Conversations
Submitted by F.O.D. on April 09 1999 at 15:32:08
|
Hi all, I've been away all week, had an attack of Real Life (you know the problem. I hope you do, anyway) I spent much of the Easter weekend with a friend from church. His wife was away, so he let come over for company. He's a decent fellow, quite mature spiritually. I decided to test him to see how ready he was to address the deeper problems in my life (you know, the sexuality questions). Now I've noticed there are at least three places in the Bible where Paul uses arguments like "look at the nature of things, it's obviously wrong". And in our times there are varying degrees of controversy with what Paul says. The first is easier to deal with (ie to ignore). 1 Cor 11:13 et al. Paul is talking about the dress of women at church, saying they should have long hair covering their head. "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?" Well, um, no. The very nature of things does not teach me that. I can't see any reason why a woman should have to cover her head to pray. And so today most western churches do not keep this instruction about women having long hair or wearing scarfs. The instruction is irrelevent to Christian life. (True, orthodox believers and some protestants - I don't know about catholics - insist their women wear scarfs at church). Second, more contentious. 1 Tim 2:12-14. Paul says women are not to teach in church, and bases his argument on the original order of creation. And yet there are plenty of churches who will allow women to preach, lead Bible study groups, there are even female pastors. (For the record, I have not made up my mind completely on this issue. But I never met a female pastor I liked (actually I hardly know any)) The last issue, based on "the nature of things". Rom 1:27. Homosexual relations are condemned by Paul, being seen as a rejection of natural relations. So, I asked my friend what he thought about Issue 1, women in hats. He had a quick reply - it was a cultural issue, mainly referring to the dress of prostitutes of that time. So what it's really saying is that Christian women shouldn't dress like prostitutes. Fair enough. Issue 2. Women teaching. A bit more thought here before answering. As I understood it he was basically against women leading churches, but on the other hand he was well aware of godly churches who accept it, and didn't see it as his job to judge those churches. He said the main thing was the attitude towards God, looking into the Scriptures and searching God's will, and acting according to your conscience. Having reasons for believing what you believe. At this I thought "hmmm, interesting. But those exact same arguments can be made in support of homosexual Christians who are convinced that God does not condemn same-sex sexual relations." Now I knew he opposed homosexuality. So I decided to pull out the final card, saying "But you could say exactly the same thing about gay Christians." His reaction was most interesting. His immediate response was "No you can't! That's sodomy! You can't justify sodomy!" To which I pointed that Sodom was more about rape and violence, and said nothing about committed long-term relationships. He: "But do you have any idea how short-term and promiscious homosexual relationships are?" Me: "Is that relevant? I'm talking about those gay Christians who are committed to each for life." [I never did get the point of that anti-gay argument. Do you have any idea how short-term and promiscious heterosexual relationships are?] I have to respect my friend, when he saw his arguments were flawed, he stopped, saying "I don't think I'm capable of discussing this question." He said there were few enough Christians to minister to as it was, without getting wrapped up with and distracted by the concerns of the few one or two gay Christians around. That is, it wasn't an issue he'd have to deal wi th seriously. (Rather ironic, isn't it?) I figured he was distressed enough as it was, so I didn't point out that he had to deal with it NOW if he wanted to seriously be able to minister to me. I didn't want to bother him more over this question, but it occurred to me that the reason it wasn't an issue for him, that he didn't know any gay Christians, was precisely because he held this attitude which made it impossible for any Christians dealing with same-gender attraction to talk honestly about their fears and concerns. Maybe he knows more "gay Christians" than he realises. F.O.D. maybe I should try again on his wife when she comes back. She's got my psyche figured out in a few other areas of my life... :) |