Struggler, I cannot believe that God would require that you deny yourself a loving, committed, faithful relationship with someone else.

God would deny us self-indulgence. Or the right to gain from hurting others. Or the right to hurt ourselves. At the most common denominator, if a relationship with another takes away from what is good from the World or from each other, instead of adding good to it or multiplying it, then I think that God would not desire that for us.

However, I know same-sex couples whose committed relationship to each other multiples the good in the world. Multiplies the peace, the compassion, the kindness, the love. Couples who have been together for a decade, two decades. God would not expect you to deny yourself that type of relationship.

If you choose to remain celibate, that is your choice. And if that choice makes you joyful, then I wish you much peace and happiness. There are others who would find joy and peace and love in a committed relationship with another, and they should not be denied.

I want to reply but I can’t find the words. I am glad god is enough for you. I need more than that.

So true, Lorian! Often in dialogue the primary benefit to me is not what I seek to accomplish in changing the minds of others. Instead, I find it to be so cathartic and transformational to have a space in which to articulate what I believe, why I believe it, and what the implications are for that belief so that I may more fully embody it and act upon it.

I for one value the dialog with those who oppose same-sex relationships. I find that, even in cases where the person with whom I’m having the discussion is immovable in his/her opinions, and even sometimes brutally cruel in how they are stated, the conversation gives me opportunity to share ideas and thoughts I might otherwise keep to myself, and those who may be following the discussion sometimes encounter new ideas which can, in some cases, even change minds and hearts.

Dialog can be difficult and painful, but I’ve found that it’s worth the effort.

Hey Ex-Covenanter,

I do agree with you that debate is healthy and beneficial. My fear is how that dialogue is played out. Is it in a safe place? Can we talk without getting overly heated? Can we disagree while still respecting one another and having compassion for one another? That is my hope at least.

Hey Joshua,

I think you misunderstood my thoughts or perhaps I simply wasn’t clear. The sentence was not seeping hubris or being careless, I hope. I was not trying to belittle the work and conversations that have been done in the past. I’m aware how long such dialogue has been occurring and by no means meant to say that I am well advanced in my thinking on the subject. I learned a lot from Ashram and countless ECC pastors that I have come to know. If it came across that way, accept my apology.

However, it seems that the topic, or the question, is not often addressed in public. My hope is that rather than being silent, passive about our differences, or forced to speak about this topic in private, we can do so in public, can engage our differences, and learn from one another.

Yet on this post, as well as Phil’s, it seems to be the place to debate theologies and views about sexuality. Would it be just as easy to write similar comments on Andrew’s post?

I, at least, am guilty of looking for a place to argue. I’m not only an ex-Covenanter, I’m an ex-Christian. I was surprised by this blog and pleased – to see tolerance flowering in the church I grew up in is a pleasure – but I have no personal investment in either the ECC or in the greater church.

I do wonder, though, whether it might not be important to allow a certain amount of actual debate. For me, the real turning point in my own beliefs about homosexuality came when reading Andrew Sullivan’s Virtually Normal, where he deals with the best arguments he can muster for Christianity against homosexuality and carefully, precisely, and thoroughly dismantles them. I must admit that once this work was done, it was the preface – where he pours out the story of his own sexual self-discovery with heart-breaking honesty – that finally changed me. But the work of demonstrating that theological and biblical arguments against homosexuality simply cannot be defended in open debate was essential for me.

If this is not demonstrated, it’s easy to feel – as I once did – that the arguments for homosexuality amount to ideological wishy-washiness, a desire not to make hard and unpleasant judgments, a desire not to have to tell anyone that they shouldn’t do what they want to do.

That said, I was surprised and saddened when you ended (referencing Martin’s question of “What is the loving thing to do?”) with “And so, I continue to ask myself that same question. I think it is time the ECC starts asking that question too.”

There are Covenant pastors and Covenant leaders who have been asking that very question for years, some for decades. I don’t know if it was simply a careless comment at the end of your article, or actual hubris seeping out, but I think it would be misguided to claim that you will continue asking that question and will hope that the Covenant catches up with you. I think the long-standing prayer, study and struggle of our Covenant colleagues demands and deserves more than that.

I wrestle with this, and appreciate this dialogue.