Your beliefs don’t shift in an instant. We research and agonize, bouncing between hope and despair, until one day we hear ourselves say something a former version of ourselves never would have said. That’s how I came to support same-sex marriage in the church. When I came out as a teenager in Baptist circles in the Bible Belt, I never would’ve imagined God would still like me if I married a woman one day. And I want to try to explain, in theological(ish) terms, how I ended up here.
It seemed reasonable to be taken to an ex-gay ministry within days of coming out to my family my junior year in high school. At that point, gay people were hardly mentioned in the church, and when we were, we were told God thought gay people were gross. The main message from conservative Christians was that the Gospel would transform sexual minorities who sought the face of God, washing us, sanctifying us, and eventually making us straight.
A little lesbian who wanted so badly to be good, I abandoned my skepticism and latched onto the hope for “freedom from homosexuality.” I stuck around for almost a decade, hopeful that God would show up and surprise me if I remained committed to the process. When Exodus International asked if I would join their speaking team, I jumped in with a message of hope in what God would likely do in the future.
Eventually, we learned that even the most dedicated wouldn’t be able to change their orientation. Evangelical Christians shifted their theology a little at that point. Pastors and leaders decided that perhaps God’s transforming work would not result in orientation change, but it would result in the grace to pursue lifelong celibacy. Initially, Christian leaders were troubled when those of us committed to lifelong celibacy referred to ourselves as gay. They insisted we refer to ourselves as “same-sex attracted,” which implied we were basically straight people whose attractions happened to misfire from time to time. Then they realized it’s a bit much to demand lifelong celibacy from this one group of people and to define the terms of how we were allowed to talk about it, so it became more acceptable for us to say we were gay.
Some of this made me uneasy but I tried to be a sport about it, assuming those in leadership were more theologically sound than me and that their intentions were likely holier than mine. When Evangelical leaders said their views were rooted in sincere theological beliefs rather than homophobia, I believed them. In their minds, that is true. In my mind, that was true.
Thoughtful Christians have taught that all of Scripture points to a theology of marriage that involves one man and one woman in a lifelong commitment with a green light for sex in that context alone. This is based on the idea that the Bible is our ultimate authority, but it’s complicated by the fact that we bring an interpretive lens to the Bible. When we support women’s equality in all areas of leadership in the church, we trust one interpretive lens over another. Both sides are sincere Christians and both view the Bible as authoritative––they just differ on how the Bible, which was written in a patriarchal context in the 1st century, should apply to empowered women in the 21st century.
Since we interpret in community, we ultimately choose to trust one group of leaders in their interpretive endeavor over another. There’s safety in numbers, right? So I stuck with the crowd and assumed conservative pastors and Christian leaders probably brought a trustworthy lens to Scripture. Throughout my twenties I was committed to lifelong celibacy.
As the debate raged, I grew increasingly uncomfortable with the way the arguments shifted. Initially we were told we should become straight, so I tried to become straight. Then we were told a traditional theology meant lifelong celibacy, so I was on the celibate track. We were taught that a marriage between a man and a woman is primarily about sanctification: a place to learn how selfish we are in a sort of lifelong mini-monastery. We were taught that marriage is also about companionship because God said it’s not good for humans to be alone. We heard that the marital bond creates an energizing love that overflows into the kind of hospitality that helps us to welcome the hurting into our homes.
As more LGBT people came out and more theologians said a Christian marriage could actually extend to same-sex couples, traditionalists grew anxious. Pastors realized there is no reason two gay or lesbian Christians could not live into the kind of marriage they’ve taught all along: one that’s about sacrifice, sanctification, companionship, and reflecting God’s faithful commitment to the church. So they scrambled for some sort of explanation for why we should continue to apply the text in a way that excludes same-sex couples from marriage, and many now say it’s because the capacity for procreation is central to a traditional understanding of marriage.
The problem is that Protestants have never taught that procreation is central to marriage and we don’t actually believe that or we wouldn’t be cool with birth control. We suddenly adopted a quasi-Catholic view of sex and marriage but only when it comes to gay people––not when it might burden straight people.
For 13 years I was mostly on board with leaders who maintained that marriage was between a man and a woman, assuming they were onto something I was missing. I’ve been on board with this at a great cost––a cost that’s been worth it because I deeply love the community I’ve come from, the community that I still consider my family. But I watched many people use their power to protect themselves rather than using it to protect the most vulnerable. I saw them make decisions about LGBT people while excluding us from the community of interpretation. Over the course of hundreds of conversations, with tears and prayers and vulnerable pleas, my heart was broken. Many Christian leaders have scrutinized the people they could’ve learned from all along, anxiously creating new arguments that kept sexual minorities from pursuing calls to ministry, playing the piano in the church, or building a home with someone they loved.
When you put that example next to someone like Eugene Rogers, you start to feel like there’s something very life-giving and very Christian in the affirming view of marriage. He sees marriage as a school of virtue that nurtures generosity in gay and straight couples alike: “For marriage is an example of the concrete discipline that most of us (liberal and conservative) lack: in marriage we practice common discernment over self-interest. Marriage cultivates concern for one another: it offers lifelong hospitality; it enacts love; and it exposes our faults in order to heal them. It is the marital virtues that the church need, not only with respect to the Bridegroom, but with respect to one another.”
He goes on to say: “The married know that they have learned moral virtues––patience or temperance or courage, fidelity, hopefulness, and charity––because of a vulnerability to their spouse that they could not learn from any other person. Eros makes a way to the heart; without the vulnerability it brings, charity grows cold. This is not a lesson of “sexual liberation,” if sexual liberation involves evading commitment and discipline. This is a lesson of the incarnation.”
He says marriage exposes our faults in order to heal them and the grace cultivated in a lifelong commitment nurtures moral growth. When I considered the fruit of that kind of teaching over and against the fruit of one that views LGBT people with suspicion, relegating us to lifelong singleness with very little tenderness, I came to believe that we should celebrate same-sex marriage. It became hard for me to understand what exactly was driving traditional teaching on marriage if it was not fear of change––a very particular kind of fear that’s often expressed through homophobia.
But we don’t have to live in fear any longer. Same-sex couples are getting married, and many of these couples are decisively Christian, and these Christian couples are a witness to a watching world that’s been disillusioned by the hypocrisy they’ve seen in the church. No amount of disagreement with these marriages will invalidate their Christ-like example of love and faithfulness. It will not diminish the power of their testimony when their love creates an energy that welcomes in the hurting, the lonely, and the forgotten. These couples exemplify a vibrant faith fueled by a man from Nazareth who embodied love and forgiveness in the way He lived and died. That is, after all, what a Christian marriage is all about.
Dr. Trista Carr
Wow! Powerful and vulnerable once again. I so appreciate your openness about your journey. Thank you for sharing it with the world. I am excited to see how avid continues to use you, my friend.
Keep on keeping on…
Many blessings to you!
Dr. Trista Carr
Oops…I just saw a typo. My bad! I’m excited to see how God continues to use you! 🙂
Liz Dyer
Julie, you have always impressed me as someone who tries to remain open to learning and growing … and you have always strived to put flesh and bones on your theology – those two things together are invaluable for those of us who seek to know God and his ways. I’m excited to continue to read about your journey and I appreciate you sharing Eugene Rodgers words about marriage.
I’ve been on my own journey and have been working on getting it written out in a concise manner so I can share it with others. Not so much to convince someone but because I believe there is power and healing in sharing our stories.
Here is a short version of my own journey that I shared with a small group at a local church this past Sunday. I am a big believer that sharing our own stories is very powerful and the absolute best way to connect with others when engaging about this issue. The group was mixed – some were affirming and some were not. The church itself is not affirming but are having a lot of “conversations” and the reception and response was very positive.
“When my son came out he told me he had come to the conclusion that the bible did not condemn loving, committed same sex relationships. I fully expected to be able to prove him wrong.
My goal wasn’t to prove him wrong but as a loving Christian mother I was compelled to “know” as much as I could so I could guide, advise, pray, model the right thing for him.
I was accustomed to “studying” scripture as I taught women’s bible studies for years. I knew what it meant to dig into original language and consider the historical context of the verses I was studying.
So, as I dug into scripture I was shocked to find that my son was right … there was no clear condemnation of the kind of same sex relationship that my son was talking about. None of the “clobber” verses were speaking about a loving, monogamous, healthy same sex relationship.
In light of insufficient evidence in scripture I had to ask myself what to do.
How should I respond to something if scripture doesn’t clearly condemn it?
The only thing I could think is that I needed to know if there was any evidence that it was hurting others. I couldn’t find that evidence either – in fact, the evidence was that healthy same sex relationships had the same healthy effect on individuals and society that opposite sex relationships have.
When I was going through all of this study, research and thought Micah 6:8 became a focal point for me:
“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good;
and what doth the Lord require of thee,
but to do justly, and to love mercy,
and to walk humbly with thy God?”
It was one of those verses that I just kept being drawn back to and became one of those verses that ended up being “written on my heart”
Everything combined led me to this:
If scripture doesn’t clearly condemn it and there is no evidence that it is harmful to anyone it would be unjust for me to condemn it and I know how God feels about injustice.
Shortly after I realized it was unjust to condemn same sex relationships due to insufficient evidence I also began to understand that good theology should result in good psychology (good fruit).
I knew that scripture says that we (followers of Christ) will be known by our good fruit.
I knew the good news should produce life giving fruit.
If my theology was producing depression, hopelessness, self-loathing and suicide I had to come to grips with the reality that my theology must be wrong.
As I pondered the “good theology = good psychology” principle and began to connect with a lot of Christian lgbt people I began to see a pattern … when lgbt people were connected to non-affirming faith communities they were typically very broken, desperate, hopeless, unhappy people and many times they were living out their brokenness in self destructive ways – but when they were connected to affirming faith communities they typically were a lot healthier and living much healthier lives. The evidence was clear and convicting.
I had to let go of the theology that was producing death (emotional death, spiritual death, relational death, physical death) and embrace theology that was producing healthy ideas, healthy choices, healthy living .. theology that was producing health, wholeness and life.
I share all of this with the hope that it might be helpful to anyone who is still working these things out because I believe our peace and assurance about these things will help our friends and family members who are LGBT to be at peace with themselves and, as a result, empower them to develop into healthy and whole human beings who can live into the person they were created to be.”
PS Julie, next time you are in the Dallas Fort Worth area I would love to see you and tell you what has been going on in my private Facebook group for Christian moms of lgbt kids. We have more than 900 members now and the things the moms are doing to change the world are amazing.
If you know anyone who wants more info about the private Facebook group for moms of LGBT kids they can email me at lizdyer55@gmail.com
BD
I’m glad you love your son.
However, the idea that homosexuality is acceptable in any form in any Abrahamic religion seems absurd. Just like the idea that premarital sex is acceptable in any Abrahamic religion is absurd.
I’ve no eggs in any Abrahamic religion’s basket. I just think people need to be factual about what their holy books say and don’t say, and whether or not they believe in literal meanings of the scriptures/verses/whatevers. That said, if I had to choose one of the 3 Abrahamic religions, I’d absolutely choose Christianity over Judaism and Islam – Jesus didn’t kill people.
Rachel Pinto
Rejoicing with you and lifting you up in prayer. If you’re ever in Little Rock, AR, please allow my wife and I to extend hospitality to you. Grace and peace.
Celeste DiFlaviano
Wow! Thanks for your post and your honest look at this. I have had a similar journey. Keep doing what you are doing because we need to stop condemning people even before they get into church. We all need Jesus period. We need his grace and He alone can save us. I was very blessed by your article and also by what Liz had to say.
Christine Callan
I hope that you will extend the same grace you extend to others, to yourself. You deserve to be happy and enjoy love!
Christine Callan
LIZ DYER, I applaud you. You are spirit filled and you have spoken much truth here! It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Equally, God is love. How are we as humans to fully know God, if we aren’t fully willing to receive what God has given us! It was never God’s intent to leave us alone. And God created us in relationship, for relationship. Your son is lucky to have you as a mom! What a gift! I can only hope that more parents like you will extend the unconditional love that Jesus showed us when he gave his life for us. We must be willing to extend completeness and wholeness to all of our brothers and sisters. God doesn’t show favoritism either. It isn’t as if God would say “to the heterosexual, you get love. To the homosexual, you will not.” No, God doesn’t work that way. Anyway, now I am rambling. Shalom, to each of you! And if you are ever in the Durham area, I would love to say hello. christine.callan@duke.edu.
Faith fraser
I total get this but where is your scripture to back up any of it.?
Jocelyn Newton
I find your question interesting, Faith. And on some level, it is to the very point. Had Julie written this post from a heterosexual perspective, I am guessing that you would not have requested scripture to back up any of it. Since it is from the LGBTQ perspective, you ask for scripture. Here’s the thing: There is no one specific scripture or set of scriptures for same-sex marital relationships. The closest I believe you are going to find is: Galatians 3:25-28 — “But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” And we are also told in Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” This is what FatherGod gave to me in my request to Him why the gay loving relationship issue is not addressed in Scripture. As I am learning more and more about what these “issues” are, it is very obvious to me that it is people -fellow human beings- who have the “issues,” not God. This stuff doesn’t take Him by surprise. He didn’t create mistakes. He’s not all in a quandary as to why and because so many of His Children are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender, queer/questioning, etc. A lot of the claims made (particularly by evangelical Christians) are founded upon Scriptures which do not address homosexuals or heterosexuals in a loving relationship. Those verses address lust, preying upon the defenseless, and people giving up God.
Brian
If you are going to make a Biblical case for anything, then it follows that Scriptural support is required. Right?
The bible talks often about homosexual practice (I’m specifically not talking about SSA, but SS practice). No where does the Scripture support this practice. People often say Jesus didn’t approach the subject. Perhaps not directly but Jesus did define marriage. Jesus, when asked about divorce in Matthew 19 tells us what marriage is when He quotes Genesis 1 and 2… “have you not read that God made them male and female, THEREFORE man shall leave father and mother, hold fast to his wife and the TWO shall become ONE flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-5)
Jesus says God’s plan for marriage and sex was clearly revealed from the beginning. Marriage and its design was pre-Fall and Paul says God clearly reveals through natural revelation (how we are made) his plans for sex. Now, sin has skewed everything and it follows that sex and marriage has been skewed by sin.
I know many gay couples and have counseled many gay men. What I want to tell them is that they can do what they want. That marriage will make them happy and complete.. That sex and its practice are issues of identity and for them to be fully who they are they should be able to practice sex with a same-sex partner if they want. But, it isn’t about what I want. God through natural revelation, through His inspired word and even through His own mouth as Jesus declared His plan for marriage. Besides, is anyone going to make a claim that marriage completes you? That marriage and sex will solve your love problems? Talk to the countless heterosexual couples that can’t stand each other and realize that love is much more than sex and marriage. If love is truly not complete until it become erotic than Jesus wasn’t a whole person. Neither Paul or the hundreds of thousands of people who have given their lives to celibacy in service of the Lord. If sex and marriage are crucial to identity then we have lots of humans running around out there who aren’t fully human.
As a heterosexual man I’m not immune to sexual sin and my sexual sin is just as condemned as homosexual sin. We all sin…and yet, we must call sin what it is. Sin. We are called to confess, repent and turn from our own desires/attractions/wills and take up our crosses (crucify self) and follow Him. Easy? No. Possible? Yes, but only with the Holy Spirit.
Written from a heart of love, grace, and I pray, humility.
Kory
Hello.
Not sure if you’ll ever read this but here are some things to consider:
Matthew 19:4-5 – We should also include verse 3 where the Pharisees asked if it was lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause? Context is important when reading scripture. To me, this passage is “literally” about divorce of a marriage between a man and woman. Not a question about who can and cannot be married.
I believe your response is primarily “interpretive” and not solely based upon what is literally being said and the context (situational and cultural) it was said in.
It is important to at least “acknowledge” that what we (ourselves and the the Capital C church) say is “truth directly from the bible” is often based upon our individual interpretations and not so much a revelation or even conviction from the Holy Spirit.
I also believe it is important to acknowledge that there is a difference between “conviction” and an “emotional reaction.” Often times we are “triggered” by scripture not because it’s God but because it conflicts with a personal feeling or belief or fear, etc.
For example: Verse 9: Jesus says “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” – However, if we knew of someone in an physically abusive marriage we would actually encourage that couple to remain together? Most Christians may say no. This doesn’t mean Jesus was wrong. It means there is more to what is on God’s heart than a response given in a specific situation and context.
We must also define terms when dealing with biblical interpretation. Paul uses the term natural a lot. In 1 Cor 11:14 he references nature saying “does not nature itself teach you that if man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair it is her glory?” – We often justify our disagreement with the literally interpretation of this by saying it is not “sin” or you have to look at the “cultural context” – both things we should be doing with all scripture. What was meant by natural was different than our modern way of thinking. Even things like sexual positions other than missionary, during intercourse, and anal sex have been considered “unnatural.” Just something to think about.
As for scriptural support, I agree. I think some type of scriptural support is better than none. Again, back to Matthew 19:11-12 Jesus speaks about Eunuchs. Although Traditionalist often point to this as Jesus’ call of celibacy, when looking into what eunuchs actually were and exploring other writings giving more insight, you find that there were in fact writings indicating “natural born eunuchs” who were believed to no have desires for women (and vice versa). And Jesus saying there are some who have been made eunuchs by man literally doesn’t make sense when considering celibacy, rather castration.
It is true, sin is sin and with the holy spirit we can overcome. In light of this issue, a simple difference is that a heterosexual’s desire for the opposite sex is not a sin. Lust is the sin. The redemptive or correct way to act on the desire is in covenant of marriage (at least traditionally believed). However, someone who is gay or lesbian never having had desire for the opposite sex (affectional, sexual, etc) is in a position where they do not have an ability to act on their desire in what is said to be the correct way. A heterosexuals struggle with lust doesn’t stop them from experiencing marriage, but an LGBT person’s lust does (traditionally speaking). Also, I agree, marriage does not make you complete. But I also don’t believe most people are getting married to be complete (even if they say they feel complete by having their spouse). At the root of it I believe there is an innate desire for companionship given by God, unless they have the “gift” of celibacy. Otherwise I think celibacy would be much more popular, especially among pastors seeing as they are in a position of serving God in one of the more obvious and traditional ways.
Another example. Speaking is not a sin. Lying is. Speaking the truth is the correct way to act on the good desire to speak. Someone who is gay or lesbian is, in this example, as someone who has a desire to speak but is only capable of lying. So then the prescription from the traditionalist church is to either believe God will change the way you speak OR commit to not speaking at all (celibacy). I am using the example of saying man was made for woman and vice versa. Any desire other than this would be “distorted and incorrect.” Since most (I say this since I don’t know every human being to ever exist) LGBT people claim to have had such attractions and disposition since being a child, it is not very fair nor does it make sense (in my opinion) to simply blame general sinful brokenness for those desires, or mommy or daddy issues or sexual abuse since not all people experience those things. And in light of Jesus saying there are Eunuchs who have been so from birth, I think there is more to look into.
There’s more that could be said about what the bible may say or not say. I bring these things up because as someone who is bisexual and Christian and wrestling, praying and fasting on this issue, it is important to recognize certain aspects of scripture that we (the church) traditionally like to omit, bend, make convenient or interpret beyond what is actually there. This only makes it more confusing and can hinder growth of those who are dealing with such things on a personal level.
Hope this is good food for thought and helps with your counseling of others.
Daniel
Summary:
In response to JOCELYN NEWTON’s comment concerning there is no male or female, there are several things you are missing, and you have to realize if the same author keeps contradicting himself by saying one thing one place and some else in another, that makes him either mad or unreliable. However, judging from all events that this writer has addressed concerning the law, the subject of same sex relationships was not the main issue, but differences on how women were treated with regard to holding positions, covering their heads, abandonment after divorce, stoned in adultery and multiple factors relating to inferiority as a person. If the author is consistent in how he addresses the subject of homosexuality, then you have to understand that this is not an isolated text referring to licensing homosexuality, but freedom through baptism for the various groups mentioned that were subject to the law. This is why it sates there is no bond or free, Jew or Greek, man and woman (Christian community bible CC pastoral text) relating to the freedom they did not have under the law.
Facts:
If I may point you in the right direction, take the time to read from verse 19 to where you suggest at Galatians verse 25. You will see that the author is speaking with respect to the law. For example, verse 19 states, “Why then the law? It was added with sin in mind; it was something added; that it was only valid until the descendant to who the promise was addressed should come; and it was put into effect by the angels with Moses as a mediator between them; if it were given by God himself, he is one”.
Now I want you to pay special attention to the verse that’s coming,
“21. Does the law then complete the promise of God? Not at all. Only if we had been given a law capable of raising life, could righteousness be the fruit of the law. But the written law actually closed out every view point, other than that of sin. So believers receive the promise as the fruit of Christian faith. ”
The author is also saying, only if there was a law capable of raising life would the law complete the promise of God. The ‘law actually closed out on every view point’, means, women did not have an opinion. To further explain that, you’ll notice in verse 23 leading up to the text you referenced concerning man and woman, it says,
“Before the time of faith had come, the Law confined us and kept us in custody until the time in which faith would show up”
This text is two verses above your quote, clearly demonstrating what the subject of ‘man and woman’ and other inclusive groups relate to. You’ll see further down that your baptism relates to giving you that freedom, as it states in verse 27.
“All of you who were given to Christ through baptism, have put on Christ. Here there is no difference between Jew or Greek….man and woman”.
This is clearly making comparisons between what these various groups had under the law and what they now have through baptism. This really has nothing to do with same sex marriage, it all relates to the differences they were experiencing concerning the transformation from the law to the new covenant they were receiving . If you take in isolation just a few lines of text without reading prior to the text, you can definitely be misguided and may end up applying it to things you’re craving for, because you mind is already pretext on what it believes. But if you listen to what the teachers and founders have been teaching you concerning homosexuality, and that in these latter times men will come and change your teaching, you will approach your reading with the correct mindset.
However, I also want to remind you of the fact that the bible of your religious faith teaches you that the freedom you believe in is not a license to commit the act of sin. If you focus on the word sin, this freedom does not exempt you from these actions, but only from the law .
Concerning the scripture about the resurrection and becoming angels, are you suggesting this text tells you to have homosexual/bisexual relationships. I’m not quite clear as to whether you’re saying the spiritual state in that transformation where gender no longer exist is right now. I’m confused. However, what I can tell you is this, the promise given to the faithful is that they would be like God, and that pertains to his state of existence.
Sophia
Oh thank you for this. Mine is a similar journey. I’ve only recently begun to come out to myself as gender dysphoric and the road ahead is so unsure. Thank you for your voice in the conversation. I really do hope that Christians can talk with each other instead of past one another…
Amelia Markham
Fly, Bb, Fly.