Recently I stumbled upon this video on Facebook and felt compelled to share it with you along with a few of my thoughts. Please take a moment to watch it, it’s under twenty minutes – you’ve got the time 🙂
After you’ve finished watching you can read my thoughts below and then let me know what you think in the comments section – I look forward to hearing your feedback!
First of all, I loved this. Julie was open and honest – she didn’t try to sugar coat it or give any easy answers. She was incredibly gracious, even when looking back at years of her life spent in a ministry that she no longer agrees with. She acknowledged her very real desires, frustrations, struggles, doubts, and conclusions.
And, most importantly, she offered hope and a fresh perspective.
Okay, on to a few minor quibbles. I raise these minor points precisely because Julie herself states that, “There just hadn’t been many people thinking about this with very much nuance.” and I agree. Hopefully I can add a couple of other nuanced points to the conversation.
First and foremost I think we need to steer clear of defining human beings by their sexual orientation. Julie rather interchangeably refers to herself either as gay or as same sex attracted. I think that a distinction should be made. Human beings are not fundamentally straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or any other label we would use based on sexual orientation. You don’t have to be a Christian to agree with me on this; consider the quote from Gore Vidal below:
“Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives describing sexual acts, not people.”
And he’s right – sex is something we do, not something we are. The Scriptures give us a window into who and what we are in the very first chapter of the very first book of the bible.
God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.1
We are human. We are created in God’s image. We are male and female. We are not defined by our sexual acts. I think that Julie would agree with me on this – after all, choosing not to engage in sex doesn’t mean that you’re not a person! Again, this a minor quibble, but one worth noting. We need to stop having a conversation that is defined by what we do instead of by who we are. I’ve written much more extensively on this in another post: Homosexual, Heterosexual, or Just Plain Human? that may shed further light on the subject.
Implicit in Julie’s experience (and those of her friends) is the idea that ones sexual orientation is a genetically predetermined fact and not the result of, “childhood baggage”, psychological issues, environment, abuse, etc. It is clear that she comes down on the nature side in the nature vs. nurture debate. 🙂
There is nothing wrong with holding this as your opinion, and it may indeed be very true to her personal experience; but again in the interest of nuance, I would like to suggest that the truth may be far more complex than an “either/or” answer. When looking at individuals with same sex attractions as a whole, I think that many different factors would come into play including (and not limited to) all the ones listed above. There are many individuals who have emphatically asserted that they chose a gay lifestyle – i.e. that they weren’t just born that way.
Either way, it’s not the point of her talk and it really is a minor quibble on my part, but I do think that we have to be nuanced and careful, and not just slip into discussing all individuals as if they were the result of the same internal/external forces.
The other reason I wanted to bring up this second quibble is to note that there are really two basic assertions that come into conflict in Julie’s story.
- Assertion one is that she was born this way and cannot change. I want to be clear that I’m not denying this assertion. I also want to be clear that just because this has been her experience, it doesn’t follow that the same is true for everyone who has ever struggled with some aspect of same sex attraction.
- Assertion two is the perceived assertion of many churches that marriage is the primary goal for all “normal” human relationships.
You can see the obvious conflict between these two. How refreshing is it to hear a Christian state unambiguously, “I knew that…my starting point was that I loved Jesus with all my heart. And that I was going to follow Him no matter what. I knew that everything about my life was here to glorify and honor God.” ? I wish that all of us as Christians approached our walk with Christ with the same attitude. Following Him comes first. Obedience comes first. Sacrifice is just part of it. No excuses – no whining.
But there was still a conflict between the two assertions. I was born this way and cannot change – therefore I cannot fulfill the primary goal of human relationships, namely marriage. Julie puts it this way, “The gospel of Jesus for me had really been married to [sexual] orientation change…and heterosexual marriage.”
Again, to her credit, she doesn’t buy into revisionist theology. Scripture is actually pretty clear. Sex is a good and beautiful thing within the constraints of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. And that’s all He wrote.
“There’s been this story that was told about love and about belonging, that was primarily found within the context of a marriage, within the context of sexual relationship in a marriage.”
Julie correctly recognizes that two things are being conflated here. Sexual intimacy and marriage are being conflated with love and intimacy of a platonic nature. You can be celibate and still love and be loved deeply. You can be celibate and still experience intimate relationships. Just look at Jesus! Would anyone argue that this was a man devoid of deep loving relationships? Devoid of deep personal intimacy? Of course not.
In fact, when the disciples assert that it is perhaps not expedient to marry, Jesus replies saying, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”2
St. Paul is perhaps even clearer writing,
I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.3
Debunking False Assertions
Let’s leave the first assertion alone for now, and just agree that sexual orientation may be more nuanced than simply whether or not someone is, “born that way.” The second perceived assertion – marriage is the primary goal for “normal” human relationships – is an interesting one for me. I would agree with Julie that this was very much my experience growing up in Protestant Christianity. Since becoming Catholic however, I have been exposed to a Christian tradition far more in keeping with the teaching of Christ and of St. Paul. A tradition which asserts that marriage, sexual intimacy, and procreation are all good things, but perhaps not the best thing. That in certain aspects, and for certain people, celibacy is far better. Catholic history is literally littered with saints who were virgins – celibate and consecrated for the Lord’s work. Priests, nuns, monks, ascetics, and even laymen and women who had forgone one form of intimacy for another which they found to be far deeper, richer, and more rewarding.
We forget that marriage to another person is only one of the options which we see expressed in the Scriptures. That marriage between a man and a woman is itself only a dim reflection of the marriage that takes place between Christ and His Church. That we are all called to the vocation of marriage with our Lord – even if we are not called to take a spouse here on earth.
I wholeheartedly agree with Julie’s conclusions and with her call to, “costly obedience” regardless of her sexual orientation. We are all called to be chaste regardless of our sexual orientation. We are all called to intentional discipleship and costly obedience regardless of our sexual orientation. And for many the call to celibacy is a higher call – regardless of sexual orientation.
Celibacy is not settling for less, but rather denying yourself for the sake of something more! Costly obedience should be the norm in every Christians life, and it should be done within the context of community! Celibacy is, for some of us, a form of costly obedience; but we should all have areas in our life where Christ is calling us to costly obedience. It will look different for all of us, but the call is the same. “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”4 We are all in this together. We are all a part of Christ’s bride. And we need each other desperately on this long journey in the same direction.
“We can live without sex ya’ll, but we can’t live without intimacy.”
Also check out our latest podcasts!
Subscribe to Blog via Email
For more Quick Takes, visit This Ain’t the Lyceum!