Is It Really About Homosexuality?

There was a time when I relished a chance to mix it up. I could think of nothing better than to enter into a discussion about religion or politics (or BOTH!) in an effort to make my own positions known and then be forced not only to defend my positions but to destroy the opposing views with rational thought (my own).

I still enjoy the give-and-take of opposing ideas because even as a conservative, I know that there is a much broader viewpoint that I have yet to consider, some angle I’ve overlooked. Even if I never come around to the opposition, I usually feel a little more enriched and that something has actually been accomplished.

I have tried to be as broad and as open as I could be on social issues, believing that I will earn respect only if I choose to show respect and, ultimately, be heard as much as I am willing to hear. I have allowed and expected that there will be those who will take exception to my “soft” approach, and I have enjoyed those who have responded with a resounding “amen”. The time to be diplomatic and gracious must always be in the present. There is also a definitive spiritual “line in the sand” that must never be crossed, and I am afraid that we have not only crossed that line but have actually built a sturdy bridge to make it easier. In the end, we have done a greater disservice to the church, her people, and to our culture in general by allowing the “different strokes” mentality to enter into that portrait we call “grace”.

Having said this, however, I do not believe that homosexuality in and of itself can or should serve as a catalyst for more profound explorations on human sexuality and how we have become such a sex-oriented culture so much so that we celebrate men and women who leave their homes and spouses specifically because they have somehow embraced the misguided notion that “the Lord led me to this happiness” in the arms and bed of another. Even though homosexuality as an issue has permeated the Church so much so that we feel compelled to “discuss” and “dialogue” as a way to find some sort of middle ground upon which we can all agree, I still believe there is a greater and more compelling issue at heart.

“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They make you worthless. They speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord. They continually say to those who despise Me, ‘The Lord has said, ‘You shall have peace’’, and to everyone who walks according to the dictates of his own heart, they say, ‘No evil shall come upon you.’” Jeremiah 23:16-17

We have within our grasp a Bible in which was established long ago a strict moral code. Some would suggest that this was an “ancient text written for an ancient people who no longer exist”. In fact, Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson made such a statement I heard for myself as reported on CBN back when he was being considered for bishop. He does not stand alone, however. There have been instructors whom I have had to endure in Course of Study who felt it necessary to straighten out us uneducated rubes. After all, “I have a degree in biblical studies”, said one professor.

Sorry, teach, but I know atheists who can quote Scripture more quickly and readily than I. I also happen to believe you to be among them.

What does it say about us as a Christian people if we can so easily dismiss what was written long ago as “ancient” and thus no longer relevant? What does it say about us if we can decide for ourselves that “this is not what it really meant” but instead wait on someone with a degree in biblical studies to tell us that we’ve been wrong for thousands of years?

We fornicate, we gamble, we cheat, we lie, we judge, we drink. In fact, we will do pretty much what we darn well please when we darn well please. Anything, that is, except to discern a true biblical concept of ourselves as a people. We don’t know what “sin” really is, and we know even less about what “love” really means. In my limited reading of the Koran, I get a sense that Mohammad was more acutely aware of what it means to be a “people of the Book” than we ever will.

In a sense, it is about homosexuality but not to the end that all sin can be traced back to this one item, and sin is not singularly defined by that very unnatural physical act. Neither can homosexuality be excused as a means by which we may finally one day call ourselves truly “united” Methodists. But how can we dismiss homosexuality and embrace divorce and even abortion as excuses for a new lease on life and finally “true happiness”? How dare we let these off the hook while seeking to condemn a lifestyle that, while also morally objectionable, violates the very way we were physically designed?

I don’t want to talk about homosexuality anymore. What I really want is for someone to tell me what “love” in the biblical context really means because I only know what it does NOT mean: seeking to satisfy one’s own desires. I also know that homosexual persons are not exclusively guilty. How can a man honestly say he “loves” God but still leaves his wife to take up with another woman? How can a woman say she “loves” God but thinks nothing of bedding down with another woman’s husband? How can anyone bet hundreds of dollars at a race track or casino and say they “love” God but fail to understand that these same dollars will go much further in the collection plate or at, say, Heifer Project?

We do not know what “love” really means. I’m not so sure we even know who “God” really is.