Other Essays |
"Divorce and Homosexuality: Why the Inconsistency in Applying Scripture?" by Rev. Roland Hayes.
Other passages in the Book of Leviticus that raise questions for Christians.
Why the proposed Marriage Ammendment is Bad
"Divorce and Homosexuality: Why the Inconsistency in Applying Scripture?" by Rev. Roland Hayes.
Moral reasoning requires consistency. When there is a lack of consistency it raises the question of why.
Obviously, there are some people in the ELCA who are passionate in their opposition to the ordination of people in same sex committed relationships and to the blessing of same-sex couples who have entered into long-term monogamous covenants of love and care.
They contend their opposition is not due to fear or prejudice regarding homosexual people. Rather, they are conscience bound in their opposition. The primary reasons they give in rejecting a change in church standards and practices include:
My question becomes, if this truly is the reason, why do these people not feel conscience bound in seeking to apply these very same reasons to the vital moral issue of how the ELCA deals with divorce and remarriage? (Specific biblical texts regarding divorce and remarriage are included at the end.)
1.) The clear Word of God rejects divorce, except in very specific situations.
The clear Word of God also rejects remarriage, except in very specific situations.
If people are truly conscience bound by the clear Word of God, why haven’t they pressed the ELCA to adopt polices that clearly state that divorce is unacceptable behavior among church members and refuse to allow ELCA clergy to remarry anyone who has divorced, except in the specific situations stated above?
2.) According to the clear Word of God divorce is a sin.
The people who oppose a change in ELCA policy towards homosexuals tell gay and lesbian people they should repent, ask God for forgiveness, seek God’s spirit to change their behavior, and thereafter live a heterosexual lifestyle. Or at the very least, they tell gay and lesbians they must remain celibate. Why do these same people not call upon those who are seeking a divorce to repent, ask God for forgiveness, seek God’s spirit to change their behavior, and return to their marriage? Or, if the divorced person cannot return to their marriage, remain celibate. After all, that is the clear instruction of the Apostle Paul.
3) Divorce and remarriage is a direct assault on the values of marriage and family.
Insofar as 50% of marriages end in divorce, it seems clear that married heterosexuals are the ones who abuse and distort the values of marriage and family. Ironically, according to a recent study by the Barna Research group, the divorce rate for atheists and agnostics is less than it is for those who profess to be Christian.
Frankly, I am left to wonder why the people who are so determined to oppose the homosexual behavior of 3% of the population have not, instead, focused their passionate energy on the issue of divorce which impacts countless millions of people every day.
4.) The long held tradition of the church has been to reject divorce and remarriage.
5.) While there is no official ELCA statement regarding divorce and remarriage, the current practice in most ELCA congregations is clearly at odds with the official policy statements of the Roman Catholic Church, the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, the Assembly of God Church, and the Southern Baptist Convention – to name a few.
If people are so deeply concerned about how the ELCA actions regarding homosexuality might impact our relationships with other church bodies, why has there not been a concerted effort to adopt a policy statement regarding divorce and remarriage that will not be at odds with these other churches?
Given the above I am left to wonder, is it the clear Word of God that makes people reject homosexuality or is it a deeply held belief and anxiety? The belief being people choose to be homosexual. The anxiety being that if the church approves the ordination of gay/lesbian people in same sex relationships, and blesses same sex unions, such relationships will become more public and acceptable, thereby creating a greater potential to influence a young person to choose to be homosexual. The sad irony is that one of the reasons many parents give for fearing their children will “become” homosexual is the abuse they know they will receive in our society – fully recognizing that prejudice against gay/lesbians persons is the most deeply held, most emotionally charged prejudice.
It would also be interesting to know how many people who are opposed to a change in the church’s policy regarding ordination and blessing of people in same sex relationships consider themselves to have a same sex orientation? How many have children, family members, or close friends who are homosexual? Could it be that many of those who oppose a change in the church’s policy don’t believe they have a close, personal relationship with a gay/lesbian person? Therefore, they have little or no first hand knowledge of the pain and rejection gay/lesbian people daily suffer in our society because of their orientation.
However, when 50% of marriages end in divorce, it is hard not to personally know, care about, and love someone in that situation. Could it be that because of these personal relationships people have a heightened sense that applying “the clear Word of God” to divorce and remarriage, would only serve to increase the pain and suffering? Is this why, regarding divorce and remarriage there is more of a willingness to follow a path of grace, mercy, acceptance, than to adamantly fight for a legalistic adoption of a policy based on the clear Word of God? Could it be that people know that implementation of such a policy would lead many members to leave the church? After all, how many people in our congregations have left the Roman Catholic Church because of its stance on divorce and remarriage?
Reflections on the blessing of same sex relationships.
Humans have a vital need for intimate relationship.
In the creation story in Genesis 2, after God creates a human person, it is quickly acknowledged that it is not good for this person to be alone. Therefore God is determined to create what is termed “a help-mate” fit for the person.
This text reflects what is clearly true for humans – we have a deep and abiding need to be in a relationship with one who is fit for us. The question becomes, “How is this fundamental human need to be met in the life of a gay/lesbian person?”
Merton Strommen, who is often quoted by those who oppose the blessing and ordination of gay/lesbian persons in same sex relationships or the blessing of same sex relationships, indicates that 1/3 of all homosexuals can change their orientation. If this is true, they would have the option to find fulfillment in a heterosexual relationship. Yet Strommen also contends that for 1/3 change is possible, but it will take constant struggle. Finally, Strommen acknowledges that 1/3 will not be able to change. Even if one was to accept that Strommen is correct, what does it mean for the 1/3 that cannot change their orientation? Many people would say they must remain celibate.
Yet, here I am mindful of the Apostle Paul’s clear counsel that if a person is not able to practice self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. What does that mean for a homosexual person that cannot change his/her orientation?
I also think of Luther. He contended that few people can live in celibacy. In fact when he encouraged marriage for priests he said, “Insomuch as the world is growing old and man’s nature is becoming weaker, it is well to take precautions against the introduction of more vices.” He goes on to quote Matthew 19:11 where Jesus indicates that not every person can remain celibate, but only those to whom it is given. Luther also said, “The temptation of the flesh has become so strong and consuming that marriage may be likened to a hospital for incurables which prevents inmates from falling into graver sin!”
Why do we assume that celibacy is given to every homosexual person that cannot change his/her orientation? By requiring celibacy of gay/lesbian people are we not guilty of introducing more vices by preventing those who cannot change their orientation from entering into life-long monogamous commitments where they can express themselves sexually?
Here I think of the noted spiritual writer Father Henri Nouwen. His biography reveals a secret Nouwen kept from all but a few people during his life; he was a celibate homosexual.
Writing about Nouwen, his biographer, Michael Ford said, “He would speak of the strength he gained from living in a community, then drive to a friend’s house, wake him up at two in the morning, and sobbing, ask to be held. His phone bills usually exceeded his rent as he called around the world disregarding time zones, in desperate need of companionship.”
Ford also said, “I came to realize just how central Nouwen’s long-repressed homosexuality had been to his struggles and how it had been the underlying stimulus to his powerful writings on loneliness, intimacy, marginality, love, and belonging.”
Nouwen once described the wound of loneliness as resembling the Grand Canyon, a deep incision on the very surface of existence.
Philip Yancey also writes of interviewing Nouwen after he had spent time in caring for the dying in an AIDS clinic. Nouwen told Yancey of young men banished from their families, forced to hustle on the street. Yancey said, “Nouwen looked at me, his piercing eyes bright with compassion and pain. ‘Philip, these young men are dying-literally dying-because of their thirst for love.’” He went on to tell me individual stories he had heard. The accounts all had in common a search for a safe relationship, for a home, for acceptance, for someone to love and love them.
Yancey concludes, “Through Nouwen’s eyes I saw a new way to look at such people; not as immoral and ungodly, but as thirsty-people dying for love.”
-From Yancey’s book Soul Survivor
Other considerations:
In 1 Corinthians 7:8-17, a passage regarding divorce and remarriage, Paul makes an interesting statement. He says, “I and not the Lord say”…and then goes on to modify the position on divorce and remarriage that he readily indicates came from the Lord. If Paul felt he had the authority to modify what the Lord said regarding divorce and remarriage, might that not imply a freedom to modify how the church deals with persons in committed same sex relationships?
In all of this conversation I am reminded of what George Forell said in his The Augsburg Confession: A Contemporary Commentary. Forell writes, “While the Augsburg Confession does not deal with the subject of sexual morality in general, it does make concrete suggestions for the solution of problems of sexual morality among the clergy. Since priests are human beings and most human beings need to express themselves sexually, priests should be allowed to marry. Marriage is the appropriate form of sexual expression for Christians. The reasonable and open way in which the Augsburg Confession confronts this controversial issue of its time could serve as a clue to the manner in which we should attack equally controversial issues in our time. What are needed are not prejudice and fanaticism but openness and reason. We should ask ourselves what kind of laws would help people live more human lives. What kind of laws will build a more harmonious and just society? If the answers our study suggests mean that some laws need to be changed, so be it. Change of outmoded and unjust laws was the demand of Article XXIII of the Augsburg Confession. We cannot ask for less.”
It is precisely for this reason that I am thankful, and support the gracious way in which the ELCA has chosen to address the issue of divorce and remarriage. While the ELCA has never adopted a statement regarding divorce and remarriage – I am thankful that the way most ELCA congregations deal with these matters reflects the statement of the former ALC. Interestingly, in that statement it says, “The church must seek to deal in an evangelical rather than a legalistic manner with the problems of divorce and divorced persons. Divorced persons will be fully included in the life of the Christian church, which expresses God’s spirit of love and forgiveness. These persons should not become the victims of gossip, ostracism, or undue attention. They need rather to be brought to feel anew the bonds of human fellowship and the sense of Gods’ continuing presence, so that their divorce, unfortunate though it may be, may lead toward a more mature Christian life.”
Additional thoughts:
As far as we know, Jesus never mentioned the subject of homosexuality. If same sex committed relationships were as well known during the time of Jesus, as some contend, then surely Jesus was aware of them. So one is left to wonder, if these relationships are so offensive to God, why didn’t Jesus say something specific about them, especially since he spoke in such unequivocal, and uncompromising terms about divorce and other social issues that he believed were not in keeping with God’s will.
Finally there is the issue of homosexuality being “unnatural”. Here I am reminded of the comment by Donald McCullough, “The truth is, we almost always side with what seems natural. We go with our gut instinct – and then we look for biblical support. Condemning homosexuality feels natural because about 95 percent of us could never imagine engaging in such a practice.”
It is like the experience I had when I spent a week at a seminar on human sexuality. The focus of a particular presentation was about homosexuality. In the small groups that followed I commented that I just couldn’t understand it. I had never had any attraction toward, let alone any urge to have sex with another man. In fact, I said that thinking about having sex with another man was totally repulsive to me. Sitting across from me was a woman who looked me straight in the eye and said, “I am a lesbian. I too have never had an urge to have sex with a man and the thought of it repulses me.”
As I reflected on her comments two things came to mind. First, maybe we aren’t so different. When it comes to our sexuality the feelings, the yearnings, the arousal is the same we were just differently oriented. Second, I got to wondering how it would feel to experience this overwhelming pressure/demand from society that the only relationship that would be deemed acceptable, the only way I could express my sexuality, the only person I could find sexual satisfaction with would be another man - even though I found that totally repulsive. Yet, that is exactly what our heterosexual culture had done to this woman whose sexual orientation meant she was aroused, her affective preference, her desire for physical contact and emotional intimacy was with another woman.
I am also mindful that homosexuality has been documented in almost 300 species of animals and birds, is relatively common, and increases as one ascends the phylogenic scale – that is the closer a species is to homo sapiens, the more gender differentiation and homosexuality.
Bagemihl 1999
As I think about this whole saga regarding the church’s response to gay and lesbian people, it reminds me very much of the story of the Exodus. We have spent years trying to find our way through the wilderness. We have reached that point where we can enter into a new place, some of us would say, a place to which God has called us, but as a community we are too afraid to enter. Sadly, it may be that we will have to wander in the wilderness until a generation of us dies before this church is ready to go forward and enter in.
The Word of God, as revealed in Scripture, is unequivocal in its rejection of divorce and remarriage except in very limited and specific situations.
Genesis 2:4 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother, and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.”
The word cling is a translation of the Hebrew word “dabaq” which means to make permanent. Therefore this passage makes it clear that God’s intent is that marriage is to be permanent.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 “Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man’s wife. Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the Lord, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a possession.”
In this text a man may divorce his wife if he finds something objectionable about her. She may remarry, but that act “defiles” her. Her first husband may never remarry her. There is no definition regarding “objectionable”.
Malachi 2:13-16 “You cover the Lord’s altar with your tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offerings or accepts it with favor at your hand. You ask, ‘Why does he not?’ Because the Lord was a witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did not one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his? And what does God desire? Godly offspring. So look to yourselves, and do not let anyone be faithless to the wife of his youth. For I hate divorce says the Lord, the God of Israel.”
Mark 10:2-12 (the first Gospel) “Some Pharisees came, and to test him asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ He answered them. ‘What did Moses command you?’ They said, ‘Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ But Jesus said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together let no one separate!’”
“Then in the house the disciples asked him about this matter. He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’”
Matthew 5:32-32. “It is also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you, that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the grounds of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Matthew 19:3-10 “Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ He answered them, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’ His disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better to not marry.’”
Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and anyone who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
1 Corinthians 7:8-17 “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.”
“To the married I give this command – not I but the Lord – that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled with her husband) and that the husband should not divorce his wife.”
“To the rest I say – I and not the Lord – that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound.”
1 Corinthians 6:9 “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers – none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Other passages in the Book of Leviticus that raise questions for Christians.
Why the proposed Marriage Ammendment is Bad
A Constitutional Amendment to bar marriage for committed lgbt (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) couples has been proposed. We believe It is a bad, and sad, idea. Since the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1789, more than 10,000 Amendments have been proposed. Of these, only 33 have passed the arduous steps required for formalization, to be then sent to the States for ratification. Of those 33, only 27 were finally adopted (including the 10 original Bill of Rights). All Constitutional Amendments adopted have either addressed administrative inconsistencies in the Constitution, or have recognized and validated a wider and fuller meaning to the freedoms, rights, and responsibilities for all citizens.
Given the division in our country, the only chance for passing this so-called Defense of Marriage Amendment is if proponents are able to fan fires of dehumanization against lgbt couples, individuals and their families, and convince Americans that these people are defective and dangerous. We believe this is far from being the case. Surely as American citizens, and as a matter of civil equality for all, lgbt couples, individuals and their families are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with all the attached protections, responsibilities and freedoms therein. This ought to be a concept that all of us can agree on.