The Pro-Love Agenda
Dylan Hendricks | Friday, July 8, 2011 Dylan's argument for the equal rights of homosexual people stands on the back of the greatest commandment, to love the Lord above all, and the neighbor as oneself. In a world of nuance and division, this message simplifies the terrain and encourages us to enlarge our concept of the human family. This is the second essay in our series on homosexuality -Editor.
I was asked to write a "liberal" response to the idea of homosexuality, a subject that is being debated here as well as many other places in our culture right now. I don't want to do that. I think these two teams have already done a very fine job of establishing their talking points and worldviews by this point, and all the movements, laws, websites and other armaments are firmly institutionalized to support either position. This culture war is already a war of attrition, each side hoping...I don't know, that the other side will be worn down enough that they'll relent and admit intellectual and theological defeat? Or that maybe the issue will just disappear, and all the detractors with it? I doubt most people even have a strategy for how this should all play out. They have strong emotions, and convictions, and that's enough to dig in and swing away - thoughtfully at times, crudely and aggressively at others. Either way, it'll likely fall to our children to settle this debate, mostly by not being interested in it. They'll have the robot uprising to think about after all, and gay rights will be lumped into the "issues my parents fought over" bucket, along with Facebook privacy concerns and lamentations over the death of paper books.
So this is all fairly condescending, as though I've transcended any of these very natural and predictable human behaviors. I haven't, and when pressed, I will most definitely pull out a typical "liberal" defense of gay rights and gay marriage. I have gay friends, and I have gay friends who are in love. I love them, and I support them in their pursuit of happiness. That's all there is to my position, and any defense more intellectual than that would be inauthentic. I'm pro-love.
With that out of the way, I do have some other intellectual thoughts I'd like to share. I'm a big fan of intellectual thought, generally, and increasingly interested in intellectual thought accompanied by an optimistic, embracing tone. In a world full of altogether too much information delivered at an unforgivingly relentless pace, I'm more than ever trying to hone in on that Swedenborgian sweet spot of wise words spoken with loving intention. To that end, I'd like to endorse a video from The Royal Society in England about "Empathic Civilization". It's worth a few minutes of your time, but you don't have to watch it to read on.
In this video, Jeremy Rifkin talks about our very natural and predictable human tendency to make teams and dig in our heels. We've always formed an Us that is in opposition to Them and then treated Them with trepidation and uncertainty, if not open hostility. Christian or Jew, black or white, gay or straight. There hasn't been a time or place where we didn't pick teams and fight over something. You might even say we're hard-wired to do this. And in this way, humans are inherently flawed, etc.
And yet - Rifkin goes on to talk about another human behavior that happens with equal predictability but gets much less airplay. It seems that "other"ing groups of people mostly happens when we don't know much about them, and when we don't have direct contact with them. Empathy plays a role in this. It's also just more difficult to Other somebody to their face than it is from across the valley.
You can chart this historically. Before language and society took hold, families and tribes formed the first dominant Us group. Any tribe on the next hill, their intentions uncertain, posed a potential threat. As communication and travel increased, and human society grew larger and more organized, the Us group had to grow with it, and moved slowly from tribal to religious identities. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and heathens were the biggest groups that we could recognize, summarize, contrast and compare. We fought wars and built empires based on these designations. But humans kept intermingling, and as economic markets increased in size, and the activity of trade encompassed multiple religions, the Us group grew again. The nation state emerged. Religion wasn't lost, but was subsumed into larger Us and Thems -- British, Chinese, American, Russian.
From this perspective, the noisiness of our world right now is a little more understandable. It feels in many ways like our culture is more divided than ever, that Us and Them has never been more prevalent. But we've also just finished exploding the remaining communication barriers that kept us apart, and only in the last generation has the world flirted with, then dived head-long into a fully globalized awareness of what's going on everywhere else on the planet. It's a confusing time for everybody. The economic and communication infrastructure has grown so fast, in fact, that we haven't remotely caught up with it on a psychological or cultural level. Multi-national corporations and global mass media have made national identity an increasingly complex situation, and have thrown into flux all the traditions and sacred cows that formed our pre-global cultures, religions and perspectives. And what do we have to hold onto? None of us grew up with a precedent for thinking of ourselves as anything more than American or Christian; global citizenship is still a very niche group, a Them to many established Us's. Will the Us group keep expanding, as it has always done, or is it now doomed to turn back in on itself, fracturing endlessly on however many cultural lines - gay vs. straight, black vs. white, Christian vs. Muslim?
I do think, actually, that most of us grew up with a precedent for global citizenship, with an Us that encompasses every other human on the planet. Jesus said many things, and every Christian-themed argument on controversial social issues has a supporting passage or two in its back pocket. But when pressed with complex, seemingly paradoxical matters, Jesus had a fairly simple answer.
And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” Jesus said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:35-40)
Of course, I say this is simple, and yet contained within it is enough ambiguous and interpretable language to support any kind of argument. Who is the neighbor? What is love? How is love communicated? There are plenty of Swedenborgian caveats and yes-buts here, but do me a favor and consider this passage for a second from the perspective of the growing Us. Love God, above all else. Love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments. For me, it's hard not to look at this passage and feel the Lord's pro-love agenda. Especially because the Lord *is* Love itself (Divine Love and Wisdom 4), we can even take the commandment to be “Love [love itself] with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind.” This is the first and greatest commandment. Love.
The Lord anticipated that this message was maybe a little too straightforward for some, and followed it with several warnings for those who would skew its meaning.
“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers." (23:8-9)
“But woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You keep locking people out of the kingdom of heaven! For you neither enter nor permit those trying to enter to go in." (23:13)
“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You give a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you neglect what is more important in the law – justice, mercy, and faithfulness! You should have done these things without neglecting the others." (23:23)
I could now elaborate on these warnings to hammer my point, but for what? If I'm right, our children won't care about this issue because they'll have been in proximity to openly gay couples their entire lives, and their Us will already include this group. They'll have seen that gay relationships encompass the same range of love and lust as straight relationships, and manifest the same range of human emotions, yearnings, and spiritual desires. The conceptual conflicts that tie our hands will form the basis of their world view, and like every generation before them they will look at the world a little more broadly and openly than their parents did before them. If I'm wrong, it won't matter, because we'll just keep fighting.
This is just my experience.
My girlfriend and I are getting married soon. We got engaged a couple days ago as I write this. Talis is from Mexico, and I'm from Canada, but we met in America, and that's where we both live right now. I doubt many people would be able to peg our "true" national designations unless we told them. Talis looks Lebanese, and I look Irish. Talis was raised Catholic and I was raised New Church, but I've never met someone from any faith whose worldview and perception of God matches mine more specifically. Our diverse backgrounds put us in the increasingly common position of needing to co-create new identities for ourselves - our given ones just don't wholly capture our combined experiences, or totally reflect the world that brought us together. We relish the opportunity to discover meaning in the experiences we get to have that no society before us got to have.
We love each other, and we love God, and we want to be a team, standing together for our decidedly pro-love agenda. In addition to at least three countries' worth of family and friends, we're inviting our straight friends and our gay friends to our wedding, because we love them and they love us. This, for us, is all that it comes down to.
You're welcome to join Us.
Dylan Hendricks
Dylan lives in an underrated neighborhood of San Francisco, where he produces web videos and fervently ambitious notions about the future.Wondering about the inspiration for this article? Look up the New Church, which is based on the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.
Reader Comments (58)
Molly,
Your response is thoughtful and I agree to a certain extent. However, you say- "I believe the truth that "homosexuality is disorderly" is lower than the truth "love and serve the neigbor". Do I not "serve the neighbor" when I assist them in the regeneration process? What does the Lord mean when he washed the disciples feet and commanded them that they should "also wash one another's feet"? It goes without saying that some people are offended at this idea.
Also, the writings say the Lord's church is the neighbor in a higher degree, and the church has a duty to judge evils for the sake of our salvation! If I "love" someone, am I not concerned for their eternal welfare? Love motivates- and wisdom shows the way.
"Love without wisdom is not love".
Frank, do you really think that gays will go to hell if the church does not crusade for their rehabilitation?
Frank,
You are right, we are serving the neighbor when we "assist them in the regeneration process." But we need to remember this:
a) the Lord does 100% of the regeneration, not us. As natural beings we are merely the external tools that He can use to regenerate human beings.
b) Each individual is not forced to regenerate. Instead, each one of us must turn toward the Lord and actively want Him to flow into our lives.
c) I may be a tool of regeneration for other people, but who am I to say, at any specific moment in time, that "In that instance, the Lord was using me to assist in the regeneration process?" I certainly hope and pray that I can be of service to others in a multitude of ways, including their own regeneration process, but just as they must choose to be led by the Lord, I can not actively regenerate people.
I do like what you said in your previous comment: "When in the company of gays in my neighborhood, I never bring the subject of homosexuality up. It's different if they want to discuss it- then, I take care to accomodate what I know to that particular individual." To me, this is exactly what I meant in my last comment by "loving and serving the neighbor": You are treating everyone you know as human beings who have the same potential for receiving the Lord's influx. You are also practicing "tough love" by standing up for what you believe in when the appropriate time arises.
Thanks,
Molly
Frank, I think your point is very well stated, and I agree entirely with the sentiment. I disagree with a leap of logic you're making, however, and I think even if you fundamentally disagree with my conclusion, it's worth at least looking at the reality of that leap.
Wash one another's feet = Speak out against homosexuality. I don't see it, personally. Maybe if the Lord had said "Point out to people that their feet are dirty" or "Question people's activities if you notice dirt on their feet", you could make this case. Or even, in this case, "Assume people's feet are dirty because you don't like the land they live on." Because the "dirt" here really only exists in the minds of people who assume there must be dirt, and not in the minds of the people who are supposedly dirty, or even in such an obvious way that we can all point at it and agree that there's any dirt at all.
Alternately, if you knew with certainty that homosexuality was like murder or theft, in that someone could be talked *out* of it, and that it was something that directly hurt other people and by extension themselves, then I could see where a loving discussion about the repercussions and motivations of that act would be akin to washing someone's feet. Unfortunately, you don't know this, and the overwhelming evidence available to us suggests that these situations are actually very different, as convenient as it can be to make analogies between them. People don't "change teams," by all accounts, though some may live their whole lives repressing these tendencies in themselves.
And from projects I've been associated with, I've been witness to literally dozens of gay people describing with strong, resonant emotion how accepting their homosexuality as a part of themselves amounted to something of a spirtual transformation for them, where life-long feelings of alienation, resentment, denial, sexual frustration and religious guilt were released, and feelings of peace, forgiveness, empowerment and self-actualization replaced them. Many of these people had been with the same partner for over ten years, and glowed with the love and trust and emotional gratitude that comes from a genuinely loving relationship. I know you don't want to believe that this could be true, but have you checked just in case? Or even seen evidence of the opposite, of homosexuality making people insane? I believe murder and theft do make people insane, and we have many incidences of this we can point to. In my experience, however, accepting homosexuality has in many cases made the gay people I know become more loving and magnanimous, and they have retained these benefits afterwards for years and decades.
Molly,
The last paragraph in your response correctly captures my pro-love attitude towards gays.
Kristen:
You're question regarding my beliefs that gays all go to hell (which is not what I believe) "if the church doesn't crusade for their rehabilitaion" is framed in such a closed-minded 'victorian' way that it totally distorts my views!
Dylan:
Try to understand the deeper meaning of the Lord's command for us to "wash one another's feet". The last paragraph of your response is known as an- 'appeal to emotion' which closes the mind to the spiritual realities we're discussing. "NUNC LICET" means- "Now it is permitted to see truths from the Word- RATIONALLY- not emotionally. I try to see this issue through the lens of God's Divine design, and the opposites of this 'design' that are harmful.
Swedenborg's book "Conjugial Love" details the ideal in marriage, and also the different degrees of opposites which cause harm to the soul.
Swedenborg also quoted I Corinthians 6:9 in which the Apostle Paul said: "Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the Kingdom of God". It goes on to say: "And such were some of you: BUT YE ARE WASHED! One very important reality you've neglected is the real possibility for healing!
Many gays suffer just as much alienation and hostility from other gays for daring to change. I've heard of former gays being viciously attacked by 'confirmed' gays for proving that healing is possible. We need both Love and Wisdom in our understanding of this issue. For those who are 'confirmed' gays- let them live the lifestyle they've choosen freely. But for those struggling with an 'IDENTITY' problem, let us keep the door of healing open.
Frank, I'm sorry if my wording was over-reactive. But I meant my question genuinely. You said that it serves the neighbor to assist them in the regeneration process, that the church has a duty to judge evils for the sake of salvation, and that loving someone means being concerned with their eternal welfare.
I heard in this that you believe gays are in danger of damnation and that its your duty and that of the church to save them from an ill-chosen path.
Kristin,
Gays (and others) are in danger of damnation if they persist in their orientation or in their foul loves though life and through their sojourn in the World of Spirits.
Having said that, there will be plenty of opportunity for those who have oriented themselves to, at the very least, obeying the ten commandments. As Dr. Jonathan Rose mentioned in one of his Nunc Licit classes: We need to, at least, get started in this life to reach the necessary level of spiritual attainment in the next.
Gays who recognize that there is something out of harmony with the Divine Order in their sexual orientation, whether they chose it or not, will be helped out of their cesspool in this world or the next. That applies to all of us with regard to our grievous sins, insanities, addictions and our spiritual disorders.
We need to take one step, and God will take ten steps on our behalf. But we need to take those few steps for the Spirit of God, the divine influx to fill our sails and to carry us to our eternal homes. If we do nothing and pretend that we are OK when we are not, then we will die in our sins and persist in them after death.
Frank is right - Love towards practicing homosexuals entails warning them of the seriousness of their disorder and their need to take some steps, minimally, towards its rectification so that God can do the rest in His good time in life and eternity. Coddling them and confirming them in their disorder does not contribute to them. Encouraging them in their "gay pride" and in their attempts to subvert the institution of marriage throughout the length and breadth of the land only leads to their becoming (with our complicity) incorrigible, blatant, shameless hell-bound sinners. It is like offering drinks to a sick and dying alcoholic.
Roer
Kristin,
Thank you for your kindness, and I'd like to respond to your honest question:
Molly made a good point in reminding us that it is the Lord alone who regenerates the willing.
It may seem like a contradiction when the Lord commands us to "wash one another's feet", but the reality is,
if we open ourselves up to heavenly 'influx', our uses also involve assisting others.
I don't like the use of the term "damnation" because it smacks of the "fire and brimstone" hypocrites of the faith-alone crew.
As a Swedenborgian, I choose to utilize the deeper understanding of spiritual realities for healing. The Lord's mercy is such that all we have to do is make a sincere effort in this world, and even those few good seeds we sow on earth will take root in the next world, and grow to eternity.
I believe- from the testimony of former gays- that it's possible to REKINDLE the potency of male-female attraction. However, this rekindling cannot take place if one straddles the stepping stone of an unhealthy relationship. The Lord can guide us all from greater evils, to lesser and lesser, until finally- with our co-operation- he leads us to good.
Dylan,
I see two main arguments in your most recent post.
A1) that homosexuality and a sin like murder are noticibly different in the clarity or certainty with which scripture uses to treat them. And also that
A2) That, since you assume sin is defined by "observable harm done to others (and or self)" homosexuality is noticibly different than a sin like murder.
A3) That since you assume that murder and the like are a choice and homosexuality is not (or often not) is is noticibly different than a sin like murder.
Therefore homosexuality should not be rejected as wrong,
B1) In your observations practicing homosexuals seem to be (nice/good/pleasant/etc)
B2) People who practice homosexuality and then embrace a homosexual identity appear to increase in (stability/goodness/happiness/etc)
B3) because you assume that observation is a valid or at least partially useful measure of what is good...
Therefore embracing homosexuality is a "good."
I agree with part of each of these points, and all of some of them. So I will share my responses...
A) Fully agreed. Though subsets of murder, such as anger in certain situations are similarly less distinct, in the same way that homosexuality is, which is a subset of adultery.
A2) I know you didn't explicitly make this argument, but you drew on the strength of the appeal. I agree that observable harm to others and self is the best and quickest short hand for identifying sin. However, I think this approach is philosophically weak and practically impotent without the addition of a study of scripture and prayers to the Divine.
A3) This is the point I agree with least. I think that murder is sometimes not a choice and practicing homosexuality often is. In reality, I think they are each a complicated bundle of subconsicous compulsion and semi conscious opportunities for choice. (The two likely have very different as well as similar processes underlying teh observable actions which follow). And, I believe, that every individual experience both of these (and all sins) as a different bundle of choice and compulsion, such that it is impossible to judge from the outside the degree of culpability the person has for a given action.
And so my conclusion is, homosexual actions can be judged as wrong, because scripture is sufficient for that, we do not require observable harm to flow from the actions to judge something as wrong. And, we must not judge the person's spiritual state or degree of responsibility or embraced sinfulness, because we haven't a clue what his/her state is. But we can make external judgements about external actions. "Action C fits the definition of homosexuality." "Action G fits the definition of 2nd degree murder."
B1) I have observed practicing homosexuals (openly identified, coming out, or hiding to be nice and nasty, serious anger problems, and serious strengths of compassion. And I have observed the same in people who experience same-sex attraction but refuse to act on it or identify as homosexual. And I have observed the same in heterosexuals and in dogs. I believe that observation has a role to play, but is very limited in telling us anything about the internal quality of a thing. (To Coleman's point, pedophiles can be happy, friendly, extremely good and effective at working with children as well as stable in their sexual identity).
B2) This fits under the same category for me of "appearances." I don't doubt you experience, nor that we could find it corroborrated by thousands of practicing homosexual people. And, I don't think this is an insignificant point. I draw many thoughts from this observation, which I have also had, to a limited extent. I do still object to this approach as not sufficient to establish grounds for morality. (This logic will, I believe, within 10 years, lead to the state sanctioning of polygamy as well as homosexuality) It would also legally justify adult incest, though this is unlikley to be presented politically with any force.) My strongest emotional appeal, in response (putting aside doctrine) is that their are also thousands of people who describe similar relief, happiness, joy, freedom etc in being helped to reject their same-sex attraction (whether or not they are ever completely relieved of these attractions). Because of these people, I am unwilling to accept the swelling cultural tide which demands that same-sex actions and relationships be embraced, affirmed and extolled, thereby depriving the"other" group of people who appreciate the opportunity and support in walking away from same-sex life styles.
Perhaps an aside, or perhaps a conclusion. One of the many good things that I see coming out of the gay pride movement (a movement I otherwise find repugnant) is the sidelining and silencing of an extremist hate approach to people who (suffer) from same-sex attraction. At the same time as sidelining the extremists, those "anti-same-sex attraction" people who want to remain in the conversation at all, are forced to be very careful, respectful and compassionate.
I think the political climate on this issue is terrible for anyone dealing with same-sex attraction (regardless of what he may want to do with it). But it will be a very good thing, as we come through the heat of the political battle, to have those people against the practice of homosexuality focussed on providing compassion and support in helping same-sex attraction individuals out of a life style which acts on this attraction.
Love Brian
P.S. It takes a lot of words when I am trying to avoid certain phrases and terms. :)
It makes sense to me that among communities where gay attraction is unacceptable, gays will report a sense of relief and liberation when they overcome (or can convince people that they have overcome) those attractions.
It also makes sense to me that among communities where gays are accepted, they will report a sense of relief and liberation when they are able to throw off feelings of shame and isolation surrounding their attractions.
So, these self-reports present a problem for both sides. It seems to me that the greater conflict of interest lies with the first example. Thoughts?
Kristin,
My thought is: no.
Both "sides" bring immense amounts of bias to reading revelation.
Both "sides" bring immense amounts of bias to scientific socialical and psychological studies.
Both "sides" bring immense amounts of bias to self report about changes, progress, happiness, etc.
And finally, the many different social climates that people dealing with same-sex attraction find themselves within create heavy duty distortions, pressures and influence on the indiviudals in question.
I affirm all these things and am happy to admit that all of my positions are subject to these same blinders. Given the politicized nature of the topic, I think it is very difficuly to get really good, clear thinking.
I can sympathize with your feeling that the "pro-accept homosexual identity" side has less conflict of interest. But I see that as an extremely difficult suggestion to defend in any meaningful way, and without sufficient defense, it is simply more fuel for the bias of "assumed rightness."
I believe Dylan H. enjoys thought experiments about different collaborative tools to measure bias. I think those are cool, but will only really tell us about distance from the mean, thus about the minds of the crowd.
I think your pressumption that "the nay sayers have the greater bias" has won the field in the social sciences, in the judiciary, in people under the age of 40 and will soon also win in the legislative arena. So in this, I agree with parts of Dylan H's predictions about the future of this issue as one soon to be resolved in most key institutions of our society.
Brian
P.S. However, I think it will be centuries before the issue is resolved in the arena of grade school education. In this arena, nay-saying Christian parents will fight to the last breath.
Okay, so I have to admit - I held off for as long as I could with my personal experience around seeing and hearing gay people's testimonials, because I knew it would come back to bite me, for all the reasons it has. It exposes an empathic bias, yes, and an emotional association, which is messy area that intellectual debates don't know what to do with, and I would also likely reject if I disagreed with the source of the appeal (Sarah Palin comes to mind). I was sidetracked momentarily because I was thinking about how churches often use emotional appeals as a part of their pitch towards a potentially skeptical audience (most New Church websites employ them), but none of that really matters when it comes down to strong opinions. In us vs. them it's all he-said-she-said anyway.
Having said that, there is an appeal I would like to hear, if it's out there, which I think would assuage a nagging doubt I have that there really are a large number of "reformed" homosexuals out there who both a) reject their previous inclinations and b) feel empowered, confident, and on the path towards the life of love that the Lord wants for everyone. I would love to hear that emotional appeal, because I haven't really so far, not one written without a gun to the head (by which I mean, not written or addressed specifically in the context of an anti-gay article or publication, but just as a matter of self-expression, a form which many if not most of the flip-side testimonials take) This could very well just mean that I haven't run into it or sought it out. But when well-meaning Christians talk about these reformed, the authors themselves always seem to be confirmed straight (though maybe they believe that a brief same-sex attraction they experienced constitutes the same experience as a life-long homosexual), and the evidence of the reformed is scant at best.
This isn't an argument I need broken down into multiple parts and subclauses, it's just a thought: if there are so many people that feel ultimately empowered by their defeat of homosexual tendencies, why aren't they louder in this debate? Wouldn't they want to help those likewise afflicted? (and if we're going to blame society's influence for this group's small numbers, what of the thousands of small towns still so willing to abuse homosexuals on the playground and in church - a statistic which is on the rise? Shouldn't these places be kicking people of their habit, if it is just that?) Again, maybe these people do exist, and I'm not listening properly. Very very possible. But for the he-said-she-said-none-of-that-counts to hold water for me, this group kind of needs to exist, because there are a *lot* of gay people who feel that way about their self-acceptance.
And again, I realize this argument can be picked apart, but for the moment I would just be content to have it considered, openly and with listening ears, for an earnest second. Then, Brian, if you like, we can talk about how a pair of sixes is evil.
Dylan,
I was off, its triple 6's, not a pair that is evil.
Dylan, I don't think we agree on valid methodology to arrive at morality. I think we sympathize about the limits of testimonials but I fully rejecting them as offering anything of substance. They are, perhaps, the greatest rhetorical tool in an argument, but, I think they offer nothing to understanding the truth.
Psychologically and narratively, it is very absorbing to think of the different human faces which populate any human condition. So I'll spend an "earnest second" or even an earnest 15 years thinking about and listening to the people who's stories include same-sex attraction.
I don't live in San Francisco, nor have I made videos of openly homosexual people testifying to their liberated state. But my narrow, non scientific little window on the world, the majority of the people I know who deal with same-sex attraction are resisting it and finding peace and happiness in their choices. They are not making any kind of public statements to the effect nor do they have guns to their heads.
But even if my experience represented 5% of reality and yours 95% of reality, the poll approach, I work to exclude the "poll" approach from my efforts to think about morality. I do this because taking polls strikes me as a logically indefensible and in contrast to the methodology laid out in the Writings. And frankly, the mooing herds seem to get so many other things wrong about morality and civil living that I am fairly uninterested in mass opinion, especially mass opinion on this issue which has been subjected to 25 years of TV and movie propaganda promoting the side of accepting the homosexual choice.
The fact that there are still hateful Christians seems irrelevant to me.
I don't think there is a non-bias setting where we find anyone expressing their positive experience of life in connection with their choice about same-sex attraction. By connecting their expression to the embracing or rejecting of a homosexual identity they are making an intentional political statement, regardless of how indirect. The possible exception might be counseling rooms and certain types of private conversation.
I would find it very compelling and arresting to have a same-sex couple approach me with the goal of sharing their story and describing how liberated they feel since embracing the identity. But I would find the opposite equally compelling.
The people who write and advocate for recovery from same-sex attraction are not all straight (if that straightness were a valid reason to dismiss their thinking). And to be clear, not everyone who advocates against the practice of homosexuality is promising a reversal from same-sex attraction to opposite sex attraction. In fact, I have not seen a lot of people promising this recently.
What I subscribe to is: Abstinence is superior to acting on the feelings, reducing the experience of same-sex attraction is possible for some people and developing a sense of opposite-sex attraction is possible for some people. I bet there are some people who, in this life, would only ever get as far as working on abstinence.
Brian
One of my favorite passages on love toward the neighbor is the saying in Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:27-28:
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them who curse you, do good to them who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you.
If I regard the practice of homosexuality as harmful, this teaching would clearly offer guidance in how I am to will, think and act.
I just heard a true story that is an illustration. Two boys grew up together, in the same class in school, and were pretty good friends. But when they became adults, one went into homosexuality while the other got married and had children, so there was something of a separation between them. One day they were both at a social event. The married man was holding his baby daughter, and his little boy came and asked his father for help with going to the bathroom. Without thinking about it, the father asked the other man to hold his daughter while he helped his son. Years and years later, the man told the father how much it had meant to him that he was entrusted with his daughter. It helped him decide to come out of homosexuality. Today he is married and has children.
Two of the main discussions of love toward the neighbor in the Heavenly Doctrine are the chapters in The New Jerusalem and Her Heavenly Doctrine (NJHD) and in True Christian Religion (TCR). In both treatments, one of the first things the Lord says to us is that we must use our heads – we must exercise discretion – in the way we practice charity. Here is the way it is expressed in NJHD:
LOVE TOWARDS THE NEIGHBOR, OR CHARITY
NJHD 84. It shall first be shown what the neighbor is, for it is the neighbor who is to be loved, and towards whom charity is to be exercised. For unless it is known what the neighbor is, charity may be exercised in a similar manner, without distinction, towards the evil as well as towards the good. Charity thus becomes no charity. For the evil harm the neighbor by the benefits they confer, but the good do good by them.
NJHD 85. It is a common opinion at this day that every man is equally the neighbor, and that benefits are to be conferred on everyone who needs assistance. But it is in the interest of Christian prudence to examine well the quality of a man's life and to exercise charity to him accordingly. The man of the internal church exercises his charity with discrimination, consequently with intelligence; but the man of the external church, because he is not able thus to discern things, does it indiscriminately.
Whether or not this passage has application to the current discussion depends on whether or not we regard the practice of homosexuality as harmful. But at least the principle is clear, that we are to treat each other differently according to the states we are in. This is obvious with raising little children, and not so easy in interacting with adults.
The NJHD passage does not say how we are to treat people in different ways, but TCR adds some illustrations:
TCR 406. III. EVERY MAN INDIVIDUALLY IS THE NEIGHBOR WHO IS TO BE LOVED, BUT ACCORDING TO THE QUALITY OF HIS GOOD.
TCR 407. What it is to love the neighbor shall be explained. To love the neighbor is not just to wish well and do good to a relative, a friend, or a good man, but also to a stranger, an enemy, or a bad man. But charity is to be exercised toward the latter in one way and toward the former in another; toward a relative or friend by direct benefits; toward an enemy or a bad man by indirect benefits, which are rendered by exhortation, discipline, punishment, and consequent amendment.
This may be illustrated thus: A judge who punishes an evil-doer in accordance with law and justice, loves his neighbor; for so he makes him better, and consults the welfare of the citizens that he may not do them harm. Everyone knows that a father who chastises his children when they do wrong, loves them, and that, on the other hand, he who does not chastise them for wrong-doing loves their evils, and this cannot be called charity. Again, if a man repels an insulting enemy, and in self-defense strikes him or delivers him to the judge in order to prevent injury to himself, and yet with a disposition to befriend the man, he acts from a charitable spirit. Wars that have as an end the defense of the country and the church, are not contrary to charity. The end in view declares whether it is charity or not.
The next passage in TCR points to the distinction between good will, in the internal man, and the actions that may be necessary, done by the external man. It distinguishes zeal that is inwardly loving from anger which is inwardly hateful:
TCR 408. Since, therefore, charity in its origin is good will, and good will has its seat in the internal man, it is plain that when anyone who has charity resists an enemy, punishes the guilty, and chastises the wicked, he does this by means of the external man. And therefore, after he has done it he returns to the charity that resides in his internal man, and then, so far as he can, and so far as is useful, he wishes him well, and from good will does good to him.
Those who have genuine charity have a zeal for what is good, and that zeal may appear in the external man like anger and flaming fire; but its flame dies out and is quieted as soon as his adversary returns to reason. It is different with those who have no charity. Their zeal is anger and hatred; for by these their internal man is heated and set on fire.
It’s not so easy to sort out zeal from anger in ourselves, much less in others. CL 365 adds to the discussion the idea that zeal never attacks but only defends itself, as if someone threw himself into a fire and got burned, whereas the zeal of an evil love is like a flame-thrower.
Again, there is still the question of whether or not the practice and advocacy of homosexuality is hurtful. But from these teachings it is clear that a person who sincerely believes that it is harmful may, out of love, seek to protect his or her family, a friend, society, or the institution of marriage, from the harm that he or she perceives coming from these practices. He or she might come across as angry, even though inside, that person might be full of love and sorrow for the harm being done, as it seems to him.
Lawson
"Sodomite Paradise" :D
Roger, you're a hoot!
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Lawson. I appreciate the gentleness with which you approach the issue. I've been thinking of several of the passages you quoted when forming my own opinions or deciding what kind of voice I'd like to represent on the issue, especially concerning zeal. I'm particularly interested in the aspect of zeal that you mentioned vs. anger, in that "zeal never attacks but only defends itself."
This to me is key, and I think our understanding of the issue should involve more of a discussion of what constitutes an attack and what constitutes a defense. You mention the protection of friends, society, and the institution of marriage from homosexual practices, and I accept that this is the genuine intention of many people who speak out against gay marriage. There are two sides to this issue though, and if nothing else, I would love if the conversation involved more of an acknowledgment of that. From the point of view of the gay community, who do not find their innate sexuality to be evil, vocal condemnation from straight Christians feels very much like an attack, because the actual act of getting married is not something that directly concerns those Christians. Your friends, family, and marriage are not directly harmed or put in harm's way by those two people who also call themselves married, any more than the Christian church is put in harm's way by the existence of practicing Muslims, or that vegetarians are threatened by people eating meat. On the other hand, for people who simply want to celebrate their love in a public forum, being stopped by people they've never met, I think you'd agree, would feel very much like a form of oppression or an attack. Not to mention the fact that few prominent anti-gay groups have been judicious with their language, and harassment and abuse of homosexuals is now a major problem across the country.
Though any given individual might feel that they're acting out of love, the most visible manifestation of the anti-gay movement is currently very hateful. In the passage you mention on zeal, Swedenborg goes on to describe the repercussions of acting from anger: "With them the internal is unfriendly, fierce, hard, breathing hatred and revenge, finding food in harboring these feelings. Even when there is reconciliation, these feelings hide like a fire under ashes. These fires break out after death if not in this world." This is much more direct and unmistaken language than we get about homosexuality from Swedenborg, and yet the anger/zeal issue is treated often as secondary to the issue of homosexuality. At what point do churches speak out against that abuse, before speaking out against those being abused?
Dylan,
I agree that hateful things have been said and done against homosexuals, and that it ought to be a priority to stop such speech and action, though on the speech issue, we must also be careful to preserve freedom of speech and the right to express opinions that dissent from popular views.
I am also aware of organizations that oppose gay marriage in a very thoughtful, not hateful way. Similarly, I am aware of gay organizations that have been guilty of quite hateful speech and actions. So this is not a one-sided situation. As usual among us human beings, there are good and not-so-good (or not-so-wise) folks on various sides.
I have a different sense of what is harmful than is represented in your latest post. Contrary to some who have posted, I see the Word being quite clear that homosexuality is contrary to marriage and conjugial love, not simply a relationship of equal or somewhat lesser value. (I do not think this implies that all who engage in it are personally opposed to conjugial love and marriage, but that’s another important topic.)
Now, bearing with me, suppose for a moment that it were true that the Word actually warns us against homosexuality, and that western culture in its present state were unable or unwilling to see what the Word is saying. Then it would logically follow that naming homosexual relationships “marriages” would be detrimental to society because it would confuse people about what marriage really is and is for. It would represent a turning away from what the Lord is saying about marriage.
To take another example, the Doctrine teaches that for Christians, who have the Word, polygamous relationships are adulteries. It would be harmful to the Christian community to accept polygamous relationships among Christians as marriages.
This discussion leads to questions about the relationship among spiritual law in the Word, moral law, and civil law. In general, the Doctrine says that morality comes through the interaction of the Divine law and the civil law. If the civil law erodes, morality erodes, and then so will our understanding of the Divine law, I think.