Dear Gay/Christian Part 1
Dear Gay/Christian,
This letter is, first of all, not an attack on those who call themselves Gay but on those who claim Christianity as well as the former. There have been many denominations of the church that have insisted that same sex relationships can be inside the church and a part of the mission of the gospel. This is false because those who have not first laid down their individuality can not pick up the mission the Lord has instructed in the book of Acts, as well. Please understand that the words here are direct, but are written in love. I love people, and I seek a deeper understanding of all walks of life, but my highest calling is to keep everything in the context of the cross.
This letter takes a look at ideas that I have slowly put together over the last decade, which I have written down for you, the reader, to understand my stance on this issue. We look at this situation from three angles: Philosophical, Theological, and a Culturally Coherent context. From which, many questions arise in the implications of what it would mean for someone to claim both the identity of being Gay and Christian, where they are not parallel concepts but perpendicular lifestyles.
Philosophical
In the understanding of the debate of being both Gay and a Christian, we look at it from a philosophical perspective, and many questions immediately arise. What is the end goal of each, and are they compatible? What is a child in both contexts? And subsequently, where is meaning found?
If we view the question of what the end goal of each is and whether they are compatible, we find some insight. Many claim that Love is Love, and in a general inference, they are right. However, when you take apart the meaning that is implied, I have to assume they are insinuating that infatuation/lust is love, which does not compliment christiatnity at all.
On the contrary, this is not to say that many gay individuals and couples have not arisen in the world. That they don’t have intimacy and monogamy. They do, and they enjoy the fruits of their revelry. No, I am talking about the end goal, or the telos of an identity. Telos can be defined as: “(τέλος) an ancient Greek term meaning 'end,’ ‘purpose,’ ‘goal,’ or ‘fulfillment’. In philosophy, particularly Aristotelian thought, it refers to the ultimate purpose, inherent aim, or highest potential of a person, object, or action” (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2002).
In the context of Christianity, which can be debated, the telos is Love, but this is the fulfillment of the gospel through the work of Jesus Christ, in which we join together to accomplish the mission of the Church, making disciples among the nations. Even further, this is not the ultimate end of Christianity because the telos is this: Jesus gave his life to pay for our way to heaven, the reunion of the people of God with God himself, the salvation of all who believe. In the context of a gay person, we have this telos that arises as a means of satisfaction of desire, to satiate a longing. Many have called this longing a need, but that goes too far because a person could live an entire life and not experience sex, and they would have still lived perfectly fine. That's not to infer celibacy, but that celibacy exists to discredit the idea that sex itself is a need when, in fact, it is a desire. So, what would be the ultimate goal of a gay person's life, as an identifier, would be to be in a gay relationship. At first, they seem compatible, but as we unpack and go deeper into the implications of a gay life, we find more controversy.
When we are talking about relationships and sex, we must talk about children. It could be reasoned that children are the embodiment of the telos of intimacy. They are the embodiment of the love of two individuals who have connected on the most basic possible level, the atomic. A child is a ‘who’ because they came from people who themselves have agency and reason. The question is “What is a child?” In one context, a child is the embodiment of love, while in the other, a child is the satiation of another desire.
When we look at marriage and relationship we are only going to cover the basic two-sided coin, homosexual relations, and heterosexual relations. Truthfully, I am holding back a bit for the next focus because this is a pretty large discrepancy in viewpoints that point to something profound in a theological context, but homosexual and heterosexual relationships have a different view of this, especially within the bounds of marriage. Marriage is not a relationship in name alone. It is a lasting agreement of monogamy and love between two people.
Within this framework, there is only one way in which a child can occur naturally without any form of intervention or breaking of that monogomy whether voluntarily or otherwise. For a gay person to have children, they must go outside of the covenant to acquire them, rather than nature taking its course. This points to an alarming realization. Within gay relationships, children do not occur so much as they are wanted. We live in a world where we have the choice to have children or not. I fear this has framed children to be a burden rather than the blessing they really are. People see them as holding them back from something, but they are the greatest thing we could hope for in a future when they are loved, taught, and raised in righteousness. Children are the future, so in the larger picture, they are a ‘need’, a ‘need’ for continued survival as a people.
Philosophers have long thought about meaning and where it comes from. We have the final question when looking at this debate from a philosophical perspective. Where is meaning found? In the context of Christianity, we find that meaning is derived, whereas in the context of a gay individual, meaning is created. It could be reasoned that even in the context of a gay person, meaning is derived because it is based on the habit of thought and “lust of the same sex” toward the ends of intimacy and companionship. However, this is the main question: “From where is the identity based? Is it what’s inside or what’s outside the body?” Is it fantasy or is it reality? And this is where we find the greatest incompatibility between the two views. Christianity is based on Christ; Homosexuality is based on personal fantasy. One lives in the reality of the world (Christianity), where the other lives in the fantasy and the comforts of the modern era (A Gay person).
There are reasons, other than hatred, that homosexuality has never gained any form of lasting dominion in the world throughout history. This is because it is not natural. It goes against the very nature of the world in which life comes and births itself. For something to be a part of reality, it must be tested, tried, and not fail. It must derive its meaning from outside the entity in question. From the philosophical angle, I see too great a chasm between the ideology of a gay person and a Christian for someone to be both. Next week we will see this debate unfold from a Theological context as we tackle it again. Thanks for reading….