At Zolder50, we've recently been studying Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matthew, chapters 5-7) -- and in particular, over the last month, we've been studying Jesus' directives on sexuality, marriage, and divorce. If that wasn't enough information on the topic, our home group has been studying -- in a separate study -- the book of 1 Corinthians, and it just so happened that yesterday evening was a discussion about marriage and sexuality, from the 7th chapter of the book. Earlier this year, on this blog, I also spent some time studying out the issue of Sexuality and Spirituality... and I've definitely been challenged to closely consider some of the complex issues relating to sexuality and relationships in our culture today. Over the last couple of weeks, I've been chewing on one question in particular:

Is there room in the community of Christ for (non-sexual) same-sex covenant relationships?

I still haven't completely settled my own mind on these issues, but I guess I'm just asking: Do we as Christians need to be opposed to same-sex civil unions -- perhaps as a means of protecting ourselves from treading into dangerous regions of the slippery slope leading to unabashed worldliness? Or do we need to get creative when it comes to making allowances for our Christian brothers and sisters desiring to strive for lives of celibacy? I've been wondering about this a lot lately...

Now, I'm not naive. I realize that the vast majority (if not the entirety) of those choosing for civil unions in the Netherlands (or advocating for acceptance of civil unions or "gay marriage" in the USA or other parts of the world) are (homo-)sexually active. And I honestly don't know how successfully we could ever divorce the idea of sex from covenant relationships (particularly those originally instituted to mimic marriage). But could it be worthwhile to try to walk this fine line?

The rise of homosexuality in Western culture is truly remarkable. And while I believe that this certainly has something to do with our culture's idolization of Eros -- I also happen to believe that it's about much more than sex (I might even dare to say that the sexual aspect of homosexuality is a relatively small part of the equation). From my experience, it seems like some of the biggest felt needs of the homosexual community are belonging, acceptance, companionship, and family (I should also note that this likely holds true for all people who don't fit into the "standard" mold of the "married-with-children" crowd)... I suspect that a lot of it comes down to questions like, "Who will I spend Christmas with? Or New Year's Eve? Or Valentine's Day?" "Who will take care of me in my old age?" "How am I ever going to travel to see the Great Wall of China or the grasslands of Africa or the quays of Paris -- if I don't have a traveling companion?" Or perhaps a bit more macabre: "Who will organize my funeral?" "To whom will I pass along my family heirlooms?" Maybe it's offensive for me (one of the "married-with-children" crowd) to speculate so broadly about this, but I genuinely wonder...

And while I certainly believe that we need to encourage each other to cast down our idols and find hope from its True Source, I wonder if we could still benefit from considering ways to care for the practical needs of people within our community who choose to embrace a life of singleness.

My thinking here is not so dissimilar to the way that the Catholic church has historically taken care of those who have taken vows of celibacy (i.e. priests and nuns). Certain orders of sisters or brothers have had group living arrangements, group activities, group missions (i.e. taking care of orphans, feeding the poor)... Perhaps such a concept needs to be revisited for post-"Church-Era," post-modern, Western society... Yes, maybe establishing new "orders" of brothers and/or sisters is, in fact, the way to go. Adapt the antiquated, not-so-cool ways of dressing, naming, and stereotyping these groups of people (the idea of "becoming a nun" or "becoming a priest" may just have too much accumulated cultural baggage)... And voila! A lot of those most urgent felt needs and most pressing questions about life as a single person have answers! But then again, maybe -- in a more post-modern, decentralized, "organic," anti-institutional, missional ministry- (and life-) context -- maybe it makes sense to think about covenant friendships and civil unions...

There is some biblical precedent for this. 1 Samuel 18 and 20 talk about the covenant friendship between David and Jonathan, which was solemnly and repeatedly sworn in the presence of God and each other. (Some have suggested that David and Jonathan were, in fact, homosexual -- though the Hebrew verbs chosen for their "love" and other factors surrounding their relationship make this highly unlikely, in my mind). The closest biblical parallel to David and Jonathan's relationship (at least, etymologically-speaking, according to the commentaries I've referenced) would be the relationship between Jacob and his son Benjamin (Genesis 44:30 uses some of the same terminology to describe how Jacob's "life is closely bound up with (Benjamin's) life") -- but my mind also wanders to relationships like Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1:15-22) and Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego's less formal partnership to support each other through times of testing (Daniel 1:6-20). Even so, I'll admit that the idea of covenant friendships / "life partnerships" for celibate believers is a bit of a leap for contemporary contexts. Especially considering the fact that we don't want to set up stumbling blocks for people who may struggle with feelings of attraction toward people of the same sex, I realize that we need to be sensitive and perhaps build in some protections for people in these situations (like choosing to establish a covenant between a group of three people, instead of just two). In any event, this idea of a covenant friendship is an interesting point of consideration...

Now, I'm going a little bit further out on a limb here (again, remember that I'm still more or less thinking out loud) -- but coupled with the current cultural allowances for (or aims toward allowances for) same-sex civil unions, doesn't it seem that such an idea could have some extra practicability? Why not take advantage of the opportunities presented by the current political system and allow those individuals who are committed to God and to lives of purity and celibacy to have the same tax benefits, immigration benefits, health benefits, and death-and-disability benefits that married couples enjoy?

Now, I have long been (and will long continue to be) an ardent supporter of God's definitions for marriage, family, and sexuality -- but I see a clear distinction between these things and the concept of "civil unions." God joins man and woman together in marriage and blesses their physical, emotional, and spiritual union; the government chooses how it will recognize this union and work out the economic and political implications for society. The Dutch system of marriage and civil unions has helped me to understand this. In the Netherlands, any two people wishing to formally join their lives together (Christians, Hindus, secular humanists, homosexual couples, heterosexual couples) must first report to City Hall and make their solemn pledges and process their paperwork for the government. Then, after the civil ceremonies are completed, the spiritual significance may (or may not) be independently observed. A Christian couple, then, will typically get all dressed up, go to City Hall and do the civil thing, then go get some pictures in the park, then go to the church and say their wedding vows betfore God and each other, then have a big party (or a series of parties) with their friends and family, and then consummate the marriage in the privacy of their bedroom that night. A secular couple, though, will get dressed up, go to City Hall and do the civil thing (if they're the sentimental / romantic / traditional type, they may even do this with the long white dress and pick the script that calls it all a "marriage"), then go get some pictures in the park and follow it all up with a big party (or series of parties) with their friends and family (the "consumation" part of their relationship has probably already happened much earlier -- though, again, if they're the sentimental / romantic / traditional type of couple, they may maintain all the trappings of a special wedding night and a honeymoon... on a more "optional" basis, of course). So you see how it works? The spiritual part of things is skipped or substituted based on the desires of the couple. From the secular government's point of view, it doesn't matter! They just want to have it on file that "Person A" and "Person B" now apply for exclusive status as a recognized couple -- and that's it. It actually makes a lot of sense to me (though it's certainly different from the traditional American way of doing things, which also makes sense to me).

So if we have Christian brothers and sisters who want to formally commit themselves to a life of celibacy and sexual purity -- but who would be aided and supported by having someone else (or a couple of other friends) in the same situation to do life together with them -- then why wouldn't we want to consider the advantages of covenant friendships (on the spiritual level) and civil unions (on the societal level)? Think about it: How cool would it be to celebrate a day with two spiritual siblings (I suppose it could be a brother and sister, just as much as a brother/brother and sister/sister) as they formally commit to a life of serving God wholeheartedly, without the distractions of marriage (like Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 7)?!? I mean, we could do the big party and the special pictures and special clothes and all that -- with all the practical benefits besides -- and it could be a cultural statement to deepen the respect for love and marriage and sexuality and family...

I don't know... Am I talking crazy here?!?! Have I become too influenced by the liberal Amsterdam way of thinking? Would something like this compromise the image of the church or the sanctity of marriage and family? Would anyone actually choose to make such a statement with his or her life? I guess I'm externally processing more than anything... but it is interesting to wonder...

[This is part seven of a series on Sexuality and Spirituality:  bypassing Christian rhetoric and examining the interaction between sexuality and spirituality with candor, honesty, and directness.  Tough questions are encouraged, controversy is invited, and the submission of differing opinions is welcomed -- so please feel free to comment as often as you'd like.]

Finally, with this post I am closing out my series on Sexuality and Spirituality.  Perhaps you've enjoyed it... perhaps you've hated it... Perhaps you've been given some new perspectives on these issues... perhaps you feel that I've done nothing but recycle well-worn arguments that have plagued our society for decades... Perhaps you've been anxiously anticipating each of the seven posts along the way... perhaps you're glad that this is the last one!  In any event, it seems about time to draw my thoughts to a close and move on.

I started with trying to outline the general conundrum in the presumed paradox of "Christian sexuality" and establishing that I didn't want to just spout a bunch of tired old script (whether I've succeeded in doing this, though, I don't know).  I then tried to develop my thoughts over the next two posts, seeking to avoid the extremes of denial / repression and obsession / idolatry.  Following this (admittedly difficult) balancing act, I tried to clearly state my convictions, drawn from the Bible, on the matter of sexuality and spirituality in today's complicated moral landscape.  And over the two most recent episodes in this series, I particularly focused on the issue of homosexuality and what I would understand to be a biblical perspective on this cultural phenomenon (to the best of my ability).  There've been some great comments and rich dialogue along the way (thanks to all who have participated)...

Now we just have to deal with the question:  "So what?"

It's hard to believe that anyone could come away from examining an issue like this with a simple sense of "Ah, yes; that's settled -- glad to see that everything's been taken care of."  Regardless of how convincing my arguments may have been, we're still left with the fact that each one of us is left in a daily struggle to define and reconcile our sexuality and spirituality.  Indeed, this struggle persists in my own life!  I can imagine that some people must be tempted to think, "Hmph!  Easy for him to say, with his beautiful wife and those distant memories of the single life!"  And I desperately hope that I haven't positioned myself as someone with all of the answers... because I think the first answer to the question of "So what?" is to embrace the fact that we are all fellow strugglers.

I have a hard time with anyone who jumps into the excommunication express lane when sexual sin is involved.  It's truly sad how quick people are to point fingers and condemn "sinners" who are struggling with some element of their sexuality.  Single mothers, pornography addicts, unmarried couples who are living together, members of the gay community, people who have slipped up in their marriages... unfortunately, the church is not always a very welcoming place for such "imperfect" people.  Such selective snobbery seems to grossly contradict the message of the Bible to "Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love" and to "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:2-3).  The fact of the matter is that we are all "sinners" and "imperfect" people.  The Bible makes it clear that those who get caught up in subtle pride are just as guilty before God as those who get caught up in gay orgies.  It sounds crazy, but it's true.  We're all caught up in a lifetime struggle between our spirit and our flesh.  Whenever we are tempted to think about shaming someone for their struggle with sexual sin, we would do well to remember the way that Jesus handled a similar situation in his day.

And for the record -- lest anyone be tempted to think otherwise -- let me be the first to say that I'm caught up in the struggle just like everyone else.  Marriage does not remove temptation for sexual sin (sorry to burst that bubble, if you're hanging your hopes on that).  And even where it may help to reduce tensions and struggles in some areas -- it can just as asily add tensions and struggles in other areas.  We're all fellow strugglers, trying to figure this out together... which brings me to my second suggestion in the category of "So what?" -- namely, that we've got to be a family for each other as we go through our struggles.

This is one of the beautiful things about the Church (or at least one of the potentially beautiful things about the Church).  We're designed to be a family: a collection of brothers and sisters, laughing together, crying together, eating together, learning together, worshiping together, serving together -- doing life together.  And so, we can be there for each other and support each other in our struggles.  Now, as Christians we certainly need to get better at opening up and being honest about our lives -- shining light into the deep, dark corners of our existence (which often includes our sexuality)... but the more we can do this, the more healing we will experience.  Furthermore, because our sexuality is often so closely connected to our sense of belonging and acceptance, a tight sense of Christian community can be a powerful antidote to temptations in the areas of sexual sin.  In Zolder50, home groups and life groups are designed to fill these family functions within the church; but whatever its form, unconditional love -- experienced from God and from the family of believers (even in the midst of struggle and failure) -- is essential to a healthy sense of sexuality and spirituality.

Even so -- and I think this is where we need to draw the line, as well as our third "So what?" principle -- even while an understanding of the struggle and a sense of unconditional love are essential, we must stop short of celebrating a sinful lifestyle.  In our attempts to love the strugglers among us, we need to be careful not to endorse perversion.  One of the passages that I quoted above goes on to clearly state that we should, "no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.  You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness (Ephesians 4:17-24).  And Jesus himself, just after the previously alluded episode of putting a woman's persecutors to shame, goes on to clearly challenge the sinful woman to "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Somone recently commented to me that I'm fighting an uphill battle with our culture if I'm trying to maintain the black-and-white distinction between "full-fledged sexuality within marriage" -- or --  "absolutely no sex outside of marriage"... and yet, I can't really draw any other conclusions from my study of the Bible.  I'm not going to deny the fact that it's hard for people to renounce the god of their culture -- including the god of our Western culture -- but this is exactly what we must do, even though we might face the persecution of public opinion in the process.

When the people of Communist countries renounce the god of their culture -- namely, the government -- in favor of the true God of the Bible, we cheer them on.  Even in the eyes of the secular West, these people who are willing to go against the flow are appreciated.  We cast them as heroes, freedom fighters, and martyrs... When the people of Muslim countries renounce the god of their culture -- namely, Allah -- in favor of the true God of the Bible, we cheer them on.  Perhaps it's not quite as politically-correct to pit Islam against the other major faith systems of the world.  But again, even in the eyes of the secular West, there is an implicit affirmation and appreciation of those willing to diffuse dogma and swim upstream against their culture.  We cast them as free-thinkers, true seekers, and martyrs... So why should it be any different for people in the West who renounce the god of our culture -- namely, love, sex, and romance -- in favor of the true God of the Bible?

I know that it's not that easy.  I know that I don't have all the answers.  But that's my best attempt to figure things out from my vantage point.  Let me know if you've got any other thoughts or questions -- and then let's get on with discussion of other things in this space...

[This is part six of a series on Sexuality and Spirituality:  bypassing Christian rhetoric and examining the interaction between sexuality and spirituality with candor, honesty, and directness.  Tough questions are encouraged, controversy is invited, and the submission of differing opinions is welcomed -- so please feel free to comment as often as you'd like.]

I stated in the last post of this series that I believe some people are actually not designed to be attracted to the opposite sex.  I seriously believe this... But when it comes to endorsing homosexuality as a lifestyle... Well, here's where I start running into problems.

What about you?  Would you be scared to label homosexuality as a form of perversion in our world today?  Would this word sound too harsh?  Too abrasive?  Too judgmental?  Too moralistic?  Too Ward-Clever-black-and-white-"family-values"-anachronistic?  I mean, seriously, would you feel comfortable attaching the term "perversion" to something that so many people in the world today are embracing as a lifestyle -- as their sense of identity and purpose?  To be honest, I'm extremely indimidated to breathe the words "homosexuality" and "perversion" in the same breath -- especially given my previously stated understanding that "heterosexuality" is not for everyone.  And yet... And yet...

This phenomenon that has shaken Western culture over the last several decades -- wrapped up in pop culture contexts ranging from Elton John to Ellen to Brokeback Mountain -- represented in political debates about gay marriage and fair employment practices -- and lived out in a very personal way among our friends, neighbors, and colleagues... this "coming out" of our culture is (must I say it?) perversion personified.

Now don't you think I know how harsh this sounds?  I live in Amsterdam for goodness sake -- the capital of the "free-thinking" world, the epicenter of tolerance, the Gay Capital of Europe, the place of the pink parade prancing through the Prinsengracht every August.  And of course, more than the municipal affiliation -- there are multiple men and women whom I dearly love who will most certainly wince as they read these words.  But I don't know any other way to say it:  homosexuality is perversion.

But before you jump all over my case here, let's look for a second at the definition of perversion.  In our culture, the term has come to imply some sense of deliberate twistedness and almost a malicious disregard for morality -- but if you actually look into the word itself, it simply indicates a sense of turning (be it ever so slightly) from the proper course.  The word "perversion" basically just points to a (potentially innocent) misapplication of the truth.  And to me, I see this happening all around us -- even in my own life -- in so many different spheres of existence.  As humans, we each tend to create our own version of reality, based on our perception of the world around us.. and well, sometimes we end up with a "perversion" of reality instead of the true version of reality that corresponds with how God sees things.

So what is the true version of reality in the case of our "perversion" known as homosexuality?  I believe that the answer to this question lies in the words of Jesus himself, as recorded in Matthew, chapter 19.  In talking with a group of religious teachers about God's expectations for marriage (which turn out to be pretty high), there comes a point in the conversation where Jesus' followers basically say something to the effect of:  "Whoa -- if that's really God's standard for marriage, then maybe it's better not to get married!"  And rather than rebuking them for such a ridiculous and impractical response, Jesus says (and here I quote):  "Not everyone can accept this statement -- only those whom God helps.  Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."

So what exactly does this mean?  Well, first it helps to understand what a eunuch is (since neither the term nor the role are very common in our culture today)... Basically, in ancient cultures of the East, eunuchs were guardians of the queen (or the princess, or potentially any female member of royalty).  They were the constant bodyguards and servants of the royal women -- day and night.  And because of this unique relationship and the absolute priority of maintaining the purity of the royal bloodline, the men who filled these roles were, um... well... removed of their ability to biologically reproduce.  Their masculine sex drive and their practical sexual functionality were taken from them so they could provide their undivided attention to the task of guarding the queen.  And while this analogy is problematic on certain levels -- as I certainly don't mean to imply that gays and lesbians are physiologically inadequate in any way -- I do wonder if Jesus' words regarding eunuchs could shed some light on the phenomenon of homosexuality in our culture today... particularly if we take the idea of "eunuchs" in the broadest sense, meaning simply as those who do not have a natural physical attraction to the opposite sex.

So could it really be that God made some people to not be attracted to the opposite sex?!?!  I think so... "Some are born as eunuchs," said Jesus.  Furthermore, the Apostle Paul spoke of a "gift of singleness" -- and while I don't want to develop too much of a theology of sexuality around a couple of isolated verses from the Bible, I think it's highly reasonable to believe that some people are born with a natural, healthy, God-given lack of desire for the opposite sex.

In addition to those being born this way, it would make sense that there are some people who "have been made eunuchs by others."  Although it's certainly a very contentious issue in popular culture today, psychological research has indicated that many people who exhibit homosexual tendencies have experienced significant trauma in childhood:  sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, neglect, the absence of a particular role model, and/or any other number of instances of pain and tragedy...  In our broken world, it only stands to reason that many men and women have had significant parts of their masculinity or feminimity crushed, maimed, bruised -- broken -- along the way.  Their aversion to the opposite sex -- or their attraction to intimate relationships with the same sex -- then, would seem to indeed be "man-made" responses to our cycles of brokenness.  Certainly, I've talked with multiple men and women who have been caught (or are currently still caught) in such cycles... and I've even observed some lives that have been "healed" over time (though almost never instantaneously).  At any rate, it seems entirely reasonable to believe that some people have developed their attitudes toward sexuality because of their past wounds inflicted by others.

So what does our culture do with those who have determined that they are not interested in the opposite sex?  It uses its idolatry of love, lust, and romance to create a perversion of reality to make sense of the facts at hand.  That is to say:  in a culture where love, sex, relationships, romance, and such are given such an abnormally high value, any person who's not attracted to the opposite sex... well, that person must be attracted to the same sex.

In our world today, we're told that our pains can be medicated by sex.  We're told that our sorrows can be drowned out by romance.  We're told that our emptiness can be filled with a relationship...  And those who don't seek out love's magic elixirs are weird.  Those who don't offer their sacrifices on Eros' altar are socially backwards. Those who don't put their faith in the god of our culture are considered heretical... And thus, a homosexual is preferable to a eunuch.  Experimental sexuality is preferable to patience and purity.  Because a life of celibacy -- in our culture -- well, that's just crazy!

But at least it's more biblical.

The truth is that the Bible -- while not explicitly stating that "homosexuality is a sin" -- leaves little ambiguity regarding God's actual attitude toward homosexuality.  In the Old Testament, homosexuality is explicitly mentioned among the other unlawful sexual relations (along with incest, adultery, and bestiality) and is specifically named as being “detestable” under the old Jewish law passed down by God.  In the New Testament, too, homosexuality is explicitly listed among a string of other "wicked" sexual practices -- and in possibly the clearest depiction of God's attitude toward homosexuality, the first chapter of Romans clearly suggests that homosexuality is "shameful," "unnatural," and -- bringing us back in a full circle -- a "perversion."

Of course, homosexuality is far from being the only way that we seek satisfaction and salvation from our brokenness!  We miss the point if we single out men and women who struggle with homosexuality -- because we could just as easily pick on men and women who "struggle with heterosexuality"... or any other number of human vices.  Vengence, achievement, religiosity, substance abuse, diet, routine, heterosexuality, homosexuality... they're all the same.  Any of us who think we're going to be able to attain our own happiness or fulfillment through something other than God are doomed to fail.  And more often than not, we'll end up destroying ourselves in the process.

I realize that coping in this world is hard.  Very hard.  And I'm not trying to be overly simplistic or dogmatic in providing pat answers to the great questions that plague us.  But I think we need to be very careful when it comes to labelling sinful coping mechanisms as good or appropriate -- in whatever form they may appear.

*     *     *     *     *

In the final post of this series, I hope to address some of the "So what?" questions that come up in this analysis.  So please feel free to let me know if you have any further interaction with the thoughts that I've shared in this series -- especially in this post.  As much as I may try to make it seem otherwise at times, I don't have all the answers... But it seems to me that it's the dialogue that counts.

[This is part five of a series on Sexuality and Spirituality:  bypassing Christian rhetoric and examining the interaction between sexuality and spirituality with candor, honesty, and directness.  Tough questions are encouraged, controversy is invited, and the submission of differing opinions is welcomed -- so please feel free to comment as often as you'd like.]

He confides cautiously.  And I listen carefully.  Because he is a dear friend.  Still, it's hard for me to hear what he's saying.  No doubt it's hard for him to say what he's saying.  It's hard because we both realize that the road ahead is fraught with peril and pain.

He's telling me that he's gay.  And though I have no doubt that he's thought it through, extensively -- I can't help but notice that his tone (even now, in our conversation) is an unusual paradox of pride and shame, determination and insecurity, hope and despair, relief and dread... Of course, I suppose this is the way it goes for any of us -- shining the floodlights into the dark corners of our consciousness, turning closets into showrooms.  But this particular pronouncement seems to rest upon a thousand tentativities relating to the underlying questions and assumptions of our lives... Consequently, I can't completely tell if he's making a statement or asking a question.  I suppose he may not be able to determine this either -- but I have to at least give him credit for doing the best he can with the information he has at his disposal.

He's telling me that he's gay.  And I can't say that I'm completely surprised.  I've never known him to have a girlfriend.  He fits many of the pop culture stereotypes:  snappy dresser, theater-lover, physically demonstrative, emotionally expressive... Ever since he was a little boy, he says, he's felt different from other boys -- which is, apparently, another sign that he's gay...

Except here's where I really start to wonder:  Is he really all that different?  Are his experiences of alienation and identity-quest all that unique?  Or is the whole world turning itself inside out with these questions?  I wonder...

 *     *     *     *     *

A significant part of my job over the last decade has been simply building relationships -- digging deep into the hearts and minds of young men desiring to know God and be used by Him in the world.  So over the years, as I've built a foundation of trust and respect with young men from all walks of life -- from both sides of the Atlantic Ocean -- as I've built into their lives and learned what makes them tick... I've been astonished to discover just how widespread are the doubts that today's young men have about their sexuality.  The "conversation" narrative above is actually a composite of several different conversations that I've had over the last several years.  Actually multiple conversations with numerous men.  Seriously, I would guess that approximately half of the men that I talk with have had serious doubts about their sexuality at one time or another.  Not that they've all experimented or experienced any sort of actual homosexual relationship with another man.  But they've certainly thought about it.  Wondered about it.  And yes, sometimes even given it a try...

Yet I can't even imagine the spokesman of the International Lesbian and Gay Association daring to theorize that half the population in the world today is biologically programmed for homosexual behavior.  It flies in the face of historical precedent.  It flies in the face of reproductive science.  It flies in the face of the embarrassingly obvious functional designs for the anatomical structures that define men and women!  And though I realize that even the gay community itself is divided about the underlying causes for homosexual behavior, I still have to wonder what exactly it means that the social trends relating to homosexuality have come as far as they have in the last few decades.

Indeed, the rise in the practice and acceptance of homosexuality is an intriguing sociological trend.  I must confess that I'm not extremely well-read on the scientific literature... But I've done a lot of thinking about the trends on my own, and I've developed some of my own theories for this relatively recent rise in favorable public opinion toward homosexual behavior.  And if you ask me, I think that the current state of sexuality in the West can be traced back to the Second World War ("it's all the fault of them dang Nazis!").  It sounds crazy, doesn't it?  But think about this:  Couldn't it be that the dramatic heroism and massive casualties of 1930s and early 1940s led to the internal traumatization, social imbalance, and reevaluation of masculinity in the late 1940s and 1950s... which in turn led to a sort of modern machoism and an abuse of masculinity... which in turn led to an oppressed and mishandled generation of women and children... which in turn led to the "Women's Liberation" movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s... which in turn led to a loss of identity for the upcoming generation of men... which in turn led to the rise in masculine promiscuity as the mark of machoism and manhood in the 1970s... which in turn led to women eventually following suit, combatting the double-standard of acceptable sexual behavior... which in turn led to the over-sexed and under-connected culture of the 1980s... which in turn led to a generation of people repulsed by the after-effects of the sexual revolution and uninterested in the hollow promises of "free love"... which in turn led to the children of the 1990s seeking real relationships and belonging instead... which in turn led to an exploration of alternative forms of relational expression... which in turn led to the embrace of homosexuality and a general "Accept Me" culture... which, of course, brings us to where we are today.

Ultimately, in providing the above analysis, I'm insinuating is that homosexuality is not the result of healthy biological development -- nor is it a healthy sociological development.  In fact, I believe that our culture's move toward acceptance of homosexuality is the result of a pendulant pattern of brokenness.  Even so, these issues are very difficult to discuss on the level of principle and Biblical precedent.

The truth of the matter is that there is no verse in the Bible that directly states that "homosexuality is a sin."  Furthermore, I believe that the Bible quite clearly states that some people are really just not designed to be attracted to the opposite sex...

But now that I've stirred things up a little bit, I'll let them stew for awhile... and I'll save my response to these issues for part six of this series.

[This is part four of a series on Sexuality and Spirituality:  bypassing Christian rhetoric and examining the interaction between sexuality and spirituality with candor, honesty, and directness.  Tough questions are encouraged, controversy is invited, and the submission of differing opinions is welcomed -- so please feel free to comment as often as you'd like.]

So what exactly is God’s plan for sexuality?

This is the real question, isn't it?  I mean, we can be easily distracted and drawn down rabbit trails -- debating the various possibilities for what God's plan does not include.  And it seems to me that Christians spend a lot of their time and energy coming at this subject from the negative perspective.  However, it seems that we might do better to start from a positive standpoint.  That is, if we understand that sexuality is something meaningful and good and powerful... and if we understand that God (spirituality) is meaningful and good and powerful... then it only stands to reason that we'd want to figure out how the two are supposed to fit together.  Thus we must ask ourselves, if you will, what are our good God's bluprints for good sex?

I will be very concise and very direct about my conviction on this subject:  Sex is designed for one man and one woman, meaningfully committed to each other in a marriage relationship.

OK.  Now I've said it.  I can't make it much more black-and-white than that...  So -- are you still reading?  Or has the wall just come up?  Seriously -- do you feel that I'm being anachronistic and/or hypocritical and/or judgmental and/or idealistic?  Do you jump to the conclusion that I'm being "too conservative" and/or "too American" and/or "too self-righteous"?  Actually, I'm guessing that a lot of people (including readers of this blog) would (either consciously or subconsciously) object to such a "narrow" allowance for the combination of sexuality and spirituality.  And personally, I would agree that defining things in this way can be very tricky in our world today.  But for the record, I don't feel that we necessarily have to go the route of Constitutional amendments or coordinated law enforcement to change the last half-century of social trends.  I don't advocate discrimination, or hate crimes, or cold shoulders toward people who chose to live by different convictions.  And I don't have some pie-in-the-sky notion that we'll be able to "fix" our world's take on sexuality and spirituality.

But I don't think I can back down from unapologetically defining God's plan for sex.  From the very beginning of time, the afore-mentioned "blueprint" for sexuality and spirituality was made clear.  Man and woman were designed to complete one another, to be physically and spiritually united with one another for life, and to enjoy freedom from shame as sexual beings created for the mutual enjoyment of one another.

Later on, in the time of Jesus, God's plan for sexuality and spirituality was reinforced and amplified.  Jesus himself said that a husband and wife were made to be united for life -- emotionally, socially, economically, and physically -- because in marriage "they are no longer two but one."  Furthermore, we are charged to "let no one split apart what God has joined together."

Other sections of the New Testament talk about how God seriously cares about the way that we use our bodies -- particularly as it relates to sexuality -- and how the institution of marriage is meant to be honored.  Without question, the Bible makes it clear that there are simply no provisions for sex outside of the covenant of marriage.  Old Testament Law demanded the public execution of any sex offenders!  And although the message of the New Testament leaves some room for less than ideal marriage situations -- it's stil crystal clear that even the less-than-ideal solutions are within the confines of the marriage relationship.  Now, I know there are popular arguments out there for "non-traditional" means of "marriage."  Still, from my vantage point, questions along the lines of "What is marriage anyway?  Shouldn’t it be more about the heart than about the legal certificates?  I mean, who married Adam and Eve?  Why is it so important to have an actual ceremony to say what’s in your heart?" basically bypass the issue.  Instead of coming at the topic of marriage from a cynical standpoint, I would ask "Why would a couple choose to not be married in our culture today?"  It's a commitment -- speaking loudly in a world afraid of commitment.  It's a cultural statement -- taking a stand in a society that's increasingly aligned in the opposite direction.  And it's the way God intended it to be.

"But seriously," someone might ask, "isn’t it just a cultural thing?  Didn’t people also previously use the Bible to defend racism and slavery and oppression of women?"  Well... unfortunately, I can't deny that Scripture has been frequently abused throughout the course of history... And I'm not foolish enough to claim that my interpretation of the Bible is absolute and infallible... But looking through the references which I alluded to above (which I encourage you to study out for yourself), it's hard to draw any other reasonable conclusions about God's design for sex.  As imperfect and impossible as the institution of marriage may sometimes seem, I truly believe that marriage between one man and one woman is God's set of boundaries for sex -- like the rock-ringed fire-pit to contain the fire for a troop of boy scouts' usefulness and enjoyment... like the sidelines on the sports field to keep the game manageable and fair... like the rules of the road that maintain safety and protocol for daily transportation... like any other series of analogies that one might develop to make this point.  Sex is designed to be enjoyed by one man and one woman, meaningfully committed to one another in a marriage relationship.

Even so, it's significant to note that not everyone is intended for marriage!

In spite of the lies that our culture perpetuates, the Bible is clear that celibacy and singleness are to be celebrated!  Jesus himself said (and modeled) that it's actually better not to be married.  Unfortunately, our culture -- our cult of the god Eros -- does everything in its power to negate this message and insinuate that something is wrong with anyone who might actually dare to live a life free from the constraints of marriage and sexuality... But this is a discussion for another post... Please keep the dialogue going (if you've managed to read this far) -- and please stay tuned for the conclusion of this series.