Forums

A New Paper re Church Attitudes to Homosexuality

Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6
 
 

forestgrey
Chapter Leader
Joined in 2008
December 28, 2009, 18:05

Dr Rowland Croucher, an erudite friend of Freedom2b, has recently posted the below link on his website.


It is a paper written by Rev Nathan Nettleton – pastor of South Yarra Baptist Church in Melbourne – arising from the recent Senate Committee Inquiry into Marriage Equality. (He was one of the “100 Revs” signatories.)


Makes for an excellent read. And gives further evidence of Anthony’s regular statements of late about the gradual change of attitude in pentecostal/evangelical churches.


Go to: http://laughingbird.net/SupplementarySubmission.pdf



Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
December 28, 2009, 22:01

thanks forestgrey….and it should be noted that Dr Rowland Croucher is F2b’s chaplain.



Lady Jane
 
Joined in 2009
December 29, 2009, 20:45

A very comprehensive article, providing well-thought out and objective perspectives on the issue. Great read.



Ann Maree
 
Joined in 2008
January 2, 2010, 12:01

Thanks for this article avb. I really enjoyed reading it. I’m passing this and other resources like it onto others. They might refer to such articles for themselves when coming out or use with others as a way to be better informed about the biblical/gay perspective.



Ann Maree
 
Joined in 2008
January 2, 2010, 12:03

Actually, it was forestgrey I should be thanking! So thanks forestgrey!



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
January 3, 2010, 22:50

You know, Nettleton has a point, the exclusion of eros love in the validity of marriage is in starteling contrast to today’s sex mad culture but he suggests that to “anchor fidelity to something so unreliable is probably the biggest single threat to the institution of marriage in our day.” Oh my. Is it just me or is it kind of ironic that love, no matter which breed, is the biggest single threat to marriage? Not homosexuality or tax offsets or drunken Vegas proposals but love. In a way I understand his sentiment. Eros love is fickel, attraction is often translucent and infaturation generally sadistically one-sided. It would indeed be more rational to base one’s marriage on agape love: selfless sacraficial marterdom. Can I just say though, for the record, that agape love so isn’t sexy!


Here’s the part I don’t get. What differentiates your potential marriage partner from any man or woman who happens to come along? Biblically we are all commanded to act and speak with agape love. How then does one choose the person they are to spend their entire lives with? Should we indulge in Nettleton’s rationality and suggest that compaitble habits and hobbies indicate a sutible prospect? “She’s doesn’t pick up her dirty socks and we fight over which movie to watch so its obviously never gonna work.” By this logic sex, sexuality and gender identity have nothing to do with marriage at all. One could, rationally and legally marry pretty much anyone over the age of eighteen. As long as they didn’t leave the toilet seat up of course.


Conservatives will say that marriage is important as a stable environment to raise kids, ok, sure, you’ve sold me on that. However if this is the only reason for marriage someone remind me again why GLBT people are fighting for the right to marry seeing as only like two percent have children together as a same-sex couple. I also get the legal reasons, everyone else can do it, why can’t we? But really, come on. A large part of the reason that we want to marry is because we love someone of the same sex and want to stand on the top of the AMP building and scream it to the masses, louldy, proudly, legally. Loving someone of the same sex, the messy, elusive, fickle, sexual, infatuating love we call eros is what makes us “different” in the first place. Are we not fighting to have that love reciognised in our chruches? In our courts? In our homes?


I’d raise an eyebrow at anyone who said that eros love is not a prerequisite for a fufilling marriage but it pisses me off to have it labeled as not just a threat but the biggest threat to marriage.



Ann Maree
 
Joined in 2008
January 3, 2010, 23:41

Hi Sandy


Yes good point about eros love being blamed perhaps a little too much here! But then you would have heard a few people arguing for “long term, commited relationships” as the only good ones to promote for the gay cause in order to be more accepted by the church and beyond. That annoys me because it makes it sound like we have to be some gay version of ‘The Stepford Wives’.


I think the author did mention about agape love alone making it difficult to differentiate between a friend, neighbour, enemy and someone you might choose for a marriage partner.


It’s interesting in our culture how falling in love and all the excitement of eros love is usually seen as a prerequisite for deeper love (in my case, perhaps the lack thereof might have indicated that I wasn’t really attracted to me husband all those years ago. Had I listened to that signal, I might have saved myself some grief. So maybe eros love isn’t so unreliable afterall?!). A Chinese friend of mine used to say how Westerners focus so much on the fickle eros whereas her culture is more about service and agape, finding that this is the solid thing to base a happy and long term relationship on. Well maybe, but I think it could be a bit boring.


Anyway, these are my thoughts for now. Good to hear from you again, Sandy. Happy New Year!


Blessings,


Ann Maree



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
January 4, 2010, 00:18

Of course, you’re right. My point which I supose was possibly lost in the sarcasm was that this author makes a huge claim, that eros love is the greatest threat to marriage. He then, as you say, does conceed that agape love alone makes it difficult to choose a potential partner. Really, I’m of the opinion that he hasn’t thought the whole thing through very well. If agape love is not adequate in highlighting who is and who is not suitable for an individual and eros love is the greatest threat to marriage then what ought we use as the standard for making this hugely important decision?: Enter my sarcastic tangent on habits and hobbies.


Legally I get it and this was his context for writing so I probably shouldn’t be so harsh but the fight for gay rights has many facets only one of which is a legal stance and I don’t think anyone would be doing the gay rights movement any favours by trashing the distinctive and unique love that makes us a minority in the first place.


Happy new year to you too, hope you didn’t start it with a hangover like me.



Ann Maree
 
Joined in 2008
January 4, 2010, 06:46

Hi Sandy


I’m curious as to why you think eros love is so distinguishing for our community. Can you say more about that?


Ann Maree



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
January 4, 2010, 10:42

Sure. Lets just pray I don’t put my foot in it.


It’s not so much that eros love is more or less important or essential to gay people as it is to straight people.The experience of or the idea of eros is relevant to all people no matter their sexual orientation. While the form, experience of and expression of eros love does not differ between heterosexual and homosexuals the individual/s to whom it is felt is the differentiating quality. The definition of gay or lesbian has at its core sexual/romantic/eros attraction to someone of the same sex and it is this quality that opposes the heterosexual norm and in doing so makes us “different”.


As gay and lesbian people we want rights. Not just for the freedom of our own personal, private expression of eros love towards each other but the universal and accepted idea that gay and lesbian people share eros love no matter which context they are in. When my grandmother sees two heterosexual people walking down the street holding hands she comments on what a cute couple they make. When two lesbians walk down the street holding hands she comments on how nice it is to see sisters so close. She’s not homophobic, shes just heterocentric, she automatically assumes heterosexuality in people. Heteronormatism (I know forgive me the jargon) serves to disempower gay and lesbian people, the idea that ones has to make a concious leap from a heterosexual mindset to a homosexual one in order to acknowledge us for who we are highlights that the two are not at all equal.


The acknowledgement of eros love between two people of the same sex is the foundation of gay marriage rights which was why it was so bizzare to see it trampled in a paper designed to encourage gay marriage. Despite what Nettleton postulates the reason that most people in Western countries marry is for the public acknowledgement of their eros love for each other. We want that same right for ourselves.


There are of course many ways in which homosexuality differs from heterosexuality but I don’t think it would be an exageration to claim that to whom we express our eros love and the rate at which that love is accepted and normalised in our culture is one very marked difference and a gap that gay rights activists work to close.


Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6
 
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 99.9; Page loaded in: 0.102 seconds.