out ways of manifesting it, *is* the highest ideal. If you're looking to do battle, nine times out of ten you're barking down the wrong branch of the ideological tree.
Woa, easy on the ideal track. For instance Anyone having attended ANC could tell you that the pressure to be an excellent student, and An excellent athlete, and to smile constantly and and and can be overwhelming for an introspective poet type. There are actual ideals and there are popular ideals. I completely agree with Kristin that focusing on how we all SHOULD be actually hinders our efforts to BE better. There is no way an individual can interpret the box we all belong in in a way that will inspire a wide variety of us- poets and mary poppins alike. Again I point out the importance of a more broad understanding of the ways we can live God's ideals for us. My understanding of Kristin's point is that to underline a scenario where a husband (with a manly haircut and a suit) and his wife (with appropriately long hair and a pink dress) are carrying out their proper roles (she cooking from scratch for their 2.5 kids, and he reading the paper) though a potentially lovely picture- does not necessarily highlight God's affection for a widow caring for her autistic son. I am married and I still don't like hearing about HOW to be properly married in a church setting- in fact it can be hard on my marriage to be preached at about how my marriage should look (my business) vs how my marriage can be inspired(stories about courage, trust, forgiveness) I would use a more personal example if the dialogue were a wee bit safer. It would be appreciated if church stuck to SPIRITUAL ideals and steered clear of physical ones. I have read CL a few times and I find it an extremely helpful personal guide and an extremely unhelpful public discussion. I don't want to hear about sex from church- homosexual or otherwise. Similarly I don't want queer history emphasized in schools. And as a woman I really don't appreciate being told HOW to be a woman -a common extrapolation of a private book to a public realm. Hopefully that makes some sense to you thoughtful people.
Also, it would be really convenient for me if in the English language there were a serious gender neutral pronoun, but there isn't -so I just use " They" to mean one gender neutral person. Similarly: I would really appreciate it if there were a respectful term for same sex partners without having to make room in the dictionary under the word marriage. But apparently, people can't just force new words into existence just because thousands of people wish it were so. Bummer. Good thing English is quirky to begin with.
Dylan,
I don't understand your first distinction. I think you have just highlighted what I was saying. Practicing homosexuals (PH) want to be recognized by the word "marriage" and I don't want to recognize them as such. This is what I call a "word battle" and seems to be what you just extrapolated on. The fact that some PH (or anti-PH) are political about it or use hidden agendas while others are open and genuine about it doesn't change what I'm referring to, which is an argument over the term. (Let me know if I missed the distinction you were after)
I don't hold a hateful notion that PH are lesser than straight people. I hold the notion that the homosexual union is a lesser category than heterosexual marriage. (some days it is held in a loving way while other days it is held in a more hateful way - and that range of motivation cannot be accurately assessed by an outside observer.) I know you did not directly put that aspersion on me, but being called a "hater" for taking a position against the PH is a huge trigger for me. I suppose, my defense should be just accept that this approach will continue to be used and try to make peace with the fact that other people have a very different definition of love and hate than the ones I use.
And I think a related communication break down is illustrated by your second main point. I fully agree that if I, as a person, were compared to a murderer, pedophile, thief or a retard by another person I would be incensed, (unless they were a very good friend telling me what I needed to hear). However, I have not compared anyone to any of those things in this discussion, and I'm not sure that anyone else has either. I have compared the the practice of homosexuality to these things (and to cancer). I could compare heterosexuality to bestiality because there are commonalities between the two. But that is not to say that the two are exactly the same. And much more importantly, that is not to say that a person, who practices heterosexuality, is defined by his/her sexuality.
I reject the notion of a "homosexual" or "heterosexual" identity.
But you may be right in your statement that the "words are communicating hatred, straight-up."
It is quite possible that certain people can only hear this as a communication of hatred. And, in American English, most of the responsibility for communication transmission falls on the communicator rather than the listener. So perhaps it is worth my while to think about whether most of the broader public cannot or will not distinguish between the person and the action. If this is held as an unassailable truth, then many things become clear to me. Primarily that there is no way in our society to oppose PH without being perceived as hateful or attacking of individuals. If I become certain of this reality for the majority of people in the US, perhaps I will switch the attention I give this issue, to instead simply focussing on advocating for and teaching the psychological discipline of distinguishing between the essence of a person (which we can't see) and the actions and words of a person which we can.
I also wonder about your suggestion that battle is the "wrong tree 9 times out of 10." You may well be right. The battle reference was to disputing over the meaning of a word. I'm not sure how else to look at this other than through battle analogies (such as you raised in your article). But maybe there is a better way of speaking about it.
And, BTW, I agree with what you put forward in your article, that we are likely seeing a war of attrition which will result in culture "moving past" this issue. I just don't think it will ever quiet down to the extent that the civil rights issues have, unless people leave their sacred texts.
Brian
Well, just on that last point, many people in this country consider the Declaration of Independence to be a sacred text, and we've mostly moved past reffering to the Native American population as "merciless Indian savages."
And I love you Brian, but conservatism of this brand is nothing more than fear and xenophobia disguised by intellectual justifications without any regard to what may or may not be happening in reality (are you mad? Because you shouldn't be. I was referring to the political affiliation, not you as a person. See what I did there?).
I do wonder at the "hate the sin, not the sinner" mentality. I agree with Dylan that it's at least very difficult to express disapproval of someone's actions without hurting them. It may be impossible. I also concede that sometimes tough love, wiser love, means doing just that. But, with the question of homosexuality, we're talking about a state of being that was never in the person's control. And one that doesn't hurt anyone else. (I've been unconvinced by any argument to the tune of, "It's ruining marriage for the rest of us.")
My point is, that every time I hear the thought that we can be loving toward homosexuals and still express to them how unacceptable their lifestyle is, I feel that it cannot be done. The message is, "We love you, but we only want you with us to the extent that you subscribe to our concept of perfection, and to the extent that you attain it."
We don't ostracize from our societies all of the liars, cheaters, hypocrites, adulterers, and abusers. I think that it's partly because we can relate to them more easily, and we take the attitude that "we're all working on it," and we give second chances. Homosexuality is a much lower evil (even by very conservative standards), but we reject it wholesale because it just looks and feels so different, so icky. But an expression of deep, mutual love between two men is not rape; it isn't sexual addiction or abuse; it isn't cheating on your spouse. It isn't the love of control, which absolutely destroys love in marriage (HH 380) and is the worst kind of self-love (AC 10038). It's just a loving relationship that happens to be less-than-perfect. Should we kick out everyone who struggles with control in their marriage, or flirting with the secretary, or yelling at their kids?
(Side note: I wonder whether some of the people out there who feel strongly against homosexuality would disagree that deep, mutual love between two men is even possible.)
"Nothing can stop this message, for heaven is always operating!"
A declaration from Heaven:
"The Holy Marriage of one MAN with one WIFE
is the jewel of human life, and the pearl of great
price of the Christian Religion."
Kristen,
You ask: "I wonder whether some of the people out there who feel strongly against homosexuality would disagree that deep, mutual love between two men is even possible."
I can name three people, not as 'lukewarm' as yourself, who diametrically oppose your false notion: Moses, Paul, and Swedenborg. All three were COMMISSIONED by GOD!
MOSES: "Man shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
SWEDENBORG: Conjugial Love 79 (Swedenborg quotes I Corinthians 6:9) , DP 144.
PAUL: Romans 1-22 : "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, ......Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleaness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: ......For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: FOR EVEN THEIR WOMEN DID CHANGE THE NATURAL USE INTO THAT WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE: AND LIKEWISE ALSO THE MEN, LEAVING THE NATURAL USE OF THE WOMAN, BURNED IN THEIR LUST ONE TOWARD ANOTHER; MEN WITH MEN WORKING THAT WHICH IS UNSEEMLY, AND RECEIVING IN THEMSELVES THAT RECOMPENCE OF THEIR ERROR WHICH WAS MEET.
.......continuation:
"To offset the powerful and seductive influence of hell acting through the well-disposed, ignorant, and the deliberatively evil in our culture- the Lord in his Word has mercifully provided us with both direct and indirect teaching bearing on the adultery of homosexuality. What will we do with this teaching? Will we affirm it, or will we deny it? Will we in embarrassment and fear hide the Lord's light under a bushel, or will we set it on a lampstand to give light to all who are in the house? Will we abuse this teaching to hurt and condemn people in their evil, or will we use it to help and redeem them from their pit? How a church deals with the Lord and his Word has always determined whether it finally lived or died."
Rev. Willard L.D. Heinrichs