|
[the first moment of this segment was not captured on
tape]
JOHN: ...therefore I think that you're basically at that
point arguing from silence in terms of including homosexuality as a gift.
You're arguing from human experience. And so at that point, you know, I'm
not here to judge you about being accountable to God in terms of God's
prerogative for judgment. What I'm here to argue is I'm saying that I
think we both have to evidence what we believe based on the Scripture's
own terms. And I think the order of creation is where we must begin
inclusively and incisively.
BILL: OK. Sir?
QUESTIONER: My
name is Tom Brezelle and I'm a Lutheran pastor here in Monterey. I address
my question to John. You talked about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. For me
it would be helpful if we could frame it, say, in two different issues.
And talk about that reversal of that quadrilateral. This evening as I left
my family they were having a nice meal of pork. And I'm wondering, it
seems to me that that in itself is a reversal of that quadrilateral,
because Scripture seems clear about the eating of pork. When you look at
that in regards to monogamous, committed homosexual relationships, and I
tried to say that as clearly as I could, it would seem to me that you
would argue that support of that would be a reversal of that Wesleyan
Quadrilateral. I don't know if it's helpful to distinguish between those
two examples, but I need some help with that.
JOHN: I was writing a
note. You said faithful homosexual or heterosexual
marriage?
QUESTIONER: Monogamous, committed homosexual
relationships.
JOHN: OK. I wanted to make sure I heard the word
correctly. First in terms of pork. Many of the cultural proscriptions in
theocratic Israel was because God was setting aside Israel as a nation. If
you start in Genesis 4 and 5 and you find a faithful lineage through Seth,
and the unfaithful lineage through Cain, and then what happens again after
Noah and the separation of the faithful and unfaithful, you see, the whole
trajectory of Scripture is to find the faithful lineage that will produce
the Messiah, who will reverse the reversal. And therefore, Abraham's seed
is declared to be that. So God seeks to give laws that will culturally
keep them away from the pagan nations around them so they won't be drawn
into the two most egregious sins of all, which are astrology and child
sacrifice, which is why Jeremiah prosecuted Israel for having bowed down
to that. And so pork is proscribed for cultural reasons. But notice that
the Bible understands that. So when Peter has the vision in the book of
Acts, when pork and other food is brought down before him, detestable
things or things that were not pure in a kosher diet, and he says rise,
kill and eat. And so once the cultural witness to Israel is completed,
then Jesus becomes the light to the Gentiles and we see a separation
between that which is cultural and that which is moral and
eternal.
In terms of faithful, monogamous homosexual relationships,
let me make two observations. When I was doing this forum with Bishop John
Spong, he mentioned that question and I referred to him some studies I had
read two years ago, three years ago, of 152 male domestic partners who had
a marriage-type ceremony in different cities across the country. And they
were asked, to be faithful to each other, does that mean sexual
exclusivity? And 152 out of 152 said no, it doesn't mean sexual
exclusivity. I think you'll find by any self-understanding in the gay
newspapers about what is understood by faithful, monogamous homosexual
relationships, that can be found, but it is clearly overwhelmingly the
exception.
CARL: Well, I think John makes my argument very well.
The whole Levitical code, the code of holiness, was in order to
distinguish the culture of the Hebrew people and allow the Hebrew people
to exist in the midst of hostile cultures, and to form an identity. Not
the homosexuality that we're talking about tonight, which you referred to
as faithful, monogamous relationships as being the ideal of homosexual
relationships as well as heterosexual. But rather the homosexuality that
involved the fertility cults of the Babylonian neighbors and the Assyrian
neighbors and the pagan worship cults which were very often a matter of
male and female prostitution. And in order to form an identity of a
people, that had to be an abomination along with the other cultural
abominations that were part of the taboos of the Holiness Code.
I
think what John said about referring to a poll contributes to the
stereotype of homosexual behavior. Frankly, I don't think it is
appropriate to cite polls, first of all, or surveys or even scientific
studies in this context because what he's saying by that is that this is
inherent to being homosexual. And that contributes to the kind of
prejudice that we're trying to overcome as Christians. Now if it's true
that there is some kind of great immorality within the homosexual
community that does not exist by the way in the heterosexual community,
then I think we can find a lot of reasons for that apart from the fact of
homosexuality itself. Any time people grow up in a society where their
self- worth is diminished from the earliest days that they can remember,
you can expect a tremendous amount of disfunction and unhealthy activity
and so forth. There could be a lot of reasons and are a lot of reasons for
that if it exists. And we as the church, therefore, need to help
homosexual people to live responsibly committed monogamous relationships,
just like we do heterosexual people.
JOHN: I just want to say
quickly that I have resisted stereotypes. There is so much data I could
bring to bear that can make some very strong points. What I said was in a
survey among self-proclaimed domestic-partner gay people, which is a very
important source. It's not someone else's opinion of who they are. It's
their opinion. And I only submitted it anecdotally. And I think if you
look at it you will see there is tremendous reality in that profile.
Secondly, in Romans 1, Paul makes an argument from the order of creation.
And from the order of creation he talks about the naturalness of man and
woman, and the unnatural of men consumed with lust for one another and
women having sex with one another.
BILL: OK.
Sir.
QUESTIONER: Thank you. I'm John Watson Williams. My question
is directed to John Rankin. Regardless of whether or not we agree, you
have stated that all gifts are stated in creation. One of the greatest
gifts from God is diversity. Without diversity we wouldn't be. And that is
stated clearly in creation. What we're talking about here is a group of
humans who are a part of a variation. They are neither good nor bad, they
are part of diversity. I'd like you to address that question. And by the
way, you're both scholars, shouldn't we be talking about hommo-sexuality
and not homo- sexuality if we know our Greek?
JOHN: Sir? Could I
just ask you real quickly. Can you give me an example in the order of
creation of the diversity to which you refer?
QUESTIONER: Yes. The
animals and all the different breeds of the animals. They're
diverse.
JOHN: OK, well I would say very simply here that diversity
only makes sense based on unity. In other words we're all saying we're
human beings. We're all saying we're made in God's image. And that's a
point of unity. Of which we don't have, we don't have the diversity of
gifts such as the Body of Christ. And the definition of unity in diversity
is in the order of creation. What's very powerful in the order of creation
is all the animals reproduce after their own kind. Then when God in triune
community gets to the point of making man and woman, he says let us make
man and woman in our image, and he breathes his spirit into us. So we are
set apart. You want to follow up on that. We are set apart from creation
at that point.
QUESTIONER: I'm sorry, I have to come
back.
JOHN: Yes, please.
QUESTIONER: There are black cows
and white cows.
JOHN: And black people and white
people.
QUESTIONER: Those are both gifts from God.
JOHN:
Absolutely, because they're both human. And they're both provided for in
the genetic code of those who migrate from Genesis 1 and following. But
then to say that people of different sexual natures, when the order of
creation that Paul cites in Romans 1, and the inclusive nature of Genesis
chapter 1 is. See, the most important point that perhaps could be made is
that God's nature is the power to give. And he gives to us and we receive.
Then we give to others and we receive back. Man, that is Adam, had to be
taught to receive from God, to give to woman and not to trample woman.
She'd receive back and the cycle of giving is catalyzed at that point on
forward. We don't give to and receive from one another unless we have a
complementarity. So the diversity that is in the order of creation is male
and female; non-diversity would be just male and male.
CARL: The
mistake that John makes I think is to take the norm. The norm is addressed
in creation, that's all that's being addressed there is the way humanity
is. It's not addressing all the various expressions of it. It's talking
about the norm because that is our experience. Our fatal flaw as human
beings is to take for those of us who live the norm, to take it and say
that those who do not live the norm are not of God. And that is what Jesus
confronted in his own religious community. And of course we build upon
that norm. It's not just a matter of sexuality. It's a matter of cultural
experience. It's a matter of our own tradition. It's a matter of the
language we speak, the color that we are. And we take our norm and give it
God's sanction as being the only way. And then we go to Scriptures and we
find out that there is a basis to do that based upon Scripture. When in
reality what Scripture does is to cause us, if we have ears to hear, to
question our viewpoints.
BILL: It's your turn over
here.
QUESTIONER: Thank you. There are two points actually that I
would like for you to explore, pastor Rankin, this evening. They come from
a couple of things that you mentioned in your talk and I'd like you to
explore them a little bit further. And part of this is a personal issue
for me. In the area where you discussed ethics, the number two point that
you made was the power to live in the light with no deception and to put
your whole agenda out on the table. What was not explored and I would like
to explore a little bit further is perhaps the homosexual's inability to
live one man, one woman, one lifetime. Because for whatever reason, they
have whether it's a psychological or an emotional or a genetic
predisposition to be unable to express their love and live in that type of
a covenant with a member of the opposite sex. And so my curiosity was
piqued in the sense that, is it worse to live in a less ethical
relationship but that is within the covenants of God, or within the norms
that we understand God's creation to be, or whether it's more important
for individuals to live out their experience with the issues and all of
the things that God has given to them in the creation of that individual
person and live truthfully and honorably within those realms?
JOHN:
Well you know what you're saying, is it more important to come out of the
closet than to stay in the closet.
QUESTIONER: Yeah, I guess to
sum it up.
JOHN: Yeah. Yeah. Without being simplistic trying to be
simple.
QUESTIONER: Right.
JOHN: OK. The power to live in
the light is based on who the light is. And the light is God, his Word,
and Jesus is the light. And it's all based on the assumptions of the order
of creation. So we will always come back to this interpretive question.
You see, if the order of creation as I've represented it is true, and if
I've represented Paul truthfully in Romans 1 in addressing this particular
issue, then to live openly in sin is no better than to live closedly, if
that's a word, in sin. But by the same token I think if someone is willing
to state that they are a homosexual or state that they are whatever they
are, at a level that a biblical Christian might disagree with and put that
issue on the topic, I think that reflects a level of honesty I will honor
at those terms. On those terms I will then come forth and say let's talk
about it. Very often times there are those as self-identified homosexuals
who fear discussing with someone like myself, because they think I may
come condemningly or shut them up. And so what I'm trying to do when I
outline those ethics is saying no, I don't want one inch more freedom to
say what I believe than I do to those who disagree with me.
CARL: I
think it's a far superior way of life to have integrity in your
relationships, to live responsibly and lovingly and to be open and honest
about that. The problem that homosexual couples have, homosexual people
have in doing that, again from the earliest stages when they're forming
their own sense of integrity and identity and ability to live responsibly
and fulfilled lives is that they are abused by the rest of us and are not
allowed to live openly and with integrity and honestly or even go through
those stages that we all go through in our maturing process where we date
and we experiment and we take risks and we get hurt and all of that. It
all has to be in the shadows. For that reason there is a tremendous amount
of pain and hurt in the homosexual community which is certainly not
non-existent in the heterosexual community because it happens there as
well for different reasons. But I think there is a sanctioned OK for that
to happen against homosexuals. It's OK for us as Christians to abuse
homosexuals. It's not OK for us as Christians to tolerate the abuse
between heterosexuals. Not that we do much about it. But at least we do
not accept it, but we do accept abuse of homosexuals.
JOHN: And I
do not accept that abuse. In fact I passionately address all issues of
human sexuality equally. I do not single out the homosexual compared to
those heterosexually who live outside of marriage. And there are those who
do abuse. And if we are among those Christians who ever for one inch
dehumanize someone because they're homosexual we are sinning against God
because they are a candidate for salvation. They're made in God's image.
By the same token what is not often talked about is, for example, many
people talk about homophobia and violence against homosexuals. And
wherever that is to be found it is to be wrong. But you look at the police
blotters and the police records. The overwhelming majority against
homosexuals is by domestic homosexual partners in that type of context.
And so if we really care for the abuse that happens on people, we've got
to address the underlying issue. And I'm going to argue number one, by
saying not one inch of dehumanization toward a homosexual. But by the same
token look at the reality. And I'll tell you, my father as chief of
hematology at a major city hospital and what he saw in the emergency room.
It is not pretty when it comes to a lot of that reality. And there are
certain lifestyles that are very characteristic of a certain class, maybe
a minority of homosexuals. And I think from that level and many other
levels there's a lot of dehumanization going on by those who accept
homosexuality as somehow normal, when in fact I don't think it is. So I'm
arguing if you want to be compassionate and loving we need to identify
what is in accord with the order of creation and what is not.
CARL:
There you go again, John. You're doing the same thing that we have done
with blacks and we have done with Jews and we have done with the Irish. We
cite examples of how they do this to themselves. That is dehumanizing.
What you're doing right now is dehumanizing.
JOHN: I would cite
the same examples for heterosexuals and promiscuous males. The
overwhelming majority of domestic violence is men living with women and
not marrying them. And I'll tell you, that is a far greater reality of
violence. I spend far more time on that issue. We're just looking at this
issue tonight. So I think you'll find that I am uniform at that level. I
am not singling them out. But I think if you look at the statistics and
the reality and the self-testimonies. But then even apart from that, the
question is the Bible, the order of creation, and whether or not we accept
it on its own terms.
QUESTIONER: If I could just follow up a
comment. I appreciate both of your comments very much.
BILL: We
really should give others an opportunity.
QUESTIONER: I just want
to say that the issue that you did bring up is the same as black on black
and domestic partner violence and really is not necessarily exclusive to
the homosexual community.
JOHN: I didn't say it
was.
QUESTIONER: Right. Right, so...
JOHN: But where it is
and where you see it, I'm more concerned about the violence in hurting
image bearers of God there. And many times homosexual rights activists
don't want to talk about that. I will talk about anything you want me to
talk about as a heterosexual, because my concern and passion is all people
are image bearers of God. And I'll tell you something. If someone's
driving over a cliff and they're about to go down a thousand feet, I will
try to say please don't do that.
BILL: OK, you've been very
patient. Thank you.
QUESTIONER: Good evening, gentlemen. I'm
great-grandma Mo. And I've been around a long time and all this talk about
sex really kind of makes me nervous. [laughter] Because in my day and
age...
JOHN: Me too.
QUESTIONER: ...in my day and age we
didn't talk about such things. But anyway I do have an observation in
working in this area quite some time. That I feel really bad because no
one really seems to love the homosexuals enough, to have compassion enough
on them, to care enough about them to tell them that they're going to not
only lose their soul, but their physical life in many areas. I guess the
greatest compliment I've ever had paid to me was by a homosexual when he
told me that I was the best friend a homosexual ever had. Because he said,
you care enough about us not to give us our way, to try to explain to us
that what we are doing will destroy us physically, mentally, and also that
we would lose our soul. So to me that was really a compliment. I pray for
this man that said this for many years. And another thing that concerns
me, especially Rev. Hansen, is I know in Ezekiel it says, that if we don't
tell people about their sins, and that they're going to lose their soul,
then it's upon our shoulders and not upon theirs. And so I really am
concerned about you because I think you have a great opportunity to help
people to get out of that lifestyle. If I were a lesbian and I came to you
and you told me that what I was doing was OK, that everything was all
right, that there was nothing wrong, then I would lose my soul, and that
would be just terrible. It bothers me so much that the churches and
everyone, you seem to think that you are doing the homosexuals a favor by
telling them they are all right, because they tell me that's what they
want to hear, when really they don't think that they're all right. They
know they aren't all right. But that's what they want to hear. So it
bothers me so much to think that our churches are really not trying to
help these people to get out of that lifestyle. And you know, only Jesus
Christ can get them out of the lifestyle. Many have changed and I just
pray every day... [applause] ...I pray every day for the homosexuals. When
I see them on TV and I see them cry because they're dying of AIDS, my
heart just absolutely explodes.
BILL: OK, let's give the
participants an opportunity to respond.
QUESTIONER: The question
that I want to ask both of you, and especially Pastor Hansen. Please,
Pastor Hansen, I've been sitting here tonight praying that God would open
your spiritual eyes. That you would begin to help these people to find
Christ and to find the real way of living, because you know, homosexuality
is going to kill them in many ways.
BILL: What's your
question?
QUESTIONER: That's what I want to ask him.
BILL:
OK.
QUESTIONER: If his spiritual eyes would be changed tonight. If
he will try to help them to get out of that lifestyle, and not keep
telling them they're OK, 'cuz that's a lie.
BILL:
OK.
QUESTIONER: And that's terrible.
BILL: OK, that's a fair
question. All right, thank you.
CARL: Thank you. Was it
great-grandma Mo, did you say?
QUESTIONER: Yes.
CARL: Thank
you for that. I hear what you're saying. I can only assure you that I feel
that I am doing what Christ calls me to do tonight in order to save souls.
I'm speaking to you. I'm speaking to you to touch your
heart.
QUESTIONER: My heart has been touched.
CARL: To see a
homosexual in a way as a child of God.
QUESTIONER: I
do.
CARL: To honor them. To embrace them.
QUESTIONER: I
do.
CARL: And to not try to change them.
QUESTIONER: I have
to.
CARL: That is the Gospel I'm called to preach. That's the good
news I'm called to preach. And with that to live responsibly. It's the
same good news that I preach to heterosexuals and try to live myself. I
think that what we do when we condemn homosexuals because they are
homosexuals, and we say that they're going to lose their souls, that we're
describing a God that is like Hitler. We're describing a God that is going
to wipe out, who is going to exterminate people because they're simply who
they are. That's not the kind of God that I know in Jesus. I can only
respond to you by saying we disagree. And I love you for speaking up to
me. And I appreciate the dialogue.
QUESTIONER: [unintelligible]
...you're in danger of... [unintelligible]
CARL: I know you're not
in danger 'cuz I know you love the Lord.
JOHN: You know, it really
comes back down to who defines the terms. When God says we're made man and
woman, and God wants us to change if we're sinning. That's what the word
repent means, is to change direction. And Carl, when you say, you know,
God is like Hitler if he doesn't accept them for simply who they are, it
begs the question, are they that way? We have to evidence that they're
made that way. Among homosexuals you have those who are bisexual, those
who are pan-sexual, those who are seasonally homosexual. And I know very
many pastors who will talk about the steady stream of men and women coming
in their presence struggling with this issue, saying help me to change,
help me to change. And it's an attitude of the mind more than it is
anything else. It's not a question of sexual equipment. It's not a
question of testosterone levels. I can assure you that's not the issue.
The issue is identity and whether or not a woman can trust a man sexually,
or a man can trust a woman sexually.
When I was studying at
Harvard Divinity School in feminist ethics, very many lesbians there. And
one lesbian came up to me with two lesbian friends at the lunch table one
day, we were taking a class together. And she sat down and she said, you
know, John, for an Evangelical you're really a nice guy. And she thought
that was an oxymoron in terms of her past experiences. She had seen
condemnation. And she knew I treated her as an image bearer of God. And
she knew I headed up at the time New England's largest evangelical
pro-life ministry. And I can tell you that was a minority position at
Harvard Divinity School. And so she then continued and she said, every
lesbian she knows -- this is anecdotal but it's powerful and there are
hundreds -- every lesbian she knew she said had been physically, sexually,
or emotionally violated by a man in her pre-adolescent years. This was ten
years ago. And I remember hearing this and my soul's response was, Lord,
has the church ever heard this, or do we condemn them? You know, the
bottom line is the Son of Man came not to condemn but to save, John 3:17.
However, people love darkness instead of light because their deeds were
evil, versus those who came into the light to be changed by the Lord. So
whether or not Carl or someone else has a different interpretation than I
do about homosexuality, I still will say that I'm going to lay my life
down for them if that's what God calls me to do.
I'm involved in
ministering to a lot of ex-homosexuals in Connecticut helping them reach
out to other homosexuals. And what grandma Mo, or great-grandma, what this
woman has testified tonight is very powerfully true. Many homosexuals will
say, could you just be there to help me change. What it really comes down
to is Romans 12, a renewal of the mind. And I'll tell you, it's no
different than other addictive patterns of alcohol abuse or drug abuse or
things like that. They can be so deeply rooted in our minds, do we love
someone enough to want them to change. Or do we view them as those who
can't change. And yet many homosexuals are saying, help me change, help me
change. So maybe your question could be, and I'll ask you, Father Hansen,
if a homosexual came to you and said help me change, what would you
say?
CARL: Absolutely. I would to the best of my ability help the
person to discern their identity and their call. Sexuality is a great
spectrum. There are those of us who are clearly heterosexual. I can't
imagine myself being attracted to another man. There are those of us who
are very clearly homosexual who cannot imagine themselves being attracted
to a woman. And there are many in between. I think we can't take those who
are confused about their identity and use those as again you tend to do,
to generalize that as being typical of all homosexuals.
JOHN: I
hope we have not generalized. What I hear you saying then is your
experience in a sin-broken world is how you judge it. Not Scripture in the
order of creation.
CARL: Of course it's Scripture. That to
me...
JOHN: But where is it in the order of creation?
CARL:
It's called compassion.
JOHN: Where is it in Scripture?
Well...
CARL: It's in Jesus.
JOHN: But Jesus says if you
love me you'll obey my commandments, and he came to fulfill the Old
Testament.
CARL: Love one another as I have loved you. That is
his...
JOHN: Obey my commandments. And he appealed back to the
order of creation, male and female.
CARL: Well, when he was asked
the question about divorce.
JOHN: Yeah.
CARL: Sure. But
that's a specific question that applies to marriage. That is not a
question about homosexuality.
JOHN: He appealed to the
normativeness of the order of creation. And Paul is explicit in his appeal
to the order of creation, Romans 1, about saying no to homosexual
activity.
CARL: OK.
BILL: OK.
QUESTIONER: Hello,
gentlemen. This is very interesting. My name is Sarah Lee. I host a weekly
talk show on KFCO in Santa Cruz. I really appreciate this information I'm
gleaning tonight. I have a two- part question. Whichever one of you feels
led to lead the charge there go right ahead.
CARL: No, ask one of
us, please. [laughter]
JOHN: Or you could ask
Bill.
QUESTIONER: I want to see you guys fight it out. [laughter]
Here's the first part. Research is on-going into the possibility of the
so-called homosexual gene similar to the same for alcoholism. Many
homosexuals assert their attraction to the same gender began in their
earliest childhood experience. How would you respond to that?
Part
two, some Christian theologians have taken the position that Christians
who have struggled for many years with homosexual feelings or tendencies
should accept their condition as is, yet practice celibacy in obedience to
scriptural patterns. I'd like to hear you address that. And perhaps Rev.
Hansen could begin.
CARL: Thank you. Well I think it's very much up
in the air right now. Neither John nor I are scientists. You know, he does
this for a living so he has a lot of surveys at his beck and call in his
pocket. But that issue I think we can all agree is very much up in the air
as regards to the gene versus environment formation process. My limited
experience in knowing homosexuals and knowing myself as a heterosexual, is
that for a great many of us, it's not a choice. Our orientation is not a
choice. Whether it's genes or environment, it's not a choice that I make.
I feel that my natural sexual attraction is toward the opposite sex.
That's not something that I chose to have happen to me. It just is.
Second part of your question had to do with
celibacy.
QUESTIONER: Yes. Whether Christians who have homosexual
tendencies who can't seem to overcome that, even though they have felt
very strongly that they should, whether they should just accept their
condition as is and practice celibacy.
CARL: Well, easy for us
heterosexuals to say, for one thing. Secondly, celibacy has always been
lifted up in the Christian community as an ideal. Certainly exists
strongly in the Catholic tradition, where their example of holiness is
celibate men. And we know that that doesn't always mean meaningful lives.
There's an awful lot of dysfunction created from that. I think that St.
Paul obviously preferred celibacy over getting married. Again, easy for
him to say perhaps. What we are about as the church is helping people to
live fulfilled lives, meaningful lives. Not everyone is called to
celibacy. I think it cheapens celibacy to say that if you're gay you
should be celibate. That's not what being celibate is about. That's a
particular calling that not all of us are called to.
JOHN: Looking
at this issue I do it from the perspective of a PK. That means a
physician's kid. And one thing my father instilled in me as I did a
bachelor of liberal arts was a love for science. And one thing I do,
although not trained in the sciences or biology or genetics or something
like that, is I go out of my way to read the best of those who write the
monographs, the intellectual stuff. On the airplane coming out the other
day I sat next to a Yale professor who knows another Yale professor I had
a long two-hour discussion with once, a homosexual biologist, avowedly
homosexual. And we talked about this issue in detail. So I think to make
myself accountable to a homosexual biologist at Yale is to get some pretty
good information on this whole question of genetic issues.
If you
look at the studies that claim genetic support, there are three major
ones. Some Johns Hopkins study years ago about bombarding male rats with
sonar to affect their testicles. Then there is Simon LeVey's studies up
here in Berkeley on cadavers and the hypothalamus issue. And then David
Hamer's National Institute of Health. Both with Hamer and with LeVey, they
were homosexuals who had homosexual publicists, who bent the information,
who medical science has discredited, and the NIH demoted Dr. Hamer because
of what he did with federal funds on this. And I'm convinced there is no
genetic evidence whatsoever for homosexuality. However, and this is very
important to me, I think there is enormous reality of people who have a
pre-cognizant identity that is other than heterosexual. I believe the
reason for this is because of a lack of true role models of man and woman
in marriage loving each other, providing for their children. If that's the
case and if I were to put myself in a position who growing up not having
that role model and being confused, what would be my response at that
point? Well you know, there are those who are dysfunctional sociologically
at many levels from their youth. Those born into alcoholic families and so
many things where our minds from our youth have not been formed properly.
And we get into deep rutted unredeemed thinking.
Now, the bottom
line is that I think that we need to do our best to help people change.
And God is merciful in terms of how we struggle with things. The
difference is someone who's struggling to overcome. And what does
Revelation celebrate? To him who overcomes, to him who overcomes, to him
who overcomes. And we all have different burdens to overcome. Quite
frankly, the challenge for a homosexual to overcome homosexual tendencies
and the challenge for someone to overcome gluttony may not be at all
different in terms of the strength of the human will. And it could have
just as bad consequences when you come right down to it. So my argument is
it's not genetic, but we need to be tremendously merciful and caring in
walking through those who have those pre- cognizant identities.
The second part of the question in terms of celibacy. I'm not in
favor of enforced celibacy. It's a unique gift that is given. I think we
need to realize Paul was a Pharisee which means by Jewish law he was
married and probably was a widower. And he found in his missionary work
being single was a gift to him in that context. I think the larger
question is when we're ministering to Christians struggling with
homosexuality, celibacy might be the best that some can attain. And those
involved in Exodus ministry will help people in that direction. But
there's something better to attain, and that is a redeemed mind of male
and female and the complementarity, whether or not marriage is ever
embraced. Heterosexual, faithful, monogamous marriage.
BILL: OK, at
this point we have already shot over our time that we said we were going
to conclude this evening. So what we're going to do, I'm sorry about this,
all you that have patiently waited. We're going to take one more question
and then there are concluding comments from both Father Hansen and John
Rankin. So one more question and then we'll have concluding comments and
close the evening.
QUESTIONER: Thank you. I'd like to say hi to
John and Bill. I'm Darla Sizemore, receptionist at Mayflower Church. I'd
like to question the basis for one of your arguments, Father Hansen.
Perhaps I misunderstood you, and I hope that I have. But I thought I heard
you say that the Bible was man's account of God and Jesus, and God did not
guide the author's hand. I believe God did write the Bible, and to quote
another speaker, if we don't believe that he did write it then why are we
reading it?
CARL: I think you did misunderstand
me.
QUESTIONER: Good.
CARL: What I meant was that God did
not literally take the pen and use the body of the man to write the words
in Scripture, but rather inspiration is a much more subtle thing than
that. It has to do with the experience of God, our humility of sharing
that experience with our brothers and sisters as people of God. The
gradual accumulation of stories being told and traditions beginning and
eventually those things being written down in Scripture so that the Bible
grows out of a community. It grows out of a sense of understanding who God
is, what the character of God is, and what we as the people of God are
called to be. And that's what I meant by not thinking of it in that sort
of mechanistic, almost magical way of God writing the commandments in
stone when those words were written down in Scripture. This was the
accumulation of a long tradition of experience, that these eventually
became Scripture. But it grew out of community, it grew out of experience,
it grew out of tradition. The Bible is a product of tradition. This may
come as a surprise to many in this room, but that is not a controversial
statement. If John thinks it is, I challenge you to tell me I'm wrong.
Because that would betray his education. Now, you may have thrown it all
out the window, but nonetheless that is what most Christians believe.
That's what inspiration is. It's the product of the people of God living
together humbly in community and trying to cope with life just as we're
trying to do here tonight. The primary definitive part of that experience
is the Christ event. And that interprets the rest of Scripture from a
Christian point of view.
JOHN: The powerful witness of Scripture is
that God says he revealed himself. And the nature of the Old Testament in
particular is the narratives, the time-space witness of the God who spoke
and acted in history and revealed his word. And God did not make Moses and
others an autodidact, you know, as though he had no will on his hand as he
wrote these words. That is not the case whatsoever. Nor was there
individual copyright on who wrote what. It was the community of the
believing Jews. However, what we have is we have the Word described on its
own terms as God-breathed, inspired and profitable for teaching in
doctrine and reproof, 2 Timothy 3:16. And you have the understanding that
the Bible on its own terms is the fully inspired Word of God. I'm a
radical Evangelical on those terms. But Carl, in all due respect, I think
when you think that an Evangelical or other Christians view that it's kind
of passive and automatically happening, I think that's a stereotype. I
think that's a stereotype of kind of the Scopes Trial mentality view
toward Scripture.
CARL: That's your word, not mine.
JOHN:
Exactly. But I think I'm reflecting a stereotype given toward evangelical
Christians and those who believe the Bible is inspired. But deeper than
that, you see, I'm arguing not for you or other people to accept it as
fully and completely inspired as I believe it to be, because I say so, OK.
Rather what I'm arguing is if we say we're Christian and we take the
Scripture on its own terms, it is creation, sin and redemption. It is the
order of creation. So when I was cross-examined for my degree at Harvard
University, I was asked about the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, which is the
German higher critical school of saying that the Old Testament is not
inspired but a menagerie of various texts that have come together. And I
in thirty seconds gave my answer to that question demonstrating my
understanding. And my conviction is the Graf- Wellhausen hypothesis is
fiction. And I was no longer questioned once I gave background to why I
believe that to be the case. But I think ultimately the bottom line issue
is, no matter what our interpretive position is on how or what portion of
Scripture's inspired, if you don't take the order of creation on its own
terms, you have no Scripture. You have no basis historically to call
yourself Jewish or Christian. And in terms of Christ being the
interpretive key, Christ fulfills everything in the order of creation for
the sake of redemption. And I think so often times, "the Christ event"
being the interpretive key is pulled away from the order of
creation.
BILL: OK, I'm making an exception just for your
information. I was approached by this woman who has identified herself as
a lesbian and she wanted to ask a question. So go
ahead.
QUESTIONER: Thank you. The first thing I want to say to
Reverend Hansen and Reverend Rankin and ladies and gentlemen if I may. My
name is Jane Win. I am an attorney here in Monterey County. I am a
lesbian. And I am very happy. [applause]
That's the first thing I
want to say to you this evening. I also want you to know that I came from
a wonderful, loving family. I have role models of a mother and a father. I
was brought up in the Episcopal Church and I went to parochial school. I
also want to tell you I have never been abused by anyone in my life, man,
woman or child. [end of tape 2 side 1] ...my choice. I was born who I am,
who I am as I stand here before you today.
I also want you to know
that I as an attorney have done a lot of domestic and family law work. And
I beg to differ with Rev. Rankin that most of the spousal abuse occurs
from a relationship outside of marriage. I have represented those women
who are in marriages, who have gotten married in the church and who are
abused every day of their life. And I as a lesbian have never been abused
about that.
I really don't have any question. I just wanted to
stand up today and tell you that you have now met a lesbian who is very
happy being a lesbian. I'm in a wonderful, committed two-year
relationship. And I thank you very much for letting me speak.
[applause]
JOHN: And thank you very much for sharing that with us,
and I'm glad that you felt the hospitality and the freedom to do so. I
tried to be very careful, and I think the audio tapes will bear this out.
When I talked about abuse, I talked about one woman's anecdote and a very
powerful anecdote. I know many lesbians who will say they are happy, who
will testify to the same thing. And I'm on good speaking terms with people
like these despite our disagreement. And therefore I will not judge anyone
by experience or their statement of experience. The final issue about who
God is and his nature is what we're talking about here. And I have tried
to represent the Bible on its own terms and ultimately our choice as we
respond to that. This woman who just spoke, she will get the same respect
from me to her as I will give to anyone else, especially Christians, the
same equal respect for her humanity especially on civil rights and other
issues like that.
However, I have to differ on this issue of
domestic violence. In 1978 or 9, the Carter administration funded a
project that was not published until the Bush administration. Twenty-three
million statistics by a Ph.D with the Department of Justice looking at
female victims of violent crime. With those 23,000,000 statistics, and
this will be published in my book, I have the statistics. I submitted this
to Patricia Ireland, the president of NOW [National Organization for
Women] at Smith College and asked for her critique, and she has not
critiqued it. And the following statistics are these. That for every woman
who is violated physically by a man inside marriage, there are sixty-two
women violated by a man who is not her husband, in most cases a live-in
boyfriend. And that is 23,000,000 statistics by a Carter-
administration-funded study. And to me that is overwhelmingly powerful. So
anecdotally we may have different understandings of that. And that does
not for one inch countenance the violence within marriage. Not at all. In
fact that's almost more serious at a level, that a man would say he
commits himself to marriage and then abuses. So we say no to abuse period,
but I think the statistics are overwhelming.
CARL: I have no
response.
Next
|
|