21 posts tagged “homosexuality”

I believe in my last post I mentioned how I was bored and at home. Well, I'm not really either anymore! I decided to take a few days and head back down to my college's town to visit all my friends who live here in the summer. Man, I love this town, and also the fact that I have high speed Internet down here! Yay! So I figure that since right now the friend I'm staying with is asleep (and probably will be till noon or so) I should go ahead and blog. So with that, here goes.

It's really interesting, and a little sad, to hear some conservative Christian commentary on the recent decision by the California Supreme Court remove the ban on same-sex marriages. Now, in general, I have to say I disagree with the court's decision. Even taking personal opinions out of the mix here, I feel there was little legal basis for their decision and it went against the will of the people of the state of California... not to mention that their decision to allow same-sex marriage, but not allow plural marriage, sounds more like a "because we say so" than anything else. There didn't seem to be any logical sense to how they could remove one of the prerequisites for marriage (opposite genders) but not another (two people), and they didn't take time to bridge that logical gap. They just said so. I'm not usually a fan of the slippery slope argument, but let's face it, the court left themselves pretty wide open here.

But anyway, that's not the point of the post anyway, so before any of you decide to throw chairs at me, hear me out (especially if they are nice chairs). I have been increasingly saddened by the seeming inability of many Christian commentators to talk about this issue with grace or concern for homosexuals. I think one podcast by James White brought it home for me. Yes, there were plenty of good points made about the sinfulness of the sins involved, and the missteps that the court took in order to reach its decision. But still, I'm just frustrated... is there no way to talk about those things without having to resort to idiotic statements? I can't tell you how many faulty statistics and assertions I've heard around the Internet (i.e. "gays don't want marriage," "they have multiple partners a month," etc.) And don't get me started on broad, over-reaching, and unflattering (not to mention largely untrue) statements like "gays are selfish" or "gays are trying to destroy America." Seriously, it just blows my mind that Christians are still talking like that. It makes the ignorant hiccups (like references to "deciding to be a homosexual") really pale in comparison (though they are no less annoying, I've found).

Is it really too hard to imagine that commentating on things like same-sex marriage might actually be a good opportunity to reach out to homosexuals? I mean, the two just seem to go hand-in-hand to me, because Lord only knows how many gay men and women read and/or listen to these commentaries. But how can you reach out to a group if you lie about them, and just assume that the worst statistic you've read about them is true? How can you reach out to a group if you haven't taken any time to know where that group has come from? Choosing to have homosexual sex is one thing, but no one decides to be a homosexual, and hearing that little nugget is enough to turn people off (even people like me, who are conservative), because it shows that we're just not being listened to. I mean, it really makes me wonder if they actually care. I can't think of any other sin (short of murder, perhaps) that so many Christians just don't seem to be able to be gracious about.

It's especially sad when a lot of this commentary is coming from writers, like James White, that I really respect and who are usually a breath of fresh air in terms of their thoughtfulness and intelligence (especially when compared to other Evangelical commentators). I was at least hoping for some effort to reach out to homosexuals in that podcast, but nope, nothing. Even if the effort had been wrapped in bad, NARTH-style jargon it would be better than nothing. It would at least show that they, you know, care about us. It's frustrating, I guess, but it also makes me reflect and wonder if there are any sins or struggles that I am callous about. Is there any group that I am unsympathetic to? Are there any people whose actions I rightly know as sin but who I nevertheless fail to reach out to out of my own prejudices? I can't be a total victim here, because usually the things we dislike in others are mirrored in ourselves. If I can see what doesn't help when witnessing to homosexuals, maybe I can use those things to see what doesn't help when witnessing to others.

Christ's peace to you,
Jay

As some of you already may know, Hitch and I ended our relationship the other day. It was just shy of six-months long (and trust me, that feels weird, because I didn't know time could move by so quickly!) The details of the break-up aren't really important. The good thing to know is that it went smoothly and it was (more or less) a mutual decision. I knew for a long time (possibly since from the beginning) that the relationship wouldn't last through the end of the year, and I certainly knew that it was a temporary matter.

I had some time to process some emotions before we were officially broken up, and that was good for me. I know a lot of people didn't see a point to our relationship. It was temporary, we both had two different opinions about Godly sexuality, and on those terms we really couldn't work together no matter how well we got along. We did get along well, though. In six months, I can't imagine one time we had an argument. I always wanted to see him when I saw him, and I think the same worked in reverse. I can't think of a single moment where being with him didn't comfort me and bring a smile to my face. In his own words, we had a perfect relationship. It was just doomed. That didn't stop us from enjoying it while it lasted.

Though there were many mistakes and moments of weakness in the context of the relationship (I've written about them before), I can't say that I totally regret it. I really don't. I certainly regret any sins that I committed during the relationship (just like I regret the many sins that I commit daily, from unkindness to laziness), but I also got some Christward things out of it. Hitch taught me that I can be loved and wanted. He helped boost my self-confidence (as any good friend should do), and also allowed me to be a little more emotionally close to someone and vulnerable for one. I usually put on a tough front because I want to seem perfectly okay for everyone. He allowed me to be a little more human, and I'm gonna take that lesson with me to my other friendships.

Also, I don't think I've prayed for another person as much as Hitch. He is a Christian, I know that now. I think (or hope) that being with me helped him strengthen relationship with God, even if he didn't come to the same conclusions about sexuality that I have. He's still going to Mass on Sundays, as far as I know. It's an amazing feeling to pray for someone else's relationship. I can only wish that Hitch eventually has the same relationship with God that I do.

So, the relationship helped me break out of my shell and strengthened my complete dependence on Christ. I had a lot of good memories and - even in the bad times - I think I pulled through okay. Still, it sucks for it to be over. It's a lot like grief. There's nothing I could do to stop it, I had come to terms with it long before the end came, and yet I still feel an amazing amount of hurt and loss. There are things about the relationship that I know I won't ever have again, even if Hitch and I remain friends (which I think we will, once we have time to cool down). For Hitch, he will eventually date again. I doubt I will, though. Men as patient and understanding as Hitch are hard to come by, and it requires one like that to have a relationship with me. Trust me. ;-)

Now I can focus on Christ more fully. I really am thankful for every second of the relationship and that it ended in a way that I can be proud of. I didn't compromise who I was or what Christ has done for me, and I was never asked to. Hitch and I parted with a deep hug and kisses on the cheek. Hopefully he'll still remain a part of my life and I can continue to support him as he grows in his own understanding of Christ, even if it is different from my own.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and prayers. I love you guys. :-)

Well, Thanksgiving Break was a nice time for me. I got to see my family, some friends, and eat a lot of good food. It really was a blessing to be around all the people I love, but that's not what this post is about, and I'm sure you guys know that.

Over break I found an opportunity to finally come out to my parents. I was nervous as heck about it and had to pray a lot beforehand. I also had some friends who knew I was about to go in for the kill and they prayed along with me. They know who they are, and if they're reading this, thanks again guys! You're a blessing.

I won't go into all the details, mainly because I'm sure a lot of the conversation (which lasted for four hours) is something that many of you have heard before. Yes, there was a bit of denial going on with my folks. Remember, they're in their mid-60s, and they're a little naive about what "gay" even means. They went from thinking that I simply was reacting against bad experiences with girls (experiences that I tried to stress were bad because I was gay), to thinking that I simply had not met the right girl, to thinking that I had been influenced or indoctrinated into thinking I was gay. I suppose those reactions happen even with the most liberal parents. I'll admit it hurt a bit, but other than that the tone of the conversation was pretty mild, like any of our other arguments about politics, religion, or philosophy.

I had started by telling my parents that I was celibate. Then I told them I was gay, then I told them about my boyfriend. It was probably a little too much to take in for one night, but I was just so excited to get things off my chest that I probably wasn't thinking too clearly. The good part is they understand and accept my celibacy. They also think that everyone is somewhat bisexual (remember, they're hippies), and that I'm too young to say I'm "one way or the other." I'll give them that, though I will say that some people are more bisexual than others. ;-)

At the very least, there was hugging and many repetitions of the phrase "I love you." There was even an unexpected high-five from my mom when I told her some of the compliments that Hitch has given me. I have a feeling high-fives don't happen often in coming out stories. The day after we went to church and visited my grandma and life went on like normal. I understand that everything takes time and eventually my parents will understand who I am a bit more. Right now they don't, but that's okay. They don't have to understand completely. In fact, it would be nearly impossible for them to understand completely. They are my parents, and they are there to love me. They still do, and they stressed that. I will always have a place in our family, no matter what. I'm so grateful for that. After all, home isn't the place where you are the most understood or even the most loved. It's the place where, if you have to go there, they have to take you in. I'm still fortunate to know that I have a home.

Also, now that my parents know of my sexual preferences they just might look at my Internet history. If they do, they might see this blog (and if you're reading this, hi guys!) So, if I go offline or something, you'll know why. I'm seriously not expecting that to happen, though. Do remember that I maintain two blogs with the exact same content, though. Happy trails!

Just a quick post before I head out to class. I knew I couldn't say "no" to the blog for too long. :)

I was looking at Warren Throckmorton's blog earlier this week and noticed his links to these pieces by both Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber. I've written about Barber before, and I don't much care for him. I don't know much about LaBarbera, but I doubt I'd be too much a fan of his, either. Both of the men seem to be so virulently opposed to homosexual people that any possible logical arguments they have are overshadowed by polemical statements and sheer ignorance of what it means to be gay (i.e. It's not about sex!)

However, I think there might be a reason behind their negativity that goes much farther simple adherence to Scripture. Here was a quote by Barber late in his piece that caught my attention:

"The sheer mechanics of homosexual conduct very naturally elicits revulsion in most rational folk."

That seems simple and unsurprising, but it got me thinking. For one, he pretty much implies that if you don't have "revulsion" towards gay sex, then you most likely aren't "rational." I guess that means he thinks if one is actually attracted (or maybe simply tempted) by gay sex, and certainly if one participates in it, then that person is inherently irrational. Seeing your opponents as inherently irrational is nothing new, and both sides of the political arena do it. However, I don't think it's really Christ-like. More than that, I don't think one should hold up their "knee-jerk" reaction to something as the starting point for their belief that it is wrong.

It's not hard to see something as wrong when you naturally are grossed-out by it. But to build a variety of political, Scriptural, and ethical arguments around that "knee-jerk" is irresponsible. I've happened to notice that pundits who admit to being repulsed by homosexuality tend not to be the most tempered or nuanced about the subject. Whereas people like the folks at Exodus -- like them or not -- do seem to guard their words a bit more, despite the fact that both groups disagree with homosexual behavior for the supposed same religious reasons.

Like I said, just a thought. I don't think we should disqualify folks with a "knee-jerk" reactions towards homosexuality from commenting on GLBT issues, but we don't need to be holding up those reactions as the basis for good political or religious argument. People, at best, need to be calm, cool, respectful, and objective. Maybe I'm just hoping for too much here. :)

Internet Stuff 011

I'm sure anyone who's a fan of Harry Potter has heard this story already, but allow me to offer my thoughts.  Recently, author J.K. Rowling revealed that the beloved Professor Dumbledore of her bestselling fantasy series was a homosexual.  Honestly, the woman isn't stupid, so I'm sure she knew this news would cause a bit of an uproar, even though she revealed it in a very casual manner.  And, I'm afraid to say, it has.

Unfortunately, this little revelation about a fictional character's sexuality has really made the two sides of the "culture war" more clear than ever.  Travis at the Sword of Gryffindor blog recently wrote an excellent analysis of the opposing sides (and he also called that the culture war should stop, to which I say "Here, here!")  I strongly suggest you read his post.  I also have my own little thoughts.

First, I don't understand all the Christians who are up in arms about Dumbledore being gay.  Reading many of their comments, you would think they had wanted any gay character to be overtly negative.  Of course, most of them probably would have been content without there being any gay character at all (and so would I).  But let's look at it this way.  Dumbledore is shown throughout the series as being an outstanding leader, role model, teacher, and overall moral person.  He values innocence, friendship, and most importantly, love.  Isn't it a good thing to have a gay character show those qualities?  I really do believe that a reason many gay men and women lead lives of depravity is because for years society has said that depravity is the only thing homosexuals are capable of.  Luckily, I have learned this to be untrue, and even though I think homosexual sex is outside of God's will, I'm fine with there being positive GLBT characters in fiction.

Second, for Bible-believing Christians who now think that the Harry Potter series is not redeemable, I would ask why homosexuality is any worse than the instances of lying, stealing, and other sins that occur in the series.  Travis from SoG was very correct in pointing out that many Christians see homosexuality as a sin above all sins, and it annoys him as much as it annoys me.

But even more than that, isn't this a wonderful opportunity for Christian parents to talk to their children about homosexuality?  Goodness knows there must be hundreds of gay kids in Christian households who could benefit from this.  By all means, despite his sexuality, Dumbledore still seems to live a Godly life.  He seems to have lived celibately, and he devoted his life to teaching and fighting the evil of Lord Voldemort.  In fact, I would argue that he's a great example of what homosexuals in the Church are called to be.  I know I'm certainly inspired by him.  :)

Did Rowling mean it that way?  Probably not.  However, characters are meant to take on a life of their own outside of their author.  Christian parents can reap a whole lot of good from this situation.  They can teach their children that gay people are not bound for Hell (or even earthly depravity) just because of their orientation.  In the off chance that their child is actually gay, they can start a wonderful dialogue.  But of course, I'm having the feeling that people really like dialogue a lot less than they say they do, and that's a real shame.

Okay, I wrote about this a year ago and nothing has really changed. I really am ready to come out to my parents. I'm out to pretty much everyone else I know and I'm loving it, because it's just nice not to have to pretend. It's nice to know that the people you care about know a bit about where you're coming from, and aren't assuming things about you that aren't true.

That being said, I had plenty of opportunities to tell my parents this weekend and I... just... couldn't... do... it. The words got stuck as they were about to pass from my lips, and if they had blurted out I probably would have had a heart attack. I really was that anxious about the whole thing. The worst part is I don't know why.

Like I said before, I am confident that my parents' reactions won't be that bad. I guess I'm just a little scared because my mind always seems to jump to the worst possible reaction. I know guys who didn't get the chance to come out. They were dragged out by parents who couldn't possibly accept the fact that their sons were gay, and who essentially kicked them out when they found out the truth. I am blessed to know that my folks won't even consider doing something like that, so what am I scared of?

I had a good opportunity this weekend. My dad and Mom were talking about parenting in general, and I overheard Dad say, "We may not always agree with what our kids do, but our job is to support them no matter what." I mean... seriously? What better chance did I have? I should have busted in there and said, "Well, looks like I'm in luck, Padre!"

But... nope... couldn't do it. Does anyone (gay, ex-gay, heck...even straight!) have any good advice? I mean, I know that I should wait for the right time, but even when the time is right I can't bring myself to pluck up the courage.

You know, there are two Internet addictions that I am glad I've gotten over. One is a pornography addiction that has been gone, praise God, for several months now. This blog, and the community that I have found through it, helped put it away for good. The other addiction is a little harder to overcome, and that is an addiction to the endless pundits, shock jocks, and other "warriors" of today's repellent "culture war." Does that sound strange? Let me elaborate.

I've talked before about how I like to go to the conservative website, Townhall, and debate other readers there (since I'm more of a moderate conservative and they're all pretty much fire-breathers). Well, let's just say that I used to like it. As one reader here predicted, I got tired of the debates very quickly, and eventually I realized that I was only going to Townhall to fuel anger, not to debate issues. It was "anger porn," in a way. I'd find the same articles by the same authors about the same topics, and then I'd use the same arguments against the same readers. It did not keep me in a Christ-like mindset, so I decided to give it a rest for a while. I still got the e-mail notifications for new articles, but I barely ever checked them. Recently, I did read one good article by Mike Adams, who I wrote about many months ago. I was so impressed that I actually e-mailed him myself, and I got a response back. He's actually a pretty nice guy, though I don't recant what I said about him earlier.

Well, the other day I gave in and checked the website to see if anything interesting had been written. Unfortunately, I found an extremely nasty piece by Matt Barber, of Concerned Women for America (go figure), and I was reminded of why I gave up reading these columnists in the first place. His column was called "'Gays' Don't Want 'Marriage' After All." Putting "gays" and "marriage" in quotation marks was what convinced me to check out the column further. If the title was that disrespectful, I was sure that there was plenty in there for me to get angry about. I definitely wasn't wrong.

The piece is so cliché that nothing in it is worth repeating. Barber uses the same tired arguments, lies, and manipulative language about gays and how destructive they are to society that it ends up reading like a caricature. He pushes every button that can be pushed, and ends up sounding less like a respected writer and more like Fred Phelps. Sure, he does make interesting claims concerning the numbers of gay unions taking place in regions that allow them. They are surprisingly low. However, if the value of marriage is to be determined my numbers, perhaps he needs to be worrying about the 50% divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples.

What gets my blood boiling about Barber's column (and articles like it), is the matter-of-fact tone in which everything is said. No facts are really presented to back up his claims. Gays "yearn for a society created in their own secular humanist image." I should tell all the folks at the Gay Christian Network, or for that matter, the guys at Gay Patriot. "The vast majority of homosexuals don't desire 'marriage.'" I should tell all my friends who love their boyfriends/girlfriends deeply and wish to spend the rest of their lives with them. The gay lifestyle is "disordered and empty, though demonstrably mutable." Demonstrably mutable? Is he kidding? I should tell Warren Throckmorton, DM, Willful Grace, and all the guys at XGW. It would save them all a lot of drama, I'm sure.

It goes on. "'Civil unions' are merely 'gay marriages' by another name." Oh, I get it. It's not enough to deny the wording. You need to deny the actual rights, too. I don't even think Ann Coulter would go that far. Oh, and I shouldn't leave out his claim that homosexuality is "scientifically and objectively proven to be destructive." That may be so, though usually one is expected to present the scientific and objective facts after such a statement. Unless, of course, the "facts" stem from universally-panned kooks like Paul Cameron (and methinks in this case they might), in which case you don't have to drop the name, right?

Ugh. I didn't even check the comments because I was angry enough already. It was probably righteous anger, but it was anger nonetheless. I'm giving it an outlet here. What bothers me is not that this stuff is being written, but that so many people read it and believe exactly what it says. If a gay kid reads an article like this, what is he going to think of himself? What will parents who believe this think of their gay children? Goodness, I'm scared enough to come out to my parents, and they're liberal! I can't imagine what it would be like to be gay and be the son or daughter of a person like Matt Barber.

Words have meaning. They have impact. They can hurt, or they can help. They can tear down, or they can build. The biggest flaw of this "culture war" is that it has turned neighbor against neighbor. There aren't guns or bombs involved, but the words being used can be just as deadly and just as contrary to the spirit of Christ. Both conservatives and liberals are guilty of it, and that's why I hate being in the middle. I hate hearing Christians called hateful bigots and I hate hearing gays called depraved perverts. Yeah, there are creeps and haters on both sides, and unfortunately they're usually the ones with the microphones and the loudest voices. I just hope that people can learn to look at the folks around them and make their own opinions instead of listening to agenda-driven politicians and pundits. In the meantime, I need to find the fine line between getting angry and standing up for what's right.

I am very sorry for how late this post is. I had intended to get it done last week, but it turned out that staff training at the summer camp I'm working at was way more intense than I thought it would be. I haven't had much time to myself, and though they do have wireless here, it is very, very slow.

Another reason this post is late is because I really wasn't sure what it should be on. When I started this series, it fit into three neat little categories: the calling, the life, and the church. They were all difficult to write about, because to tell you all about my beliefs regarding them, I had to do a lot of reflection and figure out exactly what I did believe. Even then, I was left with new questions and ideas. I hoped to address some of them in the comments, but since I'm at camp I really don't have time to reply to all the wonderful comments that people have left, even though I'd love to.

This post is about celibacy and how it relates to the church. It's the most difficult of the three topics to pin down, because the church is not a simple entity that has black and white opinions about all topics. It's a massive group of independent (and imperfect) individuals with diverse backgrounds and personality types. Naturally, reactions to and opinions about celibacy are going to vary from congregation to congregation, and even from person to person.

While some people will react strongly against a person actively choosing celibacy (since they see marriage and sex as a duty, not an option), others will openly respect and support those choosing this life. Catholics come to mind when I mention the latter, but they are not the only Christians who support celibate individuals. They just seem to have more of a defined stance on the issue.

That is not to say Evangelicals don't support celibacy. Like I said in the last post, we probably all know Christians who have active roles in their local churches and have never married. They may not have deliberately chosen celibacy, but nonetheless the fact that they are unmarried does not make them any less than the other members. Perhaps in some congregations it would, but like I said, the church is not a perfect cohesive group.

In regards to homosexuals like me who are choosing celibacy, the situation is a little different. Regular concerns about openness are thrown into the mix, and one has to wonder if a straight celibate individual is more accepted than a gay one. Personally, I have no idea. Many would say that sexual orientation shouldn't matter at all to someone pursuing celibacy, and to that I would agree. But one of the best parts about the church is that it should be a place where we can openly talk about our struggles, our feelings, our desires, and our temptations.

The key word in the there is "should," of course. By no means is the church perfect, and even people who don't struggle sexually can have a hard time bringing their concerns to a congregation, especially if that congregation is made of Christians who also don't share for fear of what the others might think. In my view, telling Christians about struggles I have maintaining chastity is no different than a married man telling about his struggles to maintain a healthy marriage.

It's important, I suppose, to remember that the church is made up of individuals, and I am a part of it. If I want ideas, attitudes, and opinions to shift, the best way to do it is to be as open about myself as possible. If I feel that God is leading me down this road, then I can feel confident in the fact that He won't lead me poorly. My life can be a living apologetic. Sure, some may doubt my intentions. They may think that I'm doing this simply because I'm afraid of what society thinks of homosexuality. On the other side of the spectrum, they might think that I'm doing it because I don't have enough faith that God can "change" my orientation. Neither is true. I don't care what society thinks, and I think God can do anything.

However, there is always the question of what He actually will do, and what He wants for each of our lives. If God wants me to marry a woman and start a family, then I'm sure He will make that happen. If not, then I will follow Him anyway. One of the biggest themes of the Bible is that obedience to God has never led anyone astray. For me, part of that obedience means celibacy. Some don't get it. The church may not get it. But God gets it, and I rejoice in that fact.

If you would like to share you experiences concerning celibacy and the church, please do so. If I have time to reply, I definitely will. Other than that, my first group of campers comes today, and I am very excited about working with them. Wish me luck, and God bless!

I think the reason that celibacy is a scary concept for most people is because we are all naturally social creatures. Sure, some of us are wallflowers and some of us are social butterflies, but despite the varying degrees, we all require social contact to keep us, well, intact. The desire for companionship is as natural to us as the desire for sex, and I don't think I'm stretching it when I say that it is the more important of the two.

Marriage is seen as the ultimate form of companionship, and indeed it is. Two people commit themselves to each other and vow to stay with each other for the rest of their lives, and together they raise a family and help build a community. Though I hate to sound like a right-wing radical, marriage is an essential building block to society. Though it is far from perfect, it's the cornerstone of the extremely social environment in which we are raised. But, is there nothing else?

For those pursuing celibacy, for whatever reason, there very well better be something else. Though I may be swearing off sex, I still need all the companionship that a normal person gets. Whether I achieve it through marriage or other "normal" means is up for debate.

There are a few images of celibacy (or, more specifically, singleness) that we are used to. One is that of priests, nuns, or monks, who have in effect taken Christ as their bridegroom and live lives fully devoted to Him and His service. Then there is the not-so-pleasant image of lonely bachelors and old maids who live alone with ten cats or so. Think of "Eleanor Rigby" from that classic Beatles song.

But if those are our only images of celibacy, aren't we selling ourselves a bit short? Of course there are shut-ins and lonely people, and our prayers should go out to them, but I'd chance to say that everyone knows at least one celibate person who is happy, successful, and has built a life for him or herself that does not include the traditional model of husband, wife, or kids. I, for example, have an aunt in her fifties. She never married, and never even had a steady boyfriend for all I know. Yet she has a great group of friends, she loves to travel, and she has been an essential part of my family. Though she worries about who will take care of her when she is elderly, she is content with her life and how she has lived it.

Better yet, there is a single woman at my church who adopted a child a few years ago. A few people didn't appreciate that, because there is a bit of a taboo against choosing to raise a child on your own. I didn't have a problem with it at all, though. She is a wonderful person and a wonderful mother, and she has the means to raise a child by herself. Adoption is something that I also have considered, should I ever earn a salary that can support a child by myself.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the celibate life is often viewed as something that either must be of total service to God, or is one of emptiness and pity. But the fact is there are tons of celibates out there. Most of them probably don't identify that way, because they probably didn't "choose" celibacy as I have. They either never found the right man or woman, or were focused on a career instead of family, or simply never had the desire to marry. But marriage isn't the only way to happiness. Sex definitely isn't. Friends, family, work, worship, ministry, travel, joy, comfort, companionship, happiness: they're all still there for you even if you don't get married or find that "special someone." So why do we all still have that aversion to the concept of celibacy?

I guess for some people friendships just don't cut it. They want companionship and intimacy. I can understand that, and I'm even open to the possibility of a "spiritual boyfriend." Someone who is a partner in every way but sexual. I've heard of those types of relationships, and I don't see anything morally wrong with them. Personally, I'm not sure I could do it. But if two people are sure they could make it work, then I'd support them in it. Would the church? Well, we'll leave that for the next post.

Recently, various sources have brought the subject of celibacy to my attention. Not being one to miss an opportunity to speak (or write) my mind, I decided it would be a good time to write a post about the subject. It was then that I realized that I had a lot more to say about it than I previously thought, which is why I intend to spread all my thoughts, reflections, and questions about celibacy across three posts. This is, of course, the first, and it is about a concept that often goes hand-in-hand with celibacy: calling.

I don't think it is strange to hear celibacy referred to as a calling. After all, in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7, Paul calls it a "gift." But what, exactly, is a calling? As a Calvinist (albeit a new one), I should know a thing or two about it, because I believe Christians are called to belief (and I believe the Bible makes a strong case for that). But when we think of callings, are we thinking of them correctly? Personally, when I first hear the word "calling," what I think of is a burning bush, a voice from the sky, or some cathartic life experience that points directly to what God has called a certain individual to do. I mean, callings are supposed to be dramatic, right?

I don't think so. Sure, sometimes they are, but I also believe that callings can manifest themselves through basic circumstances. For example, the fact that I was raised in a Christian home is a good indicator that I was called to be a Christian. It wasn't definite, because I had many opportunities to fall away from Christ. I actually tried to on some occasions and found that I couldn't. But we can talk about Irresistible Grace some other time. :)

Or to put it another way, I absolutely love kids. I can't see anything better for my life than working with kids daily. Is it too bold of me to say that this love for children is a call for me to be a teacher? Again, I don't think so. I think that's exactly what a calling is. It may not be dramatic, but it's pretty real.

But here is where it gets tricky. What if you are called to do something that you just don't want to do? It's nothing new. Moses is an example right off the top of my head and I'm sure he's not the only one. However, his calling was dramatic. There was no doubt of what the call was and that God was doing it. Let's say your calling is not so dramatic. It's a calling of basic circumstance. We're willing to accept these kinds of callings when they are things we want, but what about when we don't want them? From what I've seen, it's these kinds of callings that are seen as tragic circumstances that must be overcome at all costs. It's the overcoming that can make things a little messy sometimes.

I recently came across an interesting Catholic blogger called The Anchoress. She had made a post about obedience, and though it originally concerned infertility, it was this paragraph that caught my attention:

"How about another scenario - and this one will really tick some off - you’re gay. You’re a human being, with a human sexuality and a human sex drive, but you’re gay. The church in which you’ve been raised says, "okay, so, you’re gay. No sin in that, but as such, you may not marry - because marriage is the province of men and women whose coming together assists in the continuation and revitalization of all creation - therefore, since you may not marry, you are called to the same celibacy as any unmarried person. One gift has been denied you, but if you pay attention you will be shown your gift, and your calling - perhaps you are called to be a necessary other…do you accept the calling? Do you accept this dangerous blessing?"

Interesting, isn't it? I don't know much about the "necessary other" stuff (Is that a Catholic thing? Anyone?), but I do know that the view expressed coincides with my own. Not to mention it's another reason why I love Catholics. :)

A lot of people are going to disagree with the notion that homosexual feelings are a call to celibacy, and I don't want to suggest that. Each case is individual and should be dealt with as such. However, I also don't like the notion that only those without sex drives are called to celibacy. For one, do such people exist? I know Paul said it was better for a man to marry than to burn with passion (1 Corinthians 7:9), but does that mean the only people called to celibacy are those that don't want sex?

Personally, I like sex. I like it a lot. The thought that all gay men aren't supposed to have it is a little daunting (let's face it; a lot of them are really hot!) But let's look at it this way. God called a shepherd with a speech impediment to stand before Pharoah and lead the Jews out of Egypt. He called a very elderly man to be the patriarch of the nations. He called a shepherd boy to be a king. He called a group of fishermen to lead a new and radical religious movement. So, what makes anyone think that to be called for something, you have to be ready-made for the task?

Again, I'm not asking all gay men and women reading this that they should automatically think celibacy is their calling. Perhaps the fact that I have interpreted it as such is just another reason why it is a calling for me. All I would ask is that people pray, reflect, and read God's Word. Just because you don't desire it, doesn't mean that God hasn't set it out before you. The Anchoress closed her post with a good line, and I hope she doesn't mind me repeating it:

"Okay, God, you dealt me this hand. I don’t particularly appreciate it - it’s not the hand I would have chosen. Therefore, I’ll let you play it, I’ll follow your lead and trust that it will not come up a stinker."

Now, for those of us who have decided that celibacy is what God has meant for us (at least for now), then there's the question of "What next?" That's the subject of the next post. Stick around. :)