mclaren thought #4.2 on homosexuality
This is a schema that McLaren drew for us today - revealing some of the complexity of the homosexuality issue. He suggests that there are many causes and degrees of homosexuality and that for many - maybe most, we should interact with dysfunction and move them into committed heterosexual relationships. Some, with a low sex drive could be led to celibacy.
However, for those who are very homosexual and have high sexual drive, what it best?
More dysfuction through promiscuity?
The question is posed, if it is possible that not so much was known about homosexuality at the time, for Paul to have made an exception for committed relationships, it would be the same sort of non-sensical statement as if Jesus had encountered a "demon" possessed person and said, "Well maybe it's OCD or Bi-Polar."
So today, with our knowledge, we might be able to look at this section of homosexuals and love them the same way we love people with OCD - which is a soley biological disorder. For OCD patients, we give them what is available - pharmisuticacls and counseling. For a sexually charged homosexual, could - and I'm not saying it's right - nor am I denying the complexity of it - could it be possible that love would be taking this group of people and giving them committed realtionships filtering out some of the sin that promiscuity and sexual dysfunction bring?
Please discuss this.
6 comments:
concerning the homosexual marriage piece...i'm not a big fan of brian's conception. when considering this issue we have to remember that while paul and one of the authors of the pentateuch wrote about homosexuality, their perspective was shaped by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. if that is our operating assumption, we cannot merely write off their condemnations by saying they are contextually determined. God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the pen of his prophets, provided us with a basic schema for healthy human relationships. i think we ignore that to our peril.
i realize that this opens up ten other cans of worms, but that's all i'm going to say for now.
Yeah...personally, i'm pretty much with you...but how about the way mclaren talked about it, i could see myself maybe -not suggesting a committed relationship between homosexuals - but seeing someone in that circle entering into a committed relationship and maybe - this is stretching for me too - maybe rejoice with him or her in that decision the same way i rejoice with ocean when he says motoRmichael rather than moto-michael, (ocean being my friend's two year old), but i still long and hope for him to be able to say motor cycle.
does that make sense?
hmmm...insofar as a committed, monagamous relationship would probably be less damaging to a person than promiscuity i would see it as desirable. but i would still question whether a deeper, more trustworthy commitment to a distorted form of relationship would bring about the quality of life that Jesus offers.
IMHO this is one area where a "new perspective" is not necessarily called for. however, for much of evangelicalism, i would say that a new approach (i.e., a more humble, loving one) to this issue is neccessary.
exactly what mclaren was talking about was just understanding different views andappreciating that they often make a lot of sense and that oposing views are many times born out of the same desire: to be faithful to Jesus.
so....i sat in a class about that for a week and still find myself unable to just sit in a place of inquiry and have to say that i agree that there doesn't need to be a new view...just a new view of views maybe - a genrous, appreciative understanding of why and how the other views exist.
does that make sense?
that makes sense. thanks for the clarification.
i don't mean to come off as militant about this matter, by the way. i'm just trying to stumble forward through this issue.
yeah and i don't mean to come of as a waffeling liberal. luckily i know you and you know me, so neither conception is possible!
love and peace
Post a Comment