Burn Me at the Stake, I’m a Sinner Too
September 26, 2007So, here’s the thing. I think homosexuality is a sin, and so is divorce, and I think they are similar types of sins. An argument I hear pretty often, for say, not letting homosexuals be bible study leaders at church, is that even though we all sin, a homosexual’s sin is habitual. They are unrepentant and not trying to stop the sin from occurring. Their sin in a chosen lifestyle. It’s not a one time thing, like taking the Lord’s name in vain or thinking a hateful thought.
But isn’t divorce habitual? Isn’t divorce a lifestyle? Sure, maybe the action is only taken once, but it’s lived out as a lifestyle. Or, at least, re-marrying after divorce would be considered a ‘lifestyle sin’ in the same context as homosexuality. Now, I’m sorry (kind of). I’m sure I’m stepping on a lot of toes here. Here’s my reference in case anyone wonders.
Matthew 19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” This is Jesus speaking, by the way.
All I’m saying is, if homosexuality is so much worse because it’s a sexual sin against our own body, then so is divorce and remarrying. If homosexuality is so much worse because it’s a lifestyle, well, so is divorce and remarrying. But for some reason, our modern church thinks homosexuality is SOOOO bad and divorce/remarriage is okay. Maybe this is just because as a society, we’ve gotten used to divorce. Maybe in 200 years the modern church won’t have a problem with homosexuality either.
Please realize, I’m not advocating or justifying either. I just think we’re being hypocritical.
Thoughts?
Also, please feel free to consider what might happen if a homosexual couple in Massachusetts gets a divorce. Or were they never really married? 
I agree with the argument, mostly. You still have to deal with the question of whether or not people are born with a sexual orientation. I doubt anyone would claim to have been born with a “disposition to divorce” but I guess you never know…
But leaving that aside, this argument appears to make the case that morality is sometimes relative to social context. At least, you either have to condemn all divorcees (at least those who have remarried) or else admit that moral restrictions can change over time.
Jesus himself makes a similar case in the verse immediately preceding the one you quoted in your post. Matthew 19:8 quotes Jesus as saying, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” It’s as if he’s saying that it was wrong in the beginning, it became okay in the time of Moses, and then it became wrong again in the time of Jesus.
My conclusion, which would take a lot more time and space to fully develop, is that the words of Jesus throughout the gospels were meant to highlight where even the self-righteous had fallen short. You think you’ve kept the Law? Well you haven’t, and here’s why. You can’t keep the Law — you weren’t created to save yourself.
It’s a good thing we don’t have to.
I need to think about how I want to word my response. It will come. Be patient.
@ Jason: Children whose parents have had a divorce are far more likely to have a divorce themselves. I’m not sure if this counts as a disposition or not (from birth), but it’s certainly….a disadvantage.
They are similar but not the same. I need more time than I’m willing to take at work at the moment to process this. Here’s a question that might lead us in the right direction in our thinking:
If your Mom divorced your Dad, would you want your Dad to remarry? Would you want your Mom to remarry? Is there a difference?
I am with Jon in that I don’t think I can process this to the degree that it needs. However, I will attempt to formulate somewhat of a response.
(47 minutes later) Ok, I’m ready to respond. Here’s my issue with this post. I think what you are trying to say, and correct me if i’m wrong, is that how can any of us be bible study leaders if we are all sinners? Am I right or at least close?
Ok, response. I have said this many times but I will say it again. I do not think we should lower our accountability of homosexuality. I think we should raise our standard of other sins of the flesh.
I guess my acceptance of the churches’ stance towards homosexuals not being allowed to be bible study leaders is because most, not all, homosexuals embrace their lifestyle. I do not think their sins are greater than mine. Sins are from the flesh. However, the bible study leaders that I know, do sin. They also desire a life that does not have sin in it. They want to repent of their sins. They feel convicted.
If a person who was homosexual came to me and said that they wanted to repent of their sins. If they said they felt convicted by the Holy Spirit, I would say that person is fit to be a bible study leader. Even if they slipped up, because we all do, I think their heart would still right. They are attempting to align their heart with God’s will.
The issue that needs to be set for all bible study leaders is this. You have to be aligning your heart with God’s will. Even when you stumble, as long as you seek accountability and continue to fight your sins, you’d be alright in my book. It is when you do not see anything wrong with your sins, that is when I see the problem.
Alright, I hope you’re happy Jessie. I responded.
Goodnight, and I love you.
Breez
Ah, no that’s not what I’m trying to say at all. Sorry if it came across that way. What I’m trying to say is, I do believe that the sin of homosexuality is different in the sense that it’s an embraced lifestyle. There is no ‘I’m tryin to change’ going on. I think, to an extent, I generally agree with the church’s stance of not allowing homosexuals to hold positions of leadership.
What I AM trying to say, is that this is not the only sin that we should act this way towards. I think that America, and myself, might have an easier time accepting the evangelical church’s attitude/actions on this front if we were consistent. To me, a very similar sin is the remarraige after divorce- which constitutes a lifestyle of adultery. The point I’m trying to make, is that we’ve chosen ONE sin to take a huge stance against. Maybe our stance is generally correct, but I think we should use that same standard in making up other rules and policies with other simliar lifestyle sins.
If we are resistant to that, I begin to wonder if it’s just because we have grown accustomed to the other sins. That’s my problem. I don’t want us to keep growing accustomed to these kinds of moral sins. If we won’t change our attitude towards divorce in the church, I wonder if we’ll eventually end up changing our attitude towards homosexuality in the church. Where double standards exist, it’s a slippery slope to lowering the standard we originally held.
I think the hang up that i’m having trouble with is the fact that divorce is not habitual, unless you marry, divorce, remarry, divorce, remarry, divorce…
Another issue is that you might be on the receiving end of the divorce…therefore, it is out of your hands.
(ok I’m writing a book here… sorry)
I only have a couple points to add to this discussion, and I will fall under everyone else’s disclaimer of not really having time here at work to develop any of these… that said, here goes.
1.) There is biblical cause for divorce. That’s one difference. I’m not sure how that effects the argument, except that there are cases where marital unfaithfulness allows for remarriage. Also, I don’t believe there is anything in scripture that says the “innocent” party cannot re-marry (there is very rarely a truly innocent party, but for this argument, I just mean the one who did not want to divorce). So in cases where the divorce is not mutual, I believe it’s ok to remarry for the one who did not initiate the divorce. I would have to study that more, but it’s worth noting that the official stance of the C&MA is that.
Also, maybe we should distinguish further between those who have divorced and lament the decision to some degree, or at least don’t celebrate it and those who are happily divorced, would do it again, don’t think it’s wrong on any level, etc. Anyway, on to point #2
2.) The act of homosexuality is a sin. It’s listed over and over in scripture as such. (again, if someone argues this point, then I’ll post the scriptures). I think one thing that effects this argument is that there are a few things in scripture that God has said, that I kind of wish he didn’t say. Things like “it’s better to stay single” as an engaged guy, I don’t like to read that. I would put the scriptures about homosexuality under that umbrella, along with Matthew 7 (Jesus said many will say “Lord, Lord” but not enter the Kingdom). So when I’m faced with a scripture I don’t like, I can either a.) completely change my position to align with the Biblical viewpoint b.) find a grey area I’m comfortable with or c.) explain it away very intelligently, discount it (it’s all relative), or ignore it.
I think this happens a lot with scripture and leads to the slippery slope stuff you’re talking about. If it’s still clear after an honest look at the background and context of the scripture, then it is the word of God on the matter. Many scriptures are clear. I believe there are fewer grey areas than many people would say. Some would paint the entire Bible grey.
That said, allow me to present a grey area
I don’t want muddy the waters here – and I have so much else I want to say, but in the effort of promoting discussion (maybe… it’s an old blog) I’ll just throw this one last thing out there.
We have to keep in mind that “good” Christians before us vehemently opposed the abolition of slavery because they felt it was biblical. We could list example after example of entire people groups accepting something that we now “know” is completely wrong.
I am not willing to say that homosexuality is something that a certain percentage of people are born into, or anything close to that. But we should discuss this issue with a measure of temperance, seasoned by this knowledge about our history as Believers ganging up on one idea, and then turning out to be wrong. What if people ARE born into homosexuality? Do you REALLY know? How would that change this argument? Again I’m not saying they are… but there’s at least some grey area here.
The question I’ll throw out there for the purpose of discussion is
“is it possible to be homosexual, and not commit the sin of homosexuality?”
The issue of condemning homosexuality the way we do, is that people who are homosexual (whether or not it is true) truly believe they have had no choice in the matter. I mean, who wouldn’t choose to avoid the stigma, alienation and trials of being homosexual in our culture? The one thing that is always a choice is the act of homosexuality, however.
Whether or not being homosexual was their choice, the choice of someone who hurt them, or something they were born into, it’s not our job to condemn, but to love. It’s an extremely interesting discussion – because there is a situation here in town where a believer who is homosexual has expressed a sincere desire to serve. His knowledge of scripture, heart for God, etc. is exceptional (I’ve met the guy, talked with him) and he sincerely believes it’s not a sin to be homosexual. The issue the church here is faced with is how to love him, not condemn him, and yet still stand up for what they believe is biblically wrong.
I’m going to send this link to my roommate Tom because he is dealing more closely with this situation and I’m sure could add a lot to the discussion.
Good job Jessie with the blog – keep it up and I might pop in a little more often
Tim
Wow, I sort of forgot that discussions can take place in the comments of a blog post! I’d actually love to respond to some of the things said here so far, and I apologize if I go long.
Mike: The point is that if you divorce, it’s wrong (there are exceptions and I’ll get to that later). But you might not be able to undivorce, so you’re left with that. The act that becomes habitual in the same way a homosexual relationship is habitual is when a divorced person remarries. That person is committing adultery, according to the passage Jessie quoted. As long as they are married to the new spouse, they are habitually sinning just as someone in a homosexual relationship could be considered to be habitually sinning.
Tim: The exceptions you and Mike mention are interesting because they represent, as I said in my first comment, this idea that moral restrictions will sometimes change over time and with social context. Jesus even said that “it was not that way in the beginning”, as if to say that divorce was supposed to be wrong always, but Moses said it was okay for a while, then Jesus said it wasn’t okay except for marital unfaithfulness, and now it seems to be okay (though not preferable) to most Christians in most situations. Not that you’d agree exactly with that summary, but the point is that there are exceptions because morality is sometimes relative, I think.
The Bible definitely says exactly what it says, but most of our theology (if not all) is based on how we (and people we trust like pastors and authors) interpret that scripture. So when we say homosexuality is wrong, we don’t point to a passage that says “Homosexuality, defined as any kind of sexual contact between two men or two women, is always wrong in all situations, and is not something that people are born with, thus sayeth the Lord.” Instead, we point to a passage, then explain it and how it means that homosexuality is wrong. The point being that though the scripture is infallible and true, our interpretations do not hold the same authority, and can be wrong — like your slavery example etc.
What you said in that paragraph, Tim, about a measure of temperance, was beautiful. I think that kind of attitude of grace and subtlety is necessary when we are faced with issues like this that we can’t possibly hope to fully understand.
(PS It’s great to be interacting with you guys again — it’s been a while since I’ve gotten to talk to any of you. I hope you’re all doing well! Hit me up on facebook or visit either http://jmrhodes.wordpress.com for general blogginess or http://kidwonder.blogspot.com for my religious musings. Later!)
So I guess the question is- in this context. Say I divorce my husband against his will, for a man with more money and a boat. That’s a sin, but not habitual. Then I marry this other rich guy. That’s committing adultery. Is it only adultery when I marry him at the altar? Just that once? Or is it only adultery when we consummate the marraige that night? Do we then enter into a new covenant we are supposed to honor? Or is it always adultery, because I have already entered a binding covenant with my first husband, and everytime I ‘become one’ with my new husband, it’s adultery? If it’s the latter, thats why I’m suggesting its comparable to the sin of homosexuality.
Here’s my question on the topic…
Does this mean that Beth, my wife, is habitually sinning and unfit to lead ministry because ten years ago she was divorced from a bad relationship and then chose to enter into a marriage with me on May 26th, 2007?
Perhaps I’m biased, but I don’t see it. Doesn’t scripture say that God doesn’t cause us to sin? If that’s the case, then this “divorce is habitual sin” idea would mean that my relationship with my wife would not be of God, but would actually promote a sinful lifestyle.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that’s pretty crappy. I know that God hates divorce — that’s obvious from scripture, and it may not be the way marriage was originally intended, but I won’t accept that my marriage isn’t God-given or that anyone who remarries is living sinful lifestyle.
Spence,
Of course your marriage isn’t a habitually sinful lifestyle, even though scripture seems to imply that it is. We can look at your relationship and know that it’s built on good and comes from God.
The Bible says divorce is wrong and remarriage is sin, and yet people today get divorced and people remarry, and somehow we know to reconcile this. Sure, people murder today too but you don’t see people trying to say that murder is okay in the same way — we all have a general intuition about these things to know when this kind of mental and moral reconciliation is needed.
The interesting part of this discussion, as well as the relationship between divorce/remarriage and monogamous homosexuality, is that many people have begun to make similar reconciliation between what the Bible appears to say about homosexuality and the fact that many people are homosexual and living in loving, positive relationships with each other.
[...] topic from me today (or tomorrow if I get busy), as I’ve been learning alot about it since my original post a month ago. Tip: Read the comments after the post. That’s where we get into the really [...]