Forums

He Loves Me Not

Page:   1 2 3
 
 

Myfanwe
 
Joined in 2007
August 9, 2010, 17:39

In my reply, I said that sex should take place within a nurturing, committed, stable relationship, not a “marriage”. I guess I kind of take a stance somewhere in between ‘traditional marriage’ and ‘de facto’ marriage. LGBT people can’t marry, as AVB pointed out, and I think it is unfair to impose absolute celibacy on them whilst that status quo remains. I also think it is unrealistic in these times to expect anyone, LGBT or straight to be absolutely celibate outside of marriage. I like Bishop spong’s idea of ‘serial monogamy.’


So my position on it, if I was a pastor would be to encourage abstinence, but also be realistic and advocate that serial monogamy is okay and committed relationship/marriage is best.


That is the advice I’ve given my own kids, actually.



mrg
 
Joined in 2010
August 10, 2010, 00:37

Hi forestgrey,


This is a great topic and worth exploring in depth. And I could write heaps, but I’ll add just a few brief points that should help tell a bit of my belief and practice in terms of sexual morality.


* I think it’s important to highlight that we are talking about LGBT people of faith in this discussion. Those of no/different faith will have no/a different set of values and no group has any right to force their values on another.


* As a pastor, I’m talking about faith in Jesus and expressing that faith through our lives as best we can, recognising that we’re not perfect and stuff up repeatedly. That goes for gay and straight alike.


* Jesus taught that there will be times that we need to “deny ourselves” and “take up our crosses”. He also taught about living “life to the full”, but this involved living a life in service to God and in service to our neighbour. It wasn’t about trying to find a way to fulfil all of our own needs. This generally doesn’t go down too well in a consumeristic, individualistic culture.


* At creation, God said it wasn’t good for man to be alone. Thus we’re created for relationship. I believe that those that are called to live a life being single receive a special spiritual gift that enables them to do so. Singleness should never be legislated on a group of people.


* The sexual relationship is so intimate that the two involved are described as becoming one. Nowhere does the Bible say that when that relationship ends, the one becomes two. The one becomes two halves. Having repeated sexual relationships might bring some quick gratification, but over the long term, the continual giving of oneself to another can leave you hollow, searching for meaning. The search often leads to more sexual relationships, but this repeats the cycle.


* God is a God of restoration. When a sexual relationship that was genuinely entered into comes to an end, there is a lot of brokeness. It’s hard to feel whole when you’re a half. But God makes us whole and gives us a new start. I can’t speak for any of you, but I don’t know where I’d be if God wasn’t like that.


* Considering all of the above, and the biblical use of marriage as a metaphor of the love between God and the church, I think the sexual relationship is meant to be life long, with one person and no other. Celibacy, like singleness, should be seen as either a gift from God, or a personal choice, and should never be forced on a group of people. I know that currently the law doesn’t recognise LGBT marriages, but that doesn’t mean that God won’t. Call me old fashioned, but I think that if two people of faith are committed to life together, then vows should be taken before friends, family and God. (It’s only a matter of time before LGBT relationships are formally recognised btw)


* Faith is meant to be lived out in community. As are marriages. I’ve been married for nearly fifteen years now, and quite frankly there are times when it’s bloody hard. Everything within you screams “Get out!” because life looks greener on the other side. Temptation abounds everywhere. My wife and I have had our share of those times, and the thing that got us through was the friends and family that we trusted with our situation. They supported us, cared for us, prayed for us and kept us accountable. I love my wife now more than I ever have and she thinks I’m a decent sort of bloke too! But without our community, we wouldn’t have the loving home and family that we have.


I hope that gives a bit of background to where I’m coming from. In practice, it looks a bit different to most evangelical churches in that it means talking about sex and talking about it A LOT!! And while it’s uncomfortable for most when the discussion starts, after about 20 minutes the defences come down and we get to the heart of our questions and struggles.


Sexuality HAS to be part of our discipleship. If we’re to be followers of Jesus, we can’t simply pretend that we’re not sexual beings, nor can we ignore the overt sexuality that surrounds our every waking moment. Our young people have genuine questions and desperately need answers to satisfy their own curiosity and to stay an informed part of their peer groups. If we in the church refuse or neglect to talk frankly about these issues, our young people will seek answers from sources that might not be very helpful. For instance, if they’re wondering about oral sex and are too scared to ask what it is in the church setting, then they’re likely to ask a friend. One thing leads to another and, well, you know the rest.


So my approach has been to talk openly about sex and sexual issues in my churches so all people, young and old, feel free to talk about their sexuality. I want them to talk about it in the midst of a community that is doing it’s best to live like Jesus, with the hope that the answers received will reflect the intention God has for our sexuality. Yes, it means some boundaries when it comes to sex – not to be a kill joy, but to savour something special in the moment that it is given to somebody you have a deep love for and a lifelong commitment to.


The short answer is that I do encourage people to hold off entering into a sexual relationship until they are in a relationship that has been sealed with a covenant before God. I know it’s hard. I know we make lot’s of mistakes. But that doesn’t mean we should aim for it.


Specifically for the LGBT faith community, I think it’s even more important to strive to aim for this standard. One of the reasons that the heterosexual church community still refuse to allow gay people into their fellowship is because of the perceived promiscuity. I know it shouldn’t be like this, but the LGBT faith community need to live such Godly lives that others look at them and instead of criticising their sexuality, they instead admire the commitment to sexual purity, the desire to serve the poor, the ministry to the homeless and so on.


I hope I can help you achieve that in some small way…



forestgrey
Chapter Leader
Joined in 2008
August 10, 2010, 06:48

Thank you anthony and mrg for the immeditΓ₯tely preceeding input items (plus the others). Excellent – Well on the track of the original issue raised. But, it will be interesting to hear more comments. (If I can find time, I’ll try and add more thoughts in due course.) I guess transferring the theory to practice is the hard part. Cheers.



Ann Maree
 
Joined in 2008
August 10, 2010, 12:22

Hi forestgrey and others


Thank you for a very thought provoking discussion.


I just have a few things to pick up on and add.


I think there is still lots of confusion when it comes to sexual morality and single people of faith. I don’t think the heterosexual biblical model is clear at all, let alone the LGBT one. A big part of that, as davidt has pointed out, is because no one is really sure of the original meanings of biblical words. So they just continue to add their own. When I was going to church, word like ‘licentiousness’, ‘promiscuity’, ‘immoral’, ‘impurity’ and the like were used to include anyone who practised sex outside marriage. At the time this included divorcees. Oh and the latter group were also called ‘adulterers’. Married people were quick to want to apply rules of celibacy to single people perhaps because it was easier than taking account for how they behaved within their own marriages. I knew of people who married simply to have sex which is hardly treating marriage or the other person in the sacred way that God would want. So sexual and intimate morality needs to be looked at, not just for single people, whether gay/straight, but for ALL people. I really think confusion abounds in this area across the board in faith communities.


I think the way we define sex also needs to be looked at. Meg suggested that it’s best if sexual intercourse waits until a committed marriage or partnership. So does that mean anything else goes beforehand? (I’m not suggesting you were saying that. Meg). It’s just I know that’s how a lot of people see it, as forestgrey points out. It’s interesting that the discussion turns so much to the physical aspects, no doubt mirroring the focus of sex education programs in schools. And where’s the emotional intimacy mentioned? Thank you Pierre for bringing this up. Love your work!! πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚

The emphasis is so much on the physical and meanwhile we live in a society that has no idea about courting and the fun of anticipation and building desire. The closest I’ve seen of that was in the first Twilight movie. I believe that young people and men in particular should be encouraged to watch that film. The lesson within is that desire and trust can build when our physical urges can’t be immediately gratified and that can be a beautiful thing. Conversely, being physically intimate too soon can destroy emotional intimacy which usually takes longer to establish, and ideally should underpin a sexual relationship. (Just look at the plots of any good dramas where the romantic union is held off as long as possible so as to keep the tension and ratings high). I believe there needs to be more of that encouraged and lessons given in courtship.


I’m not against sex before marriage or civil union however. I’m for the idea of learning about ourselves and others and promoting respect and love and the sorts of principles that Pierre mentioned. I believe that people are often mistakenly trying to meet their unmet emotional needs through physical ones and this doesn’t work. If they knew how to meet their emotional needs in a more healthy/direct way, it might also be easier to abstain from sex. And if the real benefits of abstinence were promoted a lot (and this would require some doing as the media constantly bombard us with sexual messages), this might help too. I respect mrg’s work in this area. The fact that he is redressing the imbalance by making sex an acceptable and important topic to discuss, is very commendable.


I also like how mrg has mentioned the spiritual impact of sexual unions. I think more needs to be said about this and what happens emotionally during sex. Not enough is said on this topic and many young people find they are emotionally unready or not mature enough to deal with the ramifications of the sexual act. Sex and morality involves a lot more than the physical act/s.


Anyway, that’s some of what I think.


Blessings,


Ann Maree



Myfanwe
 
Joined in 2007
August 10, 2010, 19:35

These kind of discussions actually confuse the heck out of me. That’s why I don’t usually comment on them, but I thought I would this time. If I am really pressed I am more likely to say “Let each one work out his own “salvation” with fear and trembling.” which is probably a copout, but it saves me from seeing five different opinions and agreeing with them all! πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€ :bigsmile: πŸ˜‰



Ann Maree
 
Joined in 2008
August 10, 2010, 21:26

Hi Meg


Its a hard topic for sure with much to consider. πŸ™‚


I think your reference here to each working out his/her own salvation is rather nice. I like it because it highlights the need to consider individual variations rather than just adopting a one-size-fits-all code of conduct. I guess the tendency to generalise is natural when looking at morality codes. Far from being a cop out, I believe your comment above is a good thing to remember. There will always be a need for flexible or variable interpretations of behavioural codes and I believe that’s OK. Perhaps that sounds permissive to some but I think that’s where the challenge is. Working things out ourselves according to our own circumstances is much harder than if we are told what to do. I mean – don’t get me wrong – I agree there needs to be a lot of discussion about this and some guidelines to help clear the confusion. However, the overarching principle of being loving is surely of the highest importance. That and not losing sight of the people who are trying their best to do the right thing. So then it’s a question of what is ‘right’ for each person. And to find that requires some deep soul searching and reflection. This is not necessarily an easy process, especially in a complex area such as this.


Blessings,


Ann Maree



Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
August 10, 2010, 22:43

These kind of discussions actually confuse the heck out of me. That’s why I don’t usually comment on them, but I thought I would this time. If I am really pressed I am more likely to say “Let each one work out his own “salvation” with fear and trembling.” which is probably a copout, but it saves me from seeing five different opinions and agreeing with them all! πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€ :bigsmile: πŸ˜‰


maybe that is because we are meant to work out what is right for us and not tell others how they should live their lives. In the end dont we answer to God not men for the way we live our lives. Anyone who needs others to tell them how to live is a child….not an adult.



Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
August 10, 2010, 22:48

If a person had three/five monogamous relationships in their life time would they be labelled immoral, promiscuous, licentious, depraved, wicked :(( |( 0:) >) πŸ™‚



mrg
 
Joined in 2010
August 10, 2010, 23:25

Anyone who needs others to tell them how to live is a child….not an adult.


I think that might be a bit harsh…


I see a lot of broken people every week. Some of them find themselves in such dark places, that they can’t see a way forward, and desperately need somebody to take them by the hand to gently show them the way forward. They’re not children, but hurting and confused people. hey need love, and sometimes that comes in the form of suggesting a way forward.


Other times, somebody is new to the faith and wants to leave behind things from their old way of living. It’s hard to work out what to do sometimes, and we need others to help us.


All of us should have mentors, spiritual directors, supervisors or whatever to guide through difficult times.


I actually think we all need others to show us how to live from time to time. This is why community is so important and the shared journey that it brings.



mrg
 
Joined in 2010
August 10, 2010, 23:30

If a person had three/five monogamous relationships in their life time would they be labelled immoral, promiscuous, licentious, depraved, wicked :(( |( 0:) >) πŸ™‚


You’re baiting me on purpose, aren’t you….? πŸ˜‰


If somebody has 5 monogamous relationships in their life and each of those relationships was started by cheating on the one before, then of course they’re immoral.


If it’s through death or divorce (as a last option) then no it’s not.


But without appropriate sets of ethics/morals (which was the point of starting this thread) we have no way to distinguish between the two scenarios of described.


Your turn!! :bigsmile: :bigsmile:


Page:   1 2 3
 
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 99.9; Page loaded in: 0.086 seconds.