I am overwhelmed by the outpouring of love and support from all of my family and friends in regards to this issue. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!!!
Many responded on Facebook and had thought-provoking things to say!!
Kerry McManus said: First of all, there's absolutely nothing you need to do to achieve closure or resolution with these people. Although they are approaching you in the name of "love" and concern, there is nothing loving about their motives or actions. They are narrow minded, fearful people. The kind of people who prop their confusion and insecurity up with a foundation of religion to fall back on. Believe me, the fact that they will not let this go tells me that on some level, they know they're full of crap. They just need you to let them off the hook so they won't feel so guilty and so they'll be "right". I'm not suggesting that you punish them, but I certainly don't think you should make this okay for them, because it isn't. Just continue to be your authentic, wonderful self, celebrate your relationship with Justin with joy and pride and don't apologize for walking your path. Walk it with even MORE love and surety. I ALWAYS believe these situations are opportunities, teaching moments, chances to grow stronger within our humanity. Your relatives have not made the choice to view this as an opportunity for growth, but WE can. And we will! Love you, dear boy!
Brian Priesman said: Brandon, wo things that popped into my head when I read your blog. First- you KNOW you are not only loved by soooo many people, you are also a beloved child of God- no matter what title/name/etc. one might give said creator. Second- Martin Luther wrote that we are all sinners and saints. This is something I believe quite strongly. Who you choose to love and spend your life with is not a sin. Your willingness to attempt to forgive is an example of you being a saint. Your extended families unwanted and misguided judgement is an example of THEIR issues and THEIR problems- NOT YOURS. Don't apologize for who you are or who you love. And remember- YOU ARE LOVED BY SO MANY OF US!!!!
Paige Parsons said: My favorite bible verse comes from 1 John: "God is Love, and all those who love know God". His love comes to us unconditionally; no strings, no price tags, just to love Him back, and to live as Jesus taught us to live. You, my friend, are that living example. You live, love, and give unconditionally; your everyday example of true goodness, and Grace trumps biblical tripe. One cannot spew Jesus/bible words without walking the walk. My advice is to keep loving and living; never let that bright light hide under a bushel. You are worth finding/being in/experiencing love, no matter who they are. Your happiness is so important, and it's okay to let yourself come first. Forgive and move forward so boldly that you leave lasting positive impact. In the end, your contribution to mankind will outshine any silly opinions of close-minded "Christians".
Joseph Gentry Stephens said: 1. Wow. 2. It is said that everyone in your life is here to teach you something about yourself. 3. There are two choices in this life: fear or love.
You are loved. Be love and the rest will take care of itself.
Anne Sheer included this wonderful article that was a final interview with a grandmother who truly said it best: "'Your truth will be different from my truth. Everyone’s truths are different. Don’t ever let this world mold you. You go out and you mold the world. You are perfect as you are. Don’t you dare let a single person try and make you believe that what you are is wrong.”
I love this very much and this is my intention...to close the door on this and to move forward on the course that God has set forth for me to move on towards...living a life as an example of Love and to tell the world, "I love you. Period"...with no ifs, ands, or buts.
Amen
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
AGREE TO DISAGREE
For some of you new to my blog, you may have missed this blog post from December 2011...if you get the chance to read it, please do:
http://bdhigdem.blogspot.com/2011/12/defining-moment-of-my-christmas.html
It has been since this time, that I had decided to forgive and move on. In fact, this moment in my life has defined many of the blog posts that have followed, sadly, but also has become incredibly life defining. Many a post on is it possible to forgive and not forget, which we found it is. This blog became incredibly cathartic and life changing for me.
My uncle's funeral was actually the first time these family members and I have been together since the sending of the letter. I had 15 1/2 hours of playing it over and over and over in my head as to what would be happening. I knew that we would be in the same room together, in the same vicinity, and knew that something would be said. My mom and I had planned on just ignoring...for this moment, this occasion was not about any sort of complications...other than being there for my aunt, godmother, cousin, and their families. Supporting them. Holding them up. Hugging them and crying together.
We did fairly well. I avoided my offending aunt rather smoothly. It was not the time for small talk and I was not having it. I am not sure how many times one can give the same comment about how much my Dad and I look the same (even thought its true) and not get the point that small talk was not going to happen.
Yet we made it through the visitation service. Beautiful video montage of family photos and sweet music, kind words, memories shared, tears flow, lots of Kleenex, prayers, and hugs around. As I am hugging my cousins, I feel a tap on my shoulder. I turn around and am in an immediate hard hug. My cousin, who had sent the offensive letter so long ago, had chosen this moment to hug it out. Now in my head all I can think of is, "Here it comes".
She whispers into my ear, while crying, " Brandon, I am so sorry. I am sorry for the hurt I caused you. I sent the letter in hopes that we could have had an open, honest communication. I never meant to hurt you. I love you and hope that we can agree to disagree on this." All I could see was blurry. What the heck? I am a few feet away from my uncle who had just passed and am kinda blind-sided. I could feel the sincerity in her voice and could feel her apology was also sincere. I whispered back, "I know. Thank you."
I pull back and say to her, "You have to know that you did not hurt just me, but you also hurt my partner...someone I love very VERY much." And then it happened.
The offending aunt swooped in and was just too much..." Are we okay now? Can this be over? Is this all good. Cause you know, Brandon, we just have to agree to disagree on this and move on."
And then I feel fire. I feel red. I feel the light bulb go on and remember thinking, " Ahhhhhh I see now. This is where you planned on having this. You wanted this casket side momentous feeling of forgiveness and acceptance...AND you coached each other on this as the exact same words came out of your mouths." NICE!!!!
I went on, "You know," pointing to the casket, " What I said about that man and his entire family is the truth. Don and Doris, his entire family love me and my partner unconditionally...it is a love without judgment. Without expectations. And your love comes with judgment."
My aunt then said, "We don't judge you, Brandon. We are going to God do the judging."
I pulled away and hugs continued. Hugs with phrases like, "I had hoped and prayed something like this would happen." And I just felt sick to my stomach.
Now if any of you know me well, you know that this did not settle for many days thereafter...sleep eludes me and I just have to get it on the page. So yes, a letter is being written to put the final moments and thoughts to rest.
Here’s the deal…as much as they both deny this, what they are asking is extremely judgmental in nature. How do they expect me to “agree to disagree” on something that is at the very core of who I am as a human being? It would be like me saying, “Hey, you know what? I don’t agree that you are a woman. So can we just ‘agree to disagree’ about that?” or ““Hey, you know what? I don’t agree that you are a mother. So can we just ‘agree to disagree’ about that?” And that is something that I cannot do and honestly feel offended that a request would be made like that.
They are asking me to deny the fact that I am who I am at my very being. I am a gay man, was born this way, and am thankfully and blessedly in a VERY loving relationship with my partner of five years. I feel very blessed to have Justin in my life. We have every intention of getting married in the near future and having a family as well. I feel very blessed to have the support of all of our parents, Justin’s grandparents, and a majority of our family on ALL sides. I could go on and on and try to show them all of the findings, scientific and biblical in nature…but alas I know it would fall on deaf ears. How sad that they would choose to alienate themselves from your entire family, who love and support us, on this issue?
They both also continually reminded me that evening of how much “they love me”. But it was exactly as I wrote in my note read during the service and this is the primary differences between their idea of love and the example Don’s family has set with ours. Don's family has embraced who I am, who I love, and do this WITHOUT judgment or malice. They have ALWAYS done this and have never told me I am anything less than someone they could love unconditionally. It is this idea of unconditional love, this idea that there are no requirements, no demands, no definitions of “how you believe one person should live their life if it is different than yours” that rings true throughout Don's family.
I wonder if they will be able to see the difference between the two? Their love is conditional for it comes with requirements, demands, and definitions…Unconditional love does not. Their love is “I love you. Period.” while judgmental love is “I love you…but.” They are asking things of me that I cannot comply with and all under the guise of familial love, asking me to deny who I am, deny my life, and try and live it the way THEY want me to live, by THEIR standards, under the guise of the Old Testament and “God’s standards”, but it is not their life to live. God gave me this life to live and I pray for His guidance every day on how he would want me to live my life… They feel I must comply with something they believe to be true and got burned. BAD.
Thoughts?
http://bdhigdem.blogspot.com/2011/12/defining-moment-of-my-christmas.html
It has been since this time, that I had decided to forgive and move on. In fact, this moment in my life has defined many of the blog posts that have followed, sadly, but also has become incredibly life defining. Many a post on is it possible to forgive and not forget, which we found it is. This blog became incredibly cathartic and life changing for me.
My uncle's funeral was actually the first time these family members and I have been together since the sending of the letter. I had 15 1/2 hours of playing it over and over and over in my head as to what would be happening. I knew that we would be in the same room together, in the same vicinity, and knew that something would be said. My mom and I had planned on just ignoring...for this moment, this occasion was not about any sort of complications...other than being there for my aunt, godmother, cousin, and their families. Supporting them. Holding them up. Hugging them and crying together.
We did fairly well. I avoided my offending aunt rather smoothly. It was not the time for small talk and I was not having it. I am not sure how many times one can give the same comment about how much my Dad and I look the same (even thought its true) and not get the point that small talk was not going to happen.
Yet we made it through the visitation service. Beautiful video montage of family photos and sweet music, kind words, memories shared, tears flow, lots of Kleenex, prayers, and hugs around. As I am hugging my cousins, I feel a tap on my shoulder. I turn around and am in an immediate hard hug. My cousin, who had sent the offensive letter so long ago, had chosen this moment to hug it out. Now in my head all I can think of is, "Here it comes".
She whispers into my ear, while crying, " Brandon, I am so sorry. I am sorry for the hurt I caused you. I sent the letter in hopes that we could have had an open, honest communication. I never meant to hurt you. I love you and hope that we can agree to disagree on this." All I could see was blurry. What the heck? I am a few feet away from my uncle who had just passed and am kinda blind-sided. I could feel the sincerity in her voice and could feel her apology was also sincere. I whispered back, "I know. Thank you."
I pull back and say to her, "You have to know that you did not hurt just me, but you also hurt my partner...someone I love very VERY much." And then it happened.
The offending aunt swooped in and was just too much..." Are we okay now? Can this be over? Is this all good. Cause you know, Brandon, we just have to agree to disagree on this and move on."
And then I feel fire. I feel red. I feel the light bulb go on and remember thinking, " Ahhhhhh I see now. This is where you planned on having this. You wanted this casket side momentous feeling of forgiveness and acceptance...AND you coached each other on this as the exact same words came out of your mouths." NICE!!!!
I went on, "You know," pointing to the casket, " What I said about that man and his entire family is the truth. Don and Doris, his entire family love me and my partner unconditionally...it is a love without judgment. Without expectations. And your love comes with judgment."
My aunt then said, "We don't judge you, Brandon. We are going to God do the judging."
SERIOUSLY?????????????????????????????? And that doesn't REAK of judgment and pompous piety??
I pulled away and hugs continued. Hugs with phrases like, "I had hoped and prayed something like this would happen." And I just felt sick to my stomach.
Now if any of you know me well, you know that this did not settle for many days thereafter...sleep eludes me and I just have to get it on the page. So yes, a letter is being written to put the final moments and thoughts to rest.
Here’s the deal…as much as they both deny this, what they are asking is extremely judgmental in nature. How do they expect me to “agree to disagree” on something that is at the very core of who I am as a human being? It would be like me saying, “Hey, you know what? I don’t agree that you are a woman. So can we just ‘agree to disagree’ about that?” or ““Hey, you know what? I don’t agree that you are a mother. So can we just ‘agree to disagree’ about that?” And that is something that I cannot do and honestly feel offended that a request would be made like that.
They are asking me to deny the fact that I am who I am at my very being. I am a gay man, was born this way, and am thankfully and blessedly in a VERY loving relationship with my partner of five years. I feel very blessed to have Justin in my life. We have every intention of getting married in the near future and having a family as well. I feel very blessed to have the support of all of our parents, Justin’s grandparents, and a majority of our family on ALL sides. I could go on and on and try to show them all of the findings, scientific and biblical in nature…but alas I know it would fall on deaf ears. How sad that they would choose to alienate themselves from your entire family, who love and support us, on this issue?
They both also continually reminded me that evening of how much “they love me”. But it was exactly as I wrote in my note read during the service and this is the primary differences between their idea of love and the example Don’s family has set with ours. Don's family has embraced who I am, who I love, and do this WITHOUT judgment or malice. They have ALWAYS done this and have never told me I am anything less than someone they could love unconditionally. It is this idea of unconditional love, this idea that there are no requirements, no demands, no definitions of “how you believe one person should live their life if it is different than yours” that rings true throughout Don's family.
I wonder if they will be able to see the difference between the two? Their love is conditional for it comes with requirements, demands, and definitions…Unconditional love does not. Their love is “I love you. Period.” while judgmental love is “I love you…but.” They are asking things of me that I cannot comply with and all under the guise of familial love, asking me to deny who I am, deny my life, and try and live it the way THEY want me to live, by THEIR standards, under the guise of the Old Testament and “God’s standards”, but it is not their life to live. God gave me this life to live and I pray for His guidance every day on how he would want me to live my life… They feel I must comply with something they believe to be true and got burned. BAD.
Thoughts?
The passing of a Gentleman
As many of you know, my uncle passed away last week. I am so grateful for the opportunity to be able to drive home to be with my family and celebrate this man's amazing life. The strong example he lead his life by...it is an example his entire family leads day in and day out. Tuesday evening was the visitation service. It was a difficult time for all. I am amazed at the fact that some of Don's family were able to get up and share wonderful memories of Don. I could not do it as I am, and continue to be, an emotional soul. I cry at the drop of a hat. It's ok. I feel things so deeply and throw in family sadness and I am down for the count. I have always said that I am more in touch with my feminine side rather than masculine...HA HA HA HA
Thankfully, I was able to write down my heartfelt feelings and the preacher agreed to read family member's thoughts and wishes for Don's family for those who just couldn't get up and make it through it.
Here is what I wrote:
"I had a great deal of reflection time on my drive back home
to celebrate the life of my Uncle Don. There are so many fond memories I was
able to chuckle about, sometimes weep about. There are so many fond descriptors
I could give to define who Uncle Don was as a person. Nurturing. Strong. Gentle. An example of hard
work and achievement. A pillar of what being a man should be. For you see, once
Grandpa Pete passed away, Don truly became the father figure for us all. He did
this unknowingly and brilliantly.
What stands out to me powerfully is the fact that both Don
and Doris are the primary example of love unconditional. When my Mom and Dad
were going through the divorce and my family was in turmoil, both Don and Doris
were there with no judgment, arms wide open saying, “Its ok, come home, be
here, we love you, we support you.” It is this idea of unconditional love, this
idea that there are no requirements, no demands, no definitions of “how you
believe one person should live their life if it is different than yours” that
rings true throughout their family. They have passed this down to Debbie and
DuWayne, who have in turn passed this down to their own families. You built
your family around love and nurturing…this was very evident.
When new members of our family came into the fold, Don, Doris,
and their entire family were always there with no judgment, arms wide open
saying, “Its ok, come home, be here, we love you, we support you.” And for this
I will forever be grateful. I take great solace knowing that love is truly unconditional
when it comes to my family…there is no judgment and that my partner feels
welcome, feels loved, and feels the exact beauty of this love unconditional.
Don, I am going to miss you so much. But I take great solace
in the fact that you were able to leave us on your own terms. That your family
was able to be there and help you on to your next journey. Know that the
example you set did not go unnoticed and I will be forever leading my life in
this very example.
~Your loving nephew, Brandon"
It's those life changing moments that you never forget and I will be forever grateful for being able to make this moment, to be able to make the drive home, and to be able to cry with and "hug it out"and support my family through this difficult time.
He will be missed, but it is those moments when you think about all of what "could have been" and how it all actually played out, and as difficult as it is to say goodbye, there are so many blessings we all take great solace in. He was able to leave on his terms. He was able to say final goodbyes to his family. He blessed us all in so many ways and will never forget the example he set.
It's those life changing moments that you never forget and I will be forever grateful for being able to make this moment, to be able to make the drive home, and to be able to cry with and "hug it out"and support my family through this difficult time.
He will be missed, but it is those moments when you think about all of what "could have been" and how it all actually played out, and as difficult as it is to say goodbye, there are so many blessings we all take great solace in. He was able to leave on his terms. He was able to say final goodbyes to his family. He blessed us all in so many ways and will never forget the example he set.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
The Best Case for the Bible Not Condemning Homosexuality
So one of my former students texted me a link to a Huffington Post article that was very eye opening and thought provoking as many of these articles tend to be...if you have not checked out Huffington Post...YOU NEED TO!!! Amazeballs!!!
The following article states it all best...by John and Catherine Shore, excerpted from "UNFAIR: Why the 'Christian' View of Gays Doesn't Work."...
The Best Case for the Bible Not Condemning Homosexuality
Christians are increasingly divided over the issue of the acceptance and inclusion of gay persons into the church. The debate itself is usually framed as essentially pitting the Bible, on one hand, against compassion and social justice on the other. Our Christian hearts, runs the (usually impassioned) argument, compel us to grant full moral and legal equality to gay and lesbian people; our Christian faith, comes the (usually impassioned) rebuttal, compels us to cleave, above all, to the word of God.
Compassion for others is the fundamental cornerstone of Christian ethics; the Bible is the bedrock of the Christian faith. What Christian can possibly choose between the two?
The answer is that no Christian is called upon to make that choice. The text of the Bible on one hand, and full equality for gay and lesbian people on the other, is a false dichotomy. God would not ask or expect Christians to ever choose between their heart and their faith.
Reconciling the Bible with unqualified acceptance and equality for LGBT people does not necessitate discounting, recasting, deconstructing or reinterpreting the Bible. All it takes is reading those passages of the Bible wherein homosexuality is mentioned with the same care we would any other passage of the book.
We can trust God; we can trust that God is loving.
And we can trust that we can -- and that we certainly should -- take God, in this matter, as in all things, at his Word.
If there is no clearly stated directive in the Bible to marginalize and ostracize gay people, then Christians continuing to do so is morally indefensible, and must cease.
What cannot be denied is that Christians have caused a great deal of pain and suffering to gay persons, by:
Christians do not deny that they have done these things. However, they contend that they have no choice but to do these things, based on what they say is a clear directive about homosexuals delivered to them by God through the Holy Bible. They say that the Bible defines all homosexual acts as sinful, instructs them to exclude from full participation in the church all non-repentant sinners (including gay people), and morally calls upon them to publicly (or at least resolutely) denounce homosexual acts.
Without an explicit directive from God to exclude and condemn homosexuals, the Christian community's treatment of gay persons is in clear violation of what Jesus and the New Testament writers pointedly identified as the most important commandment from God: to love one's neighbor as one's self.
The gay community has cried out for justice to Christians, who have a biblically mandated obligation to be just. Because the mistreatment of gay persons by Christians is so severe, the directive from God to marginalize and ostracize gay people must be clear and explicit in the Bible. If there is no such clearly stated directive, then the continued Christian mistreatment of gay and lesbian people is morally indefensible, and must cease.
Heterosexual Christians are being unbiblical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality to homosexual "sins" that they themselves are not tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.
Homosexuality is briefly mentioned in only six or seven of the Bible's 31,173 verses. (The verses wherein homosexuality is mentioned are commonly known as the "clobber passages," since they are typically used by Christians to "clobber" LGBT people.) The fact that homosexuality is so rarely mentioned in the Bible should be an indication to us of the degree of importance ascribed it by the authors of the Bible.
While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality, a great deal of its content is devoted to how a Christian should behave. All throughout it, the Bible insists on fairness, equity, love and the rejection of legalism over compassion. If heterosexual Christians are obligated to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of homosexual acts, how much greater is their obligation to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of their behavior toward gay persons, especially in light of the gay community's call to them for justice?
Some Bible passages pertinent to this concern are:
Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her. --John 8:7
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not covet," and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. --Romans 13:8-10
Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. --Colossians 3:11-13
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices -- mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law -- justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. --Matthew 23:22-24
A fundamental tenant of Christianity is that we are all born sinners, that we have no choice but to exist in relationship to our sinful natures. And so Christians accept as inevitable that any given Christian will, for instance, on occasion drink too much, lust or tell a lie.
As we've seen, in the clobber passages Paul also condemns, along with homosexuality, those three specific sins. But Christians don't think that they are expected to never commit any degree of those sins. They understand that circumstances and normal human weaknesses must be taken into account before condemning any transgression. We all readily understand and accept the moral distinction between drinking socially and being a drunk; between a lustful thought and committing adultery; between telling a flattering white lie and chronically lying.
Even a sin as heinous as murder we do not judge without first taking into account the context in which it occurred. Self-defense, protection of the innocent, during a war -- we recognize that there are times when even taking the life of another is not only not a sin, but a morally justified, and even heroic act.
Christians evaluate the degree of sin, or even whether or not a real sin has occurred, by looking at both the harm caused by the sin, and the intent of the sin's perpetrator.
They do, that is, for all sins except homosexuality.
Virtually any degree of homosexual "transgression" gets treated by Christians as an absolute sin deserving absolute punishment. Christians draw no moral distinction between the homosexual gang rape in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the orgies to which Paul refers in his letter to the Romans, the wild sexual abandon Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians, and consensual homosexual sex between loving and committed homosexual partners.
Heterosexual Christians are being unfair and hypocritical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality (and an absolute penalty) to homosexual "sins" that they themselves are never tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality (and applying no real penalty) for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.
As there is no demonstrable harm arising from sex within a committed homosexual relationship, and there is significant demonstrable harm arising from discrimination and condemnation against gay persons, what possible biblical basis can there be for not recognizing the vast moral differential between sex acts done within the context of a loving committed relationship, and sex acts of any other sort?
Here are a few Bible passages that any Christian should bear in mind whenever he or she is called upon (or at least emotionally compelled) to render a moral judgment:
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. --Matthew 7:1
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. --Luke 6:41-43
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." --Matthew 23:22-24
The Bible isn't a rulebook, and Christians cannot lift out of its context any passage from the Bible, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of that passage.
It is important to understand that even the most fundamentalist Christian sects do not take the Bible wholly literally. The New Testament is 2,000 years old. Its cultural contexts, along with the translation at hand, is always taken into consideration by any Christian serious about understanding this vast and complex work.
Further, the Bible is not a contract, or a set of instructions, with each passage spelling out something clear and specific. It is not a rulebook for being Christian. It is instead a widely varying collection of poetry, history, proverbs, moral directives, parables, letters and wondrous visions. We would be foolish to fail to understand that not everything in the Bible is a commandment, and that Christians cannot take any small section of the Bible out of its own context, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of its meaning.
Using the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is not in keeping with any directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.
The Bible's first four mentions of homosexuality occur in the Old Testament.
While continuing to be spiritually inspired and influenced by the Old Testament, Christians were specifically instructed by Paul not to follow the law of the Old Testament, in such passages as:
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. --Hebrews 7:18-19
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. -- Galatians 3:23-25
So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another... --Romans 7:4
For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. -- Romans 6:14
In practice, Christians do not follow the dictates of the Old Testament. If they did, polygamy would be legal, and forbidden would be things like tattoos, wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork and seeding lawns with a variety of grasses -- and the Christian day of worship would be Saturday, not Sunday. And if the parents of a new bride could not, upon her husband's request, prove that she's a virgin, then that bride would have to be stoned to death. And Christians would have to stone to death any other Christian guilty of adultery.
Clearly, we no longer follow any such laws.
Therefore, the use of the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is in keeping with neither any directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.
In the clobber passages Paul condemns the coercive, excessive and predatory same-sex sexual activity practiced by the Romans -- and would have condemned the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.
Because Christians' understanding and practice of New Testament prescriptions naturally and inevitably evolve along with the society and culture of which they are a part, at any given time in history Christians have always selectively followed dictates of the New Testament. This is why Christian women no longer feel morally constrained to follow Paul's directives to leave their hair uncut, to keep their heads covered in church, or to always remain quiet in church. It's also why the Bible is no longer used to justify the cruel institution of slavery, or to deny women the right to vote.
Just as those thoughts and understandings of the New Testament changed and grew, so today is it becoming increasingly clear to Christians that the three New Testament clobber passages (each of which was written by Paul in letters to or about nascent distant churches), when understood in their historical context, do not constitute a directive from God against LGBT people today.
Here are the three mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. --1 Corinthians 6:9-10
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers -- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. --1 Timothy 1:9-10:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. --Romans 1:26-27
In the times during which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between older men and boys, and between men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight.
The universally acknowledged authoritative reference on matters of antiquity is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Here is what the OCD (third edition revised, 2003) says in its section about homosexuality as practiced in the time of Paul:
"...the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic."
This is the societal context in which Paul wrote of homosexual acts, and it is this context that Christians are obliged to bring to their understanding and interpretation of the three clobber passages. Paul certainly condemned the same-sex sexual activity he saw around him. It was coercive; it was without constraint; it involved older men and boys. As a moral man, Paul was revolted by these acts -- as, certainly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.
The Bible's clobber passages were written about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not address the subject of homosexual acts between a committed gay couple, because the concept of a person being a homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was written.
It is also critical to our reading of the New Testament's three clobber passages to understand that while of course Paul knew about sex acts that took place between persons of the same gender, he had no concept whatsoever of homosexual persons. Virtually no one in Paul's time was "out"; no one lived, or in any way publicly self-identified, as a homosexual. Paul had no concept of an entire population of people who, as a fundamental, unalterable condition of their existence, were sexually attracted to persons of the same gender, and not sexually attracted to persons of the opposite gender.
Here is the opening of the OCD's article on homosexuality:
We can be confident that Paul was not writing to, or about, gay people, because he simply could not have been, any more than he could have written about smart phones or iPads. We do not know what Paul might write or say today about gay people. All we know is that in the New Testament he wrote about promiscuous, predatory, non-consensual same-sex acts between heterosexuals.
If we are to rely on the Bible, then we must take its text as it is. It does condemn homosexual (and heterosexual) sex that is excessive, exploitive and outside of marriage. It does not, however, address the state of homosexuality itself -- much less the subject of homosexual acts between a married gay couple. Christians therefore have no Bible-based moral justification for themselves condemning such acts.
Because there was no concept of gay marriage when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts done within the context of gay marriage.
The Bible routinely, clearly and strongly classifies all sex acts outside of the bonds of marriage as sinful. But, because there was no concept of gay people when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts done within the context of marriage. Christians therefore have no biblical basis for themselves condemning such acts.
In fact, by denying marriage equality to gay people, Christians are compelling gay couples to sin, because their intimacy must happen outside of marriage, and is therefore, by biblical definition, sinful.
Being personally repelled by homosexual sex doesn't make homosexual sex a sin.
In addition to the Bible, many Christians cite as additional evidence of the inherent sinfulness of homosexual acts their raw emotional response to such acts. It is understandable that many straight people find homosexual sex repugnant (just as many gay people find heterosexual sex repugnant). It is normal for any one of us to be viscerally repelled by the idea of sex between, or with, people for whom we personally have no sexual attraction. Young people, for example, are often disgusted by the thought of senior citizens having sex. And who isn't repulsed by the idea of their parents having sex? (When, rationally speaking, we should rejoice in the fact that they did!) But it is much too easy for any person to mistake their instinctive reaction against something as a moral reaction to that thing. Outrage isn't always moral outrage, though the two usually feel the same.
It may feel to a straight Christian that their instinctive negative reaction to homosexual sex arises out of the Bible. But all of us necessarily view the Bible through the lens of our own experiences and prejudices, and we must be very careful to ensure that lens does not distort our vision or understanding of God's sacrosanct word.
"The greatest of these is love."
The overriding message of Jesus was love. Jesus modeled love; Jesus preached love; Jesus was love. Christians desiring to do and live the will of Jesus are morally obliged to always err on the side of love. Taken altogether, the evidence -- the social context in which the Bible was written, the lack of the very concept of gay people in Paul's time, the inability of gay people to marry, the inequity between how the clobber passages are applied between a majority and a minority population, the injustice of the punishment for a state of being over which one has no choice being exclusion from God's church on earth and human love generally -- shows that choosing to condemn and exclude gay people based on the Bible is the morally incorrect choice. That evidence should instead lead Christians to the most obvious, and most Christian of all positions, stated so beautifully by Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 13:
by John and Catherine Shore, excerpted from "UNFAIR: Why the 'Christian' View of Gays Doesn't Work."
I am going to be buying this book immediately!!!! Thank you John Shore and Huffington post for once again reaffirming my beliefs and the beliefs of many of those around me!!! I am eternally grateful for your words, your thought provoking commentary and for setting our hearts at ease...
If only the right folks would read this...
Compassion for others is the fundamental cornerstone of Christian ethics; the Bible is the bedrock of the Christian faith. What Christian can possibly choose between the two?
The answer is that no Christian is called upon to make that choice. The text of the Bible on one hand, and full equality for gay and lesbian people on the other, is a false dichotomy. God would not ask or expect Christians to ever choose between their heart and their faith.
Reconciling the Bible with unqualified acceptance and equality for LGBT people does not necessitate discounting, recasting, deconstructing or reinterpreting the Bible. All it takes is reading those passages of the Bible wherein homosexuality is mentioned with the same care we would any other passage of the book.
We can trust God; we can trust that God is loving.
And we can trust that we can -- and that we certainly should -- take God, in this matter, as in all things, at his Word.
If there is no clearly stated directive in the Bible to marginalize and ostracize gay people, then Christians continuing to do so is morally indefensible, and must cease.
What cannot be denied is that Christians have caused a great deal of pain and suffering to gay persons, by:
- Banning their participation in the church, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of the church;
- Banning their participation in the sacrament of marriage, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of marriage;
- Damaging the bonds between gays and their straight family members, thus weakening the comforts and spiritual fruits of family life for both gays and their families; and
- Using their position within society as spokespersons for God to proclaim that all homosexual relations are disdained by God, thus knowingly contributing to the cruel persecution of a minority population.
Christians do not deny that they have done these things. However, they contend that they have no choice but to do these things, based on what they say is a clear directive about homosexuals delivered to them by God through the Holy Bible. They say that the Bible defines all homosexual acts as sinful, instructs them to exclude from full participation in the church all non-repentant sinners (including gay people), and morally calls upon them to publicly (or at least resolutely) denounce homosexual acts.
Without an explicit directive from God to exclude and condemn homosexuals, the Christian community's treatment of gay persons is in clear violation of what Jesus and the New Testament writers pointedly identified as the most important commandment from God: to love one's neighbor as one's self.
The gay community has cried out for justice to Christians, who have a biblically mandated obligation to be just. Because the mistreatment of gay persons by Christians is so severe, the directive from God to marginalize and ostracize gay people must be clear and explicit in the Bible. If there is no such clearly stated directive, then the continued Christian mistreatment of gay and lesbian people is morally indefensible, and must cease.
Heterosexual Christians are being unbiblical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality to homosexual "sins" that they themselves are not tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.
Homosexuality is briefly mentioned in only six or seven of the Bible's 31,173 verses. (The verses wherein homosexuality is mentioned are commonly known as the "clobber passages," since they are typically used by Christians to "clobber" LGBT people.) The fact that homosexuality is so rarely mentioned in the Bible should be an indication to us of the degree of importance ascribed it by the authors of the Bible.
While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality, a great deal of its content is devoted to how a Christian should behave. All throughout it, the Bible insists on fairness, equity, love and the rejection of legalism over compassion. If heterosexual Christians are obligated to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of homosexual acts, how much greater is their obligation to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of their behavior toward gay persons, especially in light of the gay community's call to them for justice?
Some Bible passages pertinent to this concern are:
Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her. --John 8:7
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not covet," and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. --Romans 13:8-10
Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. --Colossians 3:11-13
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices -- mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law -- justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. --Matthew 23:22-24
A fundamental tenant of Christianity is that we are all born sinners, that we have no choice but to exist in relationship to our sinful natures. And so Christians accept as inevitable that any given Christian will, for instance, on occasion drink too much, lust or tell a lie.
As we've seen, in the clobber passages Paul also condemns, along with homosexuality, those three specific sins. But Christians don't think that they are expected to never commit any degree of those sins. They understand that circumstances and normal human weaknesses must be taken into account before condemning any transgression. We all readily understand and accept the moral distinction between drinking socially and being a drunk; between a lustful thought and committing adultery; between telling a flattering white lie and chronically lying.
Even a sin as heinous as murder we do not judge without first taking into account the context in which it occurred. Self-defense, protection of the innocent, during a war -- we recognize that there are times when even taking the life of another is not only not a sin, but a morally justified, and even heroic act.
Christians evaluate the degree of sin, or even whether or not a real sin has occurred, by looking at both the harm caused by the sin, and the intent of the sin's perpetrator.
They do, that is, for all sins except homosexuality.
Virtually any degree of homosexual "transgression" gets treated by Christians as an absolute sin deserving absolute punishment. Christians draw no moral distinction between the homosexual gang rape in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the orgies to which Paul refers in his letter to the Romans, the wild sexual abandon Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians, and consensual homosexual sex between loving and committed homosexual partners.
Heterosexual Christians are being unfair and hypocritical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality (and an absolute penalty) to homosexual "sins" that they themselves are never tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality (and applying no real penalty) for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.
As there is no demonstrable harm arising from sex within a committed homosexual relationship, and there is significant demonstrable harm arising from discrimination and condemnation against gay persons, what possible biblical basis can there be for not recognizing the vast moral differential between sex acts done within the context of a loving committed relationship, and sex acts of any other sort?
Here are a few Bible passages that any Christian should bear in mind whenever he or she is called upon (or at least emotionally compelled) to render a moral judgment:
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. --Matthew 7:1
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. --Luke 6:41-43
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." --Matthew 23:22-24
The Bible isn't a rulebook, and Christians cannot lift out of its context any passage from the Bible, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of that passage.
It is important to understand that even the most fundamentalist Christian sects do not take the Bible wholly literally. The New Testament is 2,000 years old. Its cultural contexts, along with the translation at hand, is always taken into consideration by any Christian serious about understanding this vast and complex work.
Further, the Bible is not a contract, or a set of instructions, with each passage spelling out something clear and specific. It is not a rulebook for being Christian. It is instead a widely varying collection of poetry, history, proverbs, moral directives, parables, letters and wondrous visions. We would be foolish to fail to understand that not everything in the Bible is a commandment, and that Christians cannot take any small section of the Bible out of its own context, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of its meaning.
Using the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is not in keeping with any directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.
The Bible's first four mentions of homosexuality occur in the Old Testament.
While continuing to be spiritually inspired and influenced by the Old Testament, Christians were specifically instructed by Paul not to follow the law of the Old Testament, in such passages as:
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. --Hebrews 7:18-19
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. -- Galatians 3:23-25
So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another... --Romans 7:4
For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. -- Romans 6:14
In practice, Christians do not follow the dictates of the Old Testament. If they did, polygamy would be legal, and forbidden would be things like tattoos, wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork and seeding lawns with a variety of grasses -- and the Christian day of worship would be Saturday, not Sunday. And if the parents of a new bride could not, upon her husband's request, prove that she's a virgin, then that bride would have to be stoned to death. And Christians would have to stone to death any other Christian guilty of adultery.
Clearly, we no longer follow any such laws.
Therefore, the use of the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is in keeping with neither any directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.
In the clobber passages Paul condemns the coercive, excessive and predatory same-sex sexual activity practiced by the Romans -- and would have condemned the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.
Because Christians' understanding and practice of New Testament prescriptions naturally and inevitably evolve along with the society and culture of which they are a part, at any given time in history Christians have always selectively followed dictates of the New Testament. This is why Christian women no longer feel morally constrained to follow Paul's directives to leave their hair uncut, to keep their heads covered in church, or to always remain quiet in church. It's also why the Bible is no longer used to justify the cruel institution of slavery, or to deny women the right to vote.
Just as those thoughts and understandings of the New Testament changed and grew, so today is it becoming increasingly clear to Christians that the three New Testament clobber passages (each of which was written by Paul in letters to or about nascent distant churches), when understood in their historical context, do not constitute a directive from God against LGBT people today.
Here are the three mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. --1 Corinthians 6:9-10
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers -- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. --1 Timothy 1:9-10:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. --Romans 1:26-27
In the times during which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between older men and boys, and between men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight.
The universally acknowledged authoritative reference on matters of antiquity is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Here is what the OCD (third edition revised, 2003) says in its section about homosexuality as practiced in the time of Paul:
"...the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic."
This is the societal context in which Paul wrote of homosexual acts, and it is this context that Christians are obliged to bring to their understanding and interpretation of the three clobber passages. Paul certainly condemned the same-sex sexual activity he saw around him. It was coercive; it was without constraint; it involved older men and boys. As a moral man, Paul was revolted by these acts -- as, certainly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.
The Bible's clobber passages were written about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not address the subject of homosexual acts between a committed gay couple, because the concept of a person being a homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was written.
It is also critical to our reading of the New Testament's three clobber passages to understand that while of course Paul knew about sex acts that took place between persons of the same gender, he had no concept whatsoever of homosexual persons. Virtually no one in Paul's time was "out"; no one lived, or in any way publicly self-identified, as a homosexual. Paul had no concept of an entire population of people who, as a fundamental, unalterable condition of their existence, were sexually attracted to persons of the same gender, and not sexually attracted to persons of the opposite gender.
Here is the opening of the OCD's article on homosexuality:
"No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term 'homosexuality,' and ancient Mediterranean society did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operating category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. ... The application of 'homosexuality' (and 'heterosexuality') in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised."
We can be confident that Paul was not writing to, or about, gay people, because he simply could not have been, any more than he could have written about smart phones or iPads. We do not know what Paul might write or say today about gay people. All we know is that in the New Testament he wrote about promiscuous, predatory, non-consensual same-sex acts between heterosexuals.
If we are to rely on the Bible, then we must take its text as it is. It does condemn homosexual (and heterosexual) sex that is excessive, exploitive and outside of marriage. It does not, however, address the state of homosexuality itself -- much less the subject of homosexual acts between a married gay couple. Christians therefore have no Bible-based moral justification for themselves condemning such acts.
Because there was no concept of gay marriage when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts done within the context of gay marriage.
The Bible routinely, clearly and strongly classifies all sex acts outside of the bonds of marriage as sinful. But, because there was no concept of gay people when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts done within the context of marriage. Christians therefore have no biblical basis for themselves condemning such acts.
In fact, by denying marriage equality to gay people, Christians are compelling gay couples to sin, because their intimacy must happen outside of marriage, and is therefore, by biblical definition, sinful.
Being personally repelled by homosexual sex doesn't make homosexual sex a sin.
In addition to the Bible, many Christians cite as additional evidence of the inherent sinfulness of homosexual acts their raw emotional response to such acts. It is understandable that many straight people find homosexual sex repugnant (just as many gay people find heterosexual sex repugnant). It is normal for any one of us to be viscerally repelled by the idea of sex between, or with, people for whom we personally have no sexual attraction. Young people, for example, are often disgusted by the thought of senior citizens having sex. And who isn't repulsed by the idea of their parents having sex? (When, rationally speaking, we should rejoice in the fact that they did!) But it is much too easy for any person to mistake their instinctive reaction against something as a moral reaction to that thing. Outrage isn't always moral outrage, though the two usually feel the same.
It may feel to a straight Christian that their instinctive negative reaction to homosexual sex arises out of the Bible. But all of us necessarily view the Bible through the lens of our own experiences and prejudices, and we must be very careful to ensure that lens does not distort our vision or understanding of God's sacrosanct word.
"The greatest of these is love."
The overriding message of Jesus was love. Jesus modeled love; Jesus preached love; Jesus was love. Christians desiring to do and live the will of Jesus are morally obliged to always err on the side of love. Taken altogether, the evidence -- the social context in which the Bible was written, the lack of the very concept of gay people in Paul's time, the inability of gay people to marry, the inequity between how the clobber passages are applied between a majority and a minority population, the injustice of the punishment for a state of being over which one has no choice being exclusion from God's church on earth and human love generally -- shows that choosing to condemn and exclude gay people based on the Bible is the morally incorrect choice. That evidence should instead lead Christians to the most obvious, and most Christian of all positions, stated so beautifully by Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 13:
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
by John and Catherine Shore, excerpted from "UNFAIR: Why the 'Christian' View of Gays Doesn't Work."
I am going to be buying this book immediately!!!! Thank you John Shore and Huffington post for once again reaffirming my beliefs and the beliefs of many of those around me!!! I am eternally grateful for your words, your thought provoking commentary and for setting our hearts at ease...
If only the right folks would read this...
A reflection back on the bucket list from 5 years ago...
So I went back into blog stratosphere and found the bucket list I had typed in here...
I found it interesting that there are a few things I have been able to cross off and am in the process of crossing a few off as we speak...
Here's what I wrote from back in 2009...
"I am going to be 40 in about two and half years and I would absolutely love to travel overseas and be in Paris when that milestone rings in. I have never been overseas and feel it would be absolutely perfect to reach such a milestone doing something I have never ever done before. And to be there with some of my closest friends would be wonderful, too... (DONE)
Let see, what else would be on that list...
2. Travel to London
3. Skydiving
4. Take an Alaskan Cruise and see the whales
5. See the musical Jersey Boys
6. Play the role of Archibald Craven in The Secret Garden
7. Play the role of Harold Hill in The Music Man
8. Play the role of Sweeney Todd in Sweeney Todd
9. Travel to Rome (DONE)
10. Sing with an orchestra (DONE- thank you Emily)
11. Record a CD for sale
12. Write a book. Maybe publish? (About to begin the process)
13. Have a child.
14. Build my own home and be able to design it the way I would like it...a dream home, if you will.
15. See the fall colors of New England
16. Rock climb
17. Parasail in the Carribean
18. Be remembered for being a good man.
19. Grow Muscles. (still waiting...though my waist line grows more than my arms)
I do think however, that as I look at his list...my thoughts and a perspective have changed a bit on some of these as life has thrown curveballs at me as life is wont to do at times. And it seems that the life's bucket list has been added to.
In regards to #13- I think that while having children would be amazing, I also have to take into account my age, our surrogate's age at the timeframe we are actually realistically looking at, and the fairness to the child...I am beginning to think that it is not fair to our child that when they are looking to head off to college, Dad would be retirement age...I don't know. Maybe this will change...One of the things I have been embracing more is an idea of adoption and welcoming a young soul into our house and hearts who needs a home. SO we shall see where this one leads...
I would say adding to this list is more so an adventure...
20. Go hiking in Colorado...Get a few mountain shots...
21. Visit Greece and the ruins...see the origins of theatre.
22. Visit Scotland and Ireland someday...Maybe this one could go along with #2?
23. Reconnect with my post graduate school roots...I was much more focused on a particular dream and vision and have not necessarily lost sight of it but have had a life redirection....perhaps it is time to get back on track somehow with that idea for my life's work?
24. Direct the musical Memphis.
25. Direct the musical Cabaret.
26. Direct the play Angels in America.
27. Revisit the Badlands. Reconnect with what I remember from those days...perhaps this is broader scale sort of thing and it is a road-trip to reconnect with my childhood?
28. Film a commercial. That actually runs...That gets paid...That would be cool.
29. I still would love to create a one man concert with a symphony as well...and be all Bernadette Peters...in a moment of holding that note out to the end and throwing my arms straight out from my sides , throw my head back on the cut-off of said note, and the spotlight illuminates me from behind...
I found it interesting that there are a few things I have been able to cross off and am in the process of crossing a few off as we speak...
Here's what I wrote from back in 2009...
"I am going to be 40 in about two and half years and I would absolutely love to travel overseas and be in Paris when that milestone rings in. I have never been overseas and feel it would be absolutely perfect to reach such a milestone doing something I have never ever done before. And to be there with some of my closest friends would be wonderful, too... (DONE)
Let see, what else would be on that list...
2. Travel to London
3. Skydiving
4. Take an Alaskan Cruise and see the whales
5. See the musical Jersey Boys
6. Play the role of Archibald Craven in The Secret Garden
7. Play the role of Harold Hill in The Music Man
8. Play the role of Sweeney Todd in Sweeney Todd
9. Travel to Rome (DONE)
10. Sing with an orchestra (DONE- thank you Emily)
11. Record a CD for sale
12. Write a book. Maybe publish? (About to begin the process)
13. Have a child.
14. Build my own home and be able to design it the way I would like it...a dream home, if you will.
15. See the fall colors of New England
16. Rock climb
17. Parasail in the Carribean
18. Be remembered for being a good man.
19. Grow Muscles. (still waiting...though my waist line grows more than my arms)
I do think however, that as I look at his list...my thoughts and a perspective have changed a bit on some of these as life has thrown curveballs at me as life is wont to do at times. And it seems that the life's bucket list has been added to.
In regards to #13- I think that while having children would be amazing, I also have to take into account my age, our surrogate's age at the timeframe we are actually realistically looking at, and the fairness to the child...I am beginning to think that it is not fair to our child that when they are looking to head off to college, Dad would be retirement age...I don't know. Maybe this will change...One of the things I have been embracing more is an idea of adoption and welcoming a young soul into our house and hearts who needs a home. SO we shall see where this one leads...
I would say adding to this list is more so an adventure...
20. Go hiking in Colorado...Get a few mountain shots...
21. Visit Greece and the ruins...see the origins of theatre.
22. Visit Scotland and Ireland someday...Maybe this one could go along with #2?
23. Reconnect with my post graduate school roots...I was much more focused on a particular dream and vision and have not necessarily lost sight of it but have had a life redirection....perhaps it is time to get back on track somehow with that idea for my life's work?
Perhaps it is time to refocus and get life on track towards that other dream?
24. Direct the musical Memphis.
25. Direct the musical Cabaret.
26. Direct the play Angels in America.
27. Revisit the Badlands. Reconnect with what I remember from those days...perhaps this is broader scale sort of thing and it is a road-trip to reconnect with my childhood?
28. Film a commercial. That actually runs...That gets paid...That would be cool.
29. I still would love to create a one man concert with a symphony as well...and be all Bernadette Peters...in a moment of holding that note out to the end and throwing my arms straight out from my sides , throw my head back on the cut-off of said note, and the spotlight illuminates me from behind...
Doesn't hurt to dream right??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)