What Place Is There for Celibacy? Wesley Hill on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality

August 22, 2011 By Amy Julia Becker 7 Comments

A few weeks ago, I wrote a review of Jenell Paris’ book, The End of Sexuality. I talked about celibacy as an option for Christians who believe that they cannot engage in same-sex physical relationships. Some of you, with kindness and respect, expressed incredulity about celibacy. Around the same time, I came into contact with Wesley Hill, author of Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality. Although I have not yet read Wes’ book, I have had the pleasure of reading other essays he has written related to this topic. I asked if he would be willing to offer a post for this blog, and he agreed:

God’s “Yes” As the Greater Story

by Wesley Hill

Chaim Potok’s novel The Chosen tells the story of two boys, both Jewish, growing up in Brooklyn towards the end of World War II and the years immediately following. Danny, the son of a venerated Hasidic rabbi, is brilliant. His friend Reuven is his closest confidant and respected by Danny’s father in equal measure. As the novel unfolds, we learn that the only time Danny’s father speaks to him is on Shabbat, when they discuss and debate the Talmud. On all other occasions he never addresses his son—to the point of sometimes treating Reuven as a go-between who can relay a message to Danny.

Rarely has a novel affected me as much as The Chosen. I still remember the anguish I felt in reading of Danny’s bewilderment and turmoil as he comes of age in the great rabbi’s house. At one point, he confesses to Reuven, “You want to know how I feel about my father? I admire him. I don’t know what he’s trying to do to me with this weird silence that he’s established between us, but I admire him. I respect him and trust him completely, which I why I think I can live with his silence. I don’t know why I trust him, but I do.”

Near the end of the story, in a climactic scene, Danny’s father, Reb Saunders, reveals at last the reasons for the silence. An immigrant from Europe where he’d witnessed horrific persecution of Jews, the old rabbi wanted his son to develop the maturity and sensitivity to be able to enter the pain and suffering of his people. As the silence ran its course, Danny “learned to find answers for himself,” Reb Saunders tells Reuven. “He suffered and learned to listen to the suffering of others. In the silence between us, he began to hear the world crying.”

In our time and place, most of us would likely recoil from Danny’s father’s technique, and that’s probably for the best. Raising a son without speaking to him seems like a dangerous experiment to attempt with a fragile human life hanging in the balance, even if the aim is noble. Surely there are better ways to instill compassion and empathy in a child. And yet I think Reb Saunders’ strange parenting may allow us an insight into God’s dealings with us. Sometimes the obedience that is required of us as Christians appears “weird,” to borrow Danny’s word. Judged by the best lights we have available to us, it may appear worse than “weird”: it may seem cruel, disheartening, dehumanizing.

I have written elsewhere about my own choice to live a celibate life. I am a Christian, and my understanding of Scripture and Christianity’s historic teaching about human sexuality leads me to believe that my homosexual feelings aren’t meant to be indulged. At times this obedience to Christian teaching can seem stifling, depressing, and even oppressive. There are times when I say, like Danny, that I don’t understand it—even though I continue to trust and love the One who, I believe, asks it of me.

But, also like Danny, I’ve found that trying to understand a father’s strange behavior from within my own frame of reference, without taking into account the story the father himself tells, is bound to be misleading. God’s “No” only makes sense from the standpoint of his “Yes,” as Karl Barth said. For that reason, any attempt to see why God might forbid same-sex partnerships has to pay attention to what God says “Yes” to instead.

Christianity tells a story of male and female created for one another in the perfection of Eden. Falling from God’s intention, however, we’ve made a mess of the world. But God didn’t leave us alone with the wreckage. In Jesus, God has come among us to restore and heal what we’ve ruined. When Jesus died and rose again, he made it possible for us to anticipate a renewed Eden. That new creation won’t be fully accomplished until the final day of resurrection of which Easter morning was the “firstfruits,” but until that time, we catch glimpses—sneak previews, as it were—of its beauty.

Only in that context can we understand God’s will for our sexual behavior. Redeemed and remade in Christ, we’re meant to pattern our new lives after the splendor and wisdom of God’s new creation. God hasn’t thrown away what he first declared to be “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Rather, he has reclaimed it from sin’s power, refashioning it and leading his redeemed children into its holy goodness. Marriage between a man and woman, as God ordained in the early pages of Genesis, now points forward to the greater marriage of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:31-32). By the same token, celibacy witnesses to that heavenly marriage, too, by saying now, in advance, “Christ and his church give me all the love I need.” (Something like this, surely, is what Jesus must have meant when he spoke of those who are celibate “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” in Matthew 19:12.)

It’s no surprise that this picture isn’t appealing to many of us, at least not initially. We’ve spent most of our lives inhabiting an alternative story, taking our cues from a different narrative. But like Danny’s hearing for the first time his father’s explanation of his strange silence, some of us may find that things look different in the light of God’s explanation of his strange redemption of the world. The obedience we once found to be totally arbitrary and bizarre may suddenly begin to make some sense. And the divine “No” may be something we find ourselves giving assent to, in the dazzling light of the even greater divine “Yes.”

 

Filed Under: Faith 7 Comments
  • Carolynreese

    This reminds me, of course, of how bizarre the celibacy of Catholic priests seems to many people today. I, rather, think it’s beautiful, and noble, and sacrificial. It certainly flies in the face of what society thinks is “normal”, but it should, shouldn’t it? Thank you for sharing this story.

  • Aimee

    It seems the place for celibacy is among those who choose it and who believe it is what they are called to. My concern is for those who identify as homosexual and who do not believe celibacy is the right path for them, even if they identify as Christian. There is a minister in the church that I grew up in who is openly gay and recently married his long time partner. I doubt that he believes the same things the man above has described.

  • Jtcrutcher

    I don’t want to pick on your guest blogger unduly, as he’s obviously struggling with the conflict between his sexual orientation and his religious beliefs, but I must take issue with his article – and with you for posting it.

    Regarding homosexuality, the science and psychology are pretty clear. The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers released this statement over 40 years ago:

    “In 1952, when the American Psychiatric Association published its first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, homosexuality was included as a disorder. Almost immediately, however, that classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. That study and subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation. As results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.

    In recognition of the scientific evidence, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.” After thoroughly reviewing the scientific data, the American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, and urged all mental health professionals “to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations.” The National Association of Social Workers has adopted a similar policy.

    Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.”

    You would think a collective statement like this from the professional organizations that we rely on to provide responsible, unprejudiced, up-to-date guidance on mental health issues would end the matter, but even after four decades — when people like Hill are still struggling to reconcile their sexual orientation with their religious beliefs, not to mention the untold numbers of Evangelicals who continue to condemn homosexuality as contrary to God’s law — it’s evident that many have not yet heard the truth – or for dogmatic reasons, cannot. In psychology, the latter phenomenon is called “denial; the former, ignorance.

    Homosexuality is a natural expression of the human condition, and as such, something to be accepted and embraced, not condemned. It is not a lifestyle choice, nor is it a mental disorder. It is certainly no more a righteous motivation for choosing celibacy than would be heterophobia. To continue to characterize homosexuality as a practice or lifestyle that one “indulges” in, ur — decadently, self-destructively, sinfully? — is cruel and irresponsible. Hill doesn’t add that qualifier (“decadently, self-destructively, sinfully”) – he appears to take great pains to articulate his choice as non-judgmental — but if you’ve ever read or heard the Scriptural argument for homosexuality’s sinfulness, the reader grasps the implicit and inescapable condemnation.

    In Hill’s effort to not pass judgment against gays (and himself), he does so in about as gentle and kind a manner as possible, leaving the sensitive reader with the impression of a man torn asunder and sadly trying to keep it together by repressing his natural, healthy urges through higher purpose; my heart goes out to him. Yet, judgment it is, with an effect no less alienating.

    It reminds me of that galling refrain, “Hate the sin, not the sinner,” when applied to gays and lesbians. Such a self-serving mantra may serve the need of a self-righteous True Believer, someone who feels compelled to arrogate an imperial dogma on a minority whose natural sexual orientation fails to comport with that dogma, but no matter how well meaning anyone may seem when purveying such stuff, it demeans that “sinner” precisely because it calls for “hating” that which is natural, and therefore, in a spiritual context, “by design,” for him or her. A parent may disapprove of a child’s behavior and still love the child, but Christians need to tread carefully when applying that contextual psychological technique to something considered perfectly healthy by every science-based mental health association in the Western world. To judge LGBT’s sexual behavior, you might as well judge an African-American or Mexican for having dark skin, or a woman for menstruating (for which, there are, aggrievedly, tragic precedents). It’s bigotry pure and simple, and therefore, brutal, cruel — well beyond Christ’s teachings as I’ve come to understand them.

    To condone Hill’s views – even under the guise of earnest, open Christian fellowship — by giving him space to air an evidently tortured regard for his sexual desires (and by implication, homosexuality in general) adds to the literature of prejudice and self-loathing toward and among lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders — an unfortunate situation that cruelly has found a home in the minds of too many reactionary Christians.

    It is imperative upon any “enlightened” Evangelical to fight this unholy meme. Being gay is not a choice, but giving someone like Hill a platform to promote the mistaken notion that it is (indeed a sinful, perverse one) – that is a choice that you do not have to make in the future.

    Why not an article about how choosing Conversion Therapy is the real perversion of God’s will (not to mention, psychological torture)? Or how choosing celibacy for other reasons untainted by bigotry might be an interesting choice for some Christians (a small percentage of the population is asexual — they need support and acceptance too!)? Or maybe a guest article by a gay or lesbian Evangelical talking about the challenges of assimilation within an Evangelical community that to varying degrees still seems to suffer from a homophobic impulse? In short, why accommodate bigotry, even when self-inflicted?

  • Wesley Hill

    Thanks for these comments. I’d like to make a few responses, but just know as I do so that these are MY opinions and not necessarily Amy Julia’s. She was kind enough to ask me to be a guest blogger, but that doesn’t mean that she agrees with everything I’ve said here, obviously.

    @Aimee: You’re right that there are different Christian positions on these questions. Gene Rogers, for example, in his book *Sexuality and the Christian Body* argues that gay marriage can be a means of sanctification for Christians. It can teach us, just as it teaches heterosexual couples, about the love of God. But for most of us gay Christians who choose celibacy, we find ourselves running into problems with that position. It doesn’t seem to be able to account well for the Bible’s opposition to same-sex sexual behavior (for example, in Romans 1:26-27), and so we can’t in good conscience endorse it.

    @Jcrutcher: First, let me say thanks for such a well-written, thoughtful comment. I’ll try to respond to a few of your points. First, you write: “Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.” I would wholeheartedly agree with that, and I’d be disappointed to learn that my post communicated that gay and lesbian people are somehow inherently less able to live “normal” lives than straights. My problem with homosexuality has little or nothing to do with what psychologists call mental health.

    You also write: “Homosexuality is a natural expression of the human condition, and as such, something to be accepted and embraced, not condemned. It is not a lifestyle choice, nor is it a mental disorder.” And here is where I’d like to quibble with what you’re saying. First, is homosexuality “natural”? If by “natural” we mean, something that occurs without my conscious effort, then I’d say it is “natural.” None of us knows exactly the origins of a person’s homosexual orientation, but I for one believe that biogenetic factors likely play a huge role. And if we’re talking about a homosexual *orientation* (rather than homosexual relationships or sexual habits), then I’d agree with you that it’s not a “choice.” I certainly didn’t experience the awakening of my own desires in puberty as “chosen.”

    My problem comes with what we consider to be the appropriate response to that unchosen sexuality, though. For you, the “naturalness” of it means that homosexuality should be “accepted” and “embraced.” And at one level, I’d say “yes” to that (more on this point in a moment), but at another level, I’d say that having a “natural” orientation to something does not necessarily mean that that orientation should be “accepted” or “embraced.” Our “natural” inclinations can easily mislead us, according to the Christian faith. What feels most central to my identity may in fact lead me astray from God’s original creative intention, because I’m fallen — my mind, my reasoning, my body, my genetic code: it’s all out of sync, to one degree or another, with the beautiful flourishing God first intended for it. And in that sense, I don’t think homosexuality is “natural” at all — if by “nature” we mean not what we currently experience as given but what God originally designed (Genesis 1 and 2).

    But does that mean gay and lesbian Christians can’t accept themselves and find ways to “live out” their homosexuality? Here is where I’m afraid my blog post may have given the wrong impression about what I really think. I wrote: “Christianity tells a story of male and female created for one another in the perfection of Eden. Falling from God’s intention, however, we’ve made a mess of the world. But God didn’t leave us alone with the wreckage. In Jesus, God has come among us to restore and heal what we’ve ruined. When Jesus died and rose again, he made it possible for us to anticipate a renewed Eden.” That could easily give the impression that I think gay Christians ought to try to live in heterosexual marriages. (Of course that may be an option for some. I have friends who are in that difficult situation, and they have my support and prayers.) But I think the vast majority of gay Christians, whose basic orientation is probably not going to dramatically change, won’t find that to be a good option.

    And here’s where I think a robust theology of celibacy as a vocation — as a specific way of loving God and blessing others with joy and beauty — comes in. I don’t think celibate gay Christians are called to deny their sexuality so much as they are called to channel it and direct it toward ends that are consonant with God’s revealed will in Scripture. Although I think gay Christians shouldn’t have gay sex, I don’t think that celibacy is about saying “no” to sexuality so much as it’s about saying “yes” to a particular, costly way of expressing that sexuality — in chaste brotherhood, in ministry to the least and the lost, in artistry, to take only a few possibilities as examples. As Eve Tushnet, herself a celibate lesbian Catholic, has written, having gay sex “is one possible interpretation of a form of longing which can manifest as artistic vocation, as friendship, as service, as any number of ways of pouring out love.” Most traditional, orthodox Christians think that that “one possible interpretation” is the wrong one (“sin” is the theological term for this), and we opt for the others instead.

    Of course, there are larger questions here, such as why, in the face of the most recent psychological research, the Christian church would continue to say “no” to same-sex marriage and other erotic partnerships. I won’t go into all that here, but I’ll just mention Richard Hays’ book *The Moral Vision of the New Testament* (HarperSanFrancisco, 1996) and its Chapter 16 for a full discussion of the biblical and theological reasons for the church’s traditional viewpoint on homosexuality. Christopher Roberts’ book *Creation and Covenant: The Significance of Sexual Difference in the Moral Theology of Marriage* (Continuum, 2008) is also excellent in the same vein.

    Thanks again for reading and commenting.

  • Jtcrutcher

    Mr. Hill, I’m glad you don’t view your own sexual orientation as a lifestyle choice, and that you recognize the relative futility of gay Christians trying “to live in heterosexual marriages,” but I think it’s sad that something science has erased the stigma from (being gay) – and therefore, any justification for being prejudiced against – your beliefs see fit to restore (through sharing the notion that rather than trying to fit into the heterosexual model, you have this wonderful, beautiful, inspiring other option out there – celibacy! – Hey, it works for me!). What science establishes as natural and positive, you effectively (and with deceptive gentleness and sensitivity) relegate to the cellar of acceptability – as an orientation that leads one “astray from God’s original creative intention.” – “out of sync, to one degree or another, with the beautiful flourishing God first intended for it” – because at bottom, it’s, well, sinful!

    If you’re basing your knowledge of what God intended on the creation story of Adam and Eve? You realize that it IS just an allegory, not a literal depiction of what occurred historically (and compared to the creation stories of other cultures, its depiction of female energy [pulled from the rib of Adam, temptress and cause of original sin] is strangely unbalanced in favor of a heavy, male-centric bias; not exactly deferential to the feminine – or effeminate – aspects of life). How that allegory could possibly be contorted to express what we know about the astro-physics of creation, the birth of the universe, the Big Bang, is beyond me – much less, how it relates to the positive reality of being homosexual.

    But beliefs are personal. I respect that. You can choose to believe whatever you want. In the process of sharing those beliefs, however, you have a responsibility to the public when your teaching, guidance, wisdom runs counter to consensus medical opinion, and the public needs to know that. If you inform the public that the reason for choosing celibacy is because your sexual orientation does not comport with Scripture, you’re effectively saying to all those other people out there with the same orientation that God thinks being gay is wrong. I won’t even get into how you could possibly know what God is thinking, but the inherent, implied condemnation of homosexuality as sinful cannot go unchallenged, for moral reasons. The potential for harm your story can bring to fellow Christians struggling with related issues could be tragic.

    As I’ve said before, the medical and mental health professions have given gayness a clean bill of health. What I didn’t say is that they have also condemned as psychologically harmful and injurious any beliefs or teachings that treat homosexuality as wrong. Gays and lesbians have a tough time as it is without ‘caring’ Christians misleading them into thinking homosexuality is sinful and wrong in God’s eyes. This is serious business; every day a gay teen commits suicide because the pain of living in a world that does not accept them for who and what they are is too much to bear.

    Suggesting that as part of your fallen state, your homosexual desires are a uniquely challenging cross to bear as a Christian, may help counter the shame of feeling wrong about being gay (an unfortunate emotion that way too many LGBTs feel when told that they’re not normal, natural, or okay – especially if they believe God’s the one doing the telling) – but elevating that abjectness to a kind of heroic status by choosing celibacy as a neutralizing tactic against those desires, only transfers that shame from you to the impressionable members of your audience. And so the cycle of abuse continues.

    Regarding the question of what’s natural, I could have used the term “normal.” Increasingly, as we study the brain, we’re finding out that there is no “normal,” not where neuroscience is concerned. Brain studies show consistently that about 30% of the population falls within a normal and healthy range of functioning (not symptomatic of a disorder such as bipolar, ADHD, depression, schizophrenia, autism spectrum, etc.); the flip side of which is that roughly 70% of the population suffers from one or more brain disorders. In other words, the vast majority of the human race is neurologically “abnormal” – their wiring is “out of sync, to one degree or another” – which, of course, stands the term “normal” on its head since we tend to think of normal as being largely defined by what predominates. To a profound degree, the brain makes us who and what we are, and until such studies were done, the assumption was that most people were normal; thanks to the latest brain research, however, we know otherwise. Human beings are far more complex and intriguing than a simple, digital, dualistic, Adam and Eve – heterosexual vs other (LGBT) – assessment would assume.

    I’m guessing you meant the opposite of what you wrote when you stated, “if by “nature” we mean not what we currently experience as given but what God originally designed,” because anything by godly design would have to be “natural.” If that’s the case, then what we’re finding out about the brain, by virtue of predominance, more than suggests that God designed humans to be a species with complex wiring, and that He or She or It designed some to be hetero, some gay, others bi, and still others asexual. In fact, asexuals comprise a far smaller minority than homosexuals. Why not interpret God’s intention as that of disapproving of asexuals, by virtue of their extreme minority status, for being more “out of sync” than homosexuals, and therefore, using such criteria, more sinful? Make THEM the bad guys. Are they exempt from judgment because they slide so easily into the practice of celibacy, and so appear chaste and pure? I’m guessing that you wouldn’t reach such a conclusion; nevertheless, is this not just as viable an interpretive option as delivering gays to the devil?

    All that said, far be it from me to challenge your deepest, darkest beliefs. The main point I want to get across here, I hope for the benefit of any impressionable readers out there who might read this, is that it is just as normal and healthy to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender as it is to be heterosexual. LGBTs serve a legitimate role in God’s beautiful, flourishing creation. They are not an abnormality to be repressed, beat back, withstood, converted, prayed away, or made wrong. They do not have to fit into a heterosexual lifestyle, nor should sexual orientation be a motivation for becoming celibate. Anyone with healthy sexual desires should choose celibacy for spiritual reasons, not to repress a natural, God-given desire that others have tried to convince them is sinful. To communicate that a non-heterosexual orientation is not what God intended is cruel, regardless of how kindly put.

  • Wesley Hill

    A couple of points in reply to Jtcrutcher’s latest comment. First, no, I don’t think the traditional Christian teaching about marriage, sexuality, and homosexual relationships depends on a “literal” reading of Genesis 1 and 2. It’s not just the story of Adam and Eve read in a rigidly “historical” mode that illumines what marriage is for Christians. Rather, it’s the whole unfolding story of Scripture, from an original good creation, to that creation’s “fall” into sin and death, to its restoration in Christ. So, in addition to what we have in Genesis, Christ teaches about marriage (Matthew 19), the apostles discuss it (for example, in 1 Corinthians 7 and Ephesians 5), and Paul describes homosexual partnerships as evidence of the world’s brokenness (see Romans 1) to which brokenness the self-sacrifice of Jesus provides the remedy (Romans 3-8). Historically, Christians have thought about all these texts, themes, and perspectives as parts of an interlocking, coherent framework for sexual ethics.

    Second, historic Christian understandings of sexual ethics usually begin with a recognition that the world we see around us now is “not the way it’s supposed to be.” Not only the natural “inanimate” world with its hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes but also our very selves with their susceptibility to various diseases, disabilities, and injuries — all of these things, Christianity says, aren’t the way God wants to the world to be. So Christians believe in redemption and resurrection: sin and death aren’t ultimately acceptable to God; one day, they’ll be reversed, undone, healed. That’s the framework in which Christians have historically thought about sex. Simply because we experience something as “normal” or “natural” or “inevitable” doesn’t count as evidence that God wants it to be that way. Simply because my friend was in an accident as a 17-year-old and ended up as a paraplegic does not mean that he can’t hope for the removal of that condition in God’s final remaking of the world.

    So, that is the way most forms of Christianity have traditionally thought about homosexuality. Yes, it is “normal,” it’s “natural,” it’s part of the way the world is now, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t part of the world’s brokenness. And for those of us who find ourselves with a homosexual orientation, to inhabit the traditional Christian story means that we feel ourselves summoned to a difficult, costly obedience. The apostles in the New Testament frequently describe following Christ as a kind of “dying.” We find ourselves saying “No” some desires and longings that many people would see as healthy and good.

    About the findings of the American Psychological Association, you write: “As I’ve said before, the medical and mental health professions have given gayness a clean bill of health. What I didn’t say is that they have also condemned as psychologically harmful and injurious any beliefs or teachings that treat homosexuality as wrong.” But this is misleading. The APA has determined that homosexuality shouldn’t be classed as a mental disorder — and I agree with that judgment! — but how people should respond to it and what kinds of treatment clients ought to seek from their therapists — well, the APA hasn’t answered those questions, because those are not the kind of questions science can answer. They’ve opposed sexual orientation change efforts, but they’ve also opposed efforts of therapists to override their clients’ Christian convictions. The APA, in other words, has *not* opposed efforts to help clients who believe homosexual “practice” (to use an infelicitous term) is sinful to live in accordance with that belief. The rightness or wrongness of that conviction is not something psychology qua psychology can issue a judgment about. Its correctness or incorrectness has to be decided on other grounds. For Christians, those grounds are ultimately found in Scripture itself, as Old and New Testaments are read together around the center of Scripture which is Jesus Christ who gave his life for sinners.

    Let me add one final comment. The shame that has led many gay teens to commit suicide recently is a tragedy. Despite the church’s treasure of a gospel of free grace for the broken, Christians have too often spoke and acted in a way that’s totally out of sync with that grace and compassion. There’s been deadly bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and cruelty. I know this firsthand: I grew up as a (closeted) gay kid going to Baptist churches in Arkansas. But in the years since then (and even, in retrospect, in those Baptist churches themselves), I’ve also encountered Christians who have loved me for the person I am. Many of them have been practicing their own forms of self-denial. (It’s not just gay people that the church asks not to have sex. In traditional Christian terms, anyone who’s not married is asked to remain abstinent.) And although I would be the first person to say that celibacy is often lonely, hard, and frustrating, what keeps me holding it is the love I’ve found in Jesus and in the people who are, with me, trying to follow him. Those who are living without sex and without a romantic partner can love and be loved, too. We can flourish, as we all together reach out to One who, we believe, gave up heaven to come be with us.

  • Jtcrutcher

    I don’t know how to put this delicately, so I’ll just say it. In light of what we know today about the positive, healthy, ‘normal,’ ‘natural’ reality of homosexuality, for someone in this day and age to cite the writings of people steeped in the cultural mores of the ancient world as “evidence” of LGBT “brokenness” approaches the absurd. The evidence within the medical and mental health professions for the wholeness of LGBTs is overhwhelming and, frankly, trumps the predominately bigoted, provincial, illiterate thinking of 2000 years ago. In that context, it is irresponsible to push such a destructive, cruel, bigoted meme. Which is what it is – bigotry – no different than the racism many justified biblically in the South right up through the Jim Crow era – indeed, for some white Christians, to this very day.

    As for the world not being the way God wants it to be, I thought Boethius settled that issue for most Christians back in the early Middle Ages, establishing the inescapable fact that if God created everything, He also created evil (brokenness, out of sync-ness, etc.). In which case, it’s all good, even the bad. So if there is anything that is PERCEIVED as not the way God intended, it actually IS the way He wants it or it wouldn’t exist – because God created it in the first place. We needn’t go into Boethius’ ruminations on rationales for why God might create evil, because the point is this: if even evil is in the service of God, how can something that the more enlightened world of today (a world more enlightened than that of the biblical scribes of two millennia ago, or of Boethius’ 5th Century – a time less dogmatic and superstitious and mistaken about a lot of every day things such as evolution, racial equality, or sexual orientation) has determined is healthy and positive (being gay) not be the way God intended?

    You’re right about the APA respecting religious beliefs, because religion itself is not a disorder, and so it dwells outside the therapist’s professional boundaries as a thing to address – on ethical grounds. But just as we’re horrified every time we read about a child dying of a preventable illness because their parents are part of a Christian sect that doesn’t believe in medicine, many are similarly horrified when a Christian promotes a dogma that runs counter to consensus medical and mental health opinion where sexual orientation and behavior are concerned, not because it’s any old dogma, but because it manifests in the real world as bigotry. If you believe pigs can fly, who cares? But if you believe an entire class of people are wrong, broken, or as they liked to characterize it in Elizabethan times – “unnatural” – then society has to care, because the only thing wrong is that dogmatic belief. That’s the real evil.

    Therapists avoid the issue of religion on ethical grounds, but if a child’s life is threatened by those religious beliefs, you can bet those parents will be dealt with in some manner. When it comes to someone struggling with their sexual orientation, say, a teen, religion per se won’t be tackled head on. If, however, the parents are, for religious reasons, unaccepting of their child’s orientation, the specific religious beliefs in question may need to be explored, not because the beliefs are religious, but because they may be contributing to an abusive, psychologically agonizing situation. The therapist would, of course, be careful not to attack the religion but rather the self-destructive dynamics to which those beliefs may play a part. To say that therapists must tread lightly here is putting it mildly, but like everything, religion does not exist in a vacuum.

    Anyway, I doubt I can get you off the belief that God has destined LGBTs for brokenness, because it would require delving into the dogmatic reaches of the few beliefs you’ve already shared, and it would be the height of arrogance for me to presume to know what’s right for you. My primary concern in all this is for the many impressionable folks out might read this, that they not be taken in by the irresponsible message that celibacy is a legitimate avenue for addressing the belief among Christians like yourself that being gay is broken and wrong. It is not.

    If you think that a prejudice that drives one to celibacy is biblically justified, regardless of the medical/mental health reality), either your interpretation of the Bible is wrong, or the Bible itself is not the perfect repository of spiritual wisdom that you’ve come to believe (it’s flawed!). Disabusing you of either notion probably has about as much chance of success as selling a Scientologist on the benefits of psychology and psychiatry. So I’ll leave you with this.

    The nature of dogma is to believe something in spite of evidence to the contrary. In the case of sexual orientation, ample, overwhelming evidence is not adequate to flip the switch inside you; I hope readers have enough sense to research the subject for themselves, and at the very least, talk to a doctor or psychologist before buying into your argument. The refusal to reconcile medical and mental health opinion with this topic is willful. Like spading a nice round hole in the ground and sticking a head full of holiness into it – pun intended. At the end of the day, no matter what beliefs you choose to buy into, sharing this aspect of your story could have the insidious effect of shaming any gay Christian struggling with their sexuality into making unhealthy choices. The reality is that there is nothing broken or wrong with being gay, regardless of what one believes. Belief is not reality. Reality is what is. You can either choose to see the reality of this particular situation, or “indulge” in a belief system that treats legitimate members of society as illegitimate, but know that if you travel the second path, you will be a part of the problem, not the solution, and I’m guessing that if God has a purpose for good, that, well, you know….

    Wesley, I wish you well.
    In peace,
    John