Love Your Neighbor (yep, even those different than you)
Michelle Chapin | Friday, July 29, 2011 Rather than argue her perspective with quotes from scripture, Michelle urges people to listen deeply to each other and maintain a humble and open mind when discussing homosexuality. While certainty remains out of reach, mutual love and respect must inform the search for it. This is the final entry in our July series on homosexuality. -Editor.
I am sure I’m not alone when I say that I’m still trying to balance my view on homosexuality between its modern cultural context and the authority I give the teachings of the New Church. We are probably the majority out there— wishy-washy about what we believe, or too hesitant to say what we actually believe in fear of offending someone. But the truth is, offense has happened. Feelings have been hurt. People have died over this issue. No matter what conclusion people come to, there is discomfort out there around homosexuality and it’s not going anywhere right now.
Here’s the way I see it: it is fairly evident that homosexuality is not completely orderly or within the parameters of “conjugial love”— procreation the obvious example. The argument has been spelled out many times before, a man is fully a man to the last detail, woman is the same way, and together they complement each other in a heavenly model of perfection. There is an ideal out there that we are pressured to achieve, the white-picket-fence-golden-retriever-living-room-with-white-carpets ideal. A man and a woman married together, preferably with children, biological if possible.
But then, there are plenty of less-than-ideal relationship or family situations out there: single, divorced, widowed, adoption, single parents, other family members stepping in for the absent parents, etc. Some of these may come about via poor choices, and some from unforeseen circumstances. Just because they are not the prescribed “right way to do things” doesn’t necessarily make them evil or wrong—they are different. Could it be homosexuality falls under this category?
As New Church individuals, we pride ourselves on the acceptance of variety; there are many different ways to reach the LORD and heaven. We usually see this as different religions. Sexual orientation is another avenue of that. As it stands now, according to my own readings from Scripture and meditation and listening to arguments from both sides, I believe that marriage is more closely aligned with conjugial love when it is between a man and a woman, but a gay or lesbian relationship can still be a wonderful loving thing and politically I’d like to see more states allow these couples to be married. There, I’ve said it. That’s where I stand right now. I’m not going to the sociopolitical or Biblical verse-by-verse argument for my stance, those arguments are already written and debated out there, much more eloquently than I would be able to do.
What I would like to do is implore people to keep an open mind, and actually listen when people are offering their view on this matter. Don’t just sit there, waiting for the other person to finish talking so you can dazzle them with your more-rational thoughts. Don’t try to convert the other person to your side. Actually listen, hear what they’re saying, try to understand where they’re coming from. I’ve said that the above is what I personally believe “right now” because I’m not 100% sure of that. I’m still willing to listen to other sides and take their points into consideration.
What I’d also like to challenge you to do is pray, and reflect on Scripture for yourself. As it stands in this natural, physical world, I don’t think we can directly, 100% know for sure about homosexuality. The LORD has provided the Three-Fold Word for us to explore and challenge ourselves, and let ourselves be open to hear what He has to tell us individually. Reading secular articles about the science of brain chemistry or other people’s understanding of society or the Word can be great and informative, but going to the source directly and humbly is just as important.
Above all, I would ask everyone to treat others with understanding, respect, and love. What saddens me most is when a gay or lesbian individual is shunned from their society and especially his/her church. This unfortunately happens in many churches mostly because these individuals are seen as “disruptive” to the worship sphere of the established congregation. If you did believe that homosexuality was wrong, I would think you would want that person to come to church all the more? These people are met with a lot of hurt and confusion. In these harsh states, people need the LORD all the more. Why would you want to interfere with that? We are all God’s children, and all deserve love and respect from each other.
Jesus replied, “You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: Love your neighbor as yourself. The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40)
Michelle Chapin
Michelle works with a team that creates Bible study programs, helping people approach the Word for themselves, individually and in community, to hear what the Lord has to say. She also lives with and mentors high school girls, a job both extremely rewarding and very loud most of the time.Wondering about the inspiration for this article? Look up the New Church, which is based on the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.
Reader Comments (26)
Thanks Michelle, nicely put.
Thanks, Michelle. A great way to round off the discussion. At the end of the day, our conduct needs to be humble before the Lord and our fellow human beings, and lovingly compassionate towards those (and this includes all of us) who struggle against the many ills of life and against the plethora of inherited evils we are burdened with. While I would disagree with the assertion that different "sexual orientations" have been divinely ordained as paths to God, we do need to support each other in our variegated pilgrimages to Heaven. And this is relevant to ecclesiastical institutions whose purpose is to spread a wide net to catch all kinds of fish to the eternal glory of God. The General Church of the New Jerusalem needs to warmly accept all people who choose to come to it (including those who visit prostitutes and those who are addicted to pornography), while not deviating from its traditional teaching on human sexuality and on marriage.
Roger
Michelle,
I do not think that New Church folks should support the legalization of homosexual marriages by various governmental jurisdictions.
On another note - We need the ideal of conjugial love to strive towards. Even if we fall short of it, we still need it as a beacon to lead us.
Even though we are not able to love others as much as the Lord wants us to, we cannot do away with the ideal of loving and serving the least of our brethren.
Roger
Michelle, thank you for your thoughtful, caring article.
As a New Church pastor and as someone who has friends and family who are homosexual, this subject touches me deeply, as it obviously touches the many others who have written. To me, the evidence from the Word both in the Scriptures and the Doctrine points pretty clearly in the direction that the practice of homosexuality is not good for a person’s eternal life. I may be wrong in my interpretation. But it seemed to me that we should not leave this hard subject without having some passages readily available. Ropemaker presented some earlier; here are a few more, for those who are interested.
I certainly do not want to impose my views on anyone. On the other hand, if someone is hurting himself or herself in some way, as a friend I cannot just ignore it. I have to warn him of the danger I see and suggest and encourage another way. We do this with each other in relation to the danger of alcohol or drug addiction, or if we think a close friend is getting into an unhealthy heterosexual relationship, or making other unwise decisions. To say nothing would be a cop-out and very uncaring.
I do not believe that practicing homosexuals are necessarily going to hell, any more than heterosexual adulterers or murderers or thieves or myself for my sins. The gospel, the good news, is that we can repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near, and the Lord is with us always, with all power in heaven and on earth to help us. I respect the fact that some homosexuals may be doing the best they can, given the burdens they were born with. The question is whether the practice of homosexuality is something that one needs to resist and repent of, or to embrace; something that is hurtful spiritually, or fruitful (or at least neutral).
Here I am simply presenting the evidence that I see, given that I read the Heavenly Doctrine as being free from Swedenborg’s own limitations. In my view, what we find in the Writings is not just Swedenborg’s opinion or manner of speaking, but wording guided by the Lord. In the preface to Heaven and Hell it says, “That at this day there exists such direct revelation is because this is what is meant by the coming of the Lord” (no. 1 at the end).
There are five sets of teachings that warn against the practice of homosexuality in the Writings. They are teachings about:
1. Sodom: In explaining Genesis 19, Arcana Coelestia 2220 refers to “evil of the worst adultery” (or “very bad adultery”) and AC 2322 refers to “a foulness that is contrary to the order of nature.” AC 2220 says, “Although in the following chapter it appears as if the evil of the worst adultery was signified by ‘Sodom,’ nevertheless in the internal sense nothing else than evil from the love of self is signified by it. In the Word also the abominations that well forth from the love of self are represented by adulteries of various kinds. That ‘Sodom’ signifies in general all evil from the love of self, and ‘Gomorrah’ all falsity therefrom, has been shown in volume 1 (n. 1212, 1663, 1682, 1689), and is further evident from the following passages in the Word…”
As I understand this passage it is saying that although in the literal sense the story is about evil of very bad adultery, in the spiritual sense it is about evil from the love of self. I think it is a misreading to say that this passage is not calling sodomy, or homosexuality, evil of very bad adultery. It is simply saying that the spiritual sense goes deeper, to the origins of all kinds of adulteries and other evils, in the unbridled love of self.
AC 2322 says that Sodom signifies evil “especially within the church.” “Out of this evil [the love of self] all evils of every kind well forth; and all evils that thus spring from it are called in the Word ‘adulteries’ and are described by them.” So at the least, the homosexuality at Sodom has a very bad correspondence. I speculate that it is called “adultery” because it opposes conjugial love in those who choose it in preference to marriage.
2. Forbidden degrees: There are at least twelve passages about what are called the "forbidden degrees" of relationship, as listed in Leviticus 18:6-23 and 20:10-21. Leviticus 18:22 says:
“Thou shall not lie with a male as with a female. It is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13 says:
“And a man who lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have made an abomination….”
Sometimes people dismiss these laws as no longer applicable. But if you read the chapters in which these verses come, you may find that your sensibilities agree with finding most of the other forbidden relationships and actions troubling.
The passages in the Heavenly Doctrine referring to these verses treat their literal sense as true, as far as I can tell. They say that the adulteries that these chapters and verses describe (not just homosexuality) correspond to various ways in which good and truth are adulterated and profaned. They call them “foul conjunctions” (AC 6348:2) and “foul adulteries” (NJHD 172, SE 5532). See also AE 235.8, 410.11, 434.16, where the various copulations listed in Leviticus are called “adulteries”; AC 3703.17, 4434.10, CL 519, where they are called “forbidden degrees”; and AC 4868:6, where it speaks of “foul adulteries and unmentionable sexual unions,” pretty clearly referring to the situations listed in Leviticus, though the reference is not given. AR 783, 784 and 799 refer to priests amassing wealth by granting marriages “within the forbidden degrees” as well as other ways.
It could be that it is simply a convention to refer to the relations listed in Leviticus as “the forbidden degrees,” and that they are no longer forbidden to Christians. But my reading is that they are still forbidden. They correspond to spiritual adulteration and profanation. The spiritual evils are the origin and inspiration for the physical actions – though, as with many other illnesses and addictions, a person may inherit a weakness in that direction through no fault of his or her own, or may be seduced into it by others. See AC 4171-4172 on “the torn,” meaning animals of the flock that were killed by wild animals, and spiritually meaning a person who “receives evil through no fault of his own.”
3. “Evils which must not be named”: Conjugial Love 450 says, “In some men a love for the opposite sex cannot, without harmful effects, be totally restrained from going out into fornication.” It says that total repression would result in “certain physical maladies and mental illnesses, not to speak of unknown evils which must not be named.” CL 459:5 in the same context says, “not to mention criminal acts which are not to be named.” (See also AC 4868:6 above.) “Evils not to be named” was a standard way of referring to homosexuality in Swedenborg’s time. I think that if the Lord had wanted to give us a different view of homosexual practices, He would have led Swedenborg to use different words. I also think that this is one reason there is not more explicit discussion of homosexuality in the Doctrine: it is not something one should dwell on.
4. “Sodomy”: References to “sodomy” and “sodomites” are found in SE 1977, 2675, 3768, 3796, 4932, 5939, 6096; AE 1006.2; TCR additions 9.12; De Conjugio 86; LJ post. 135. Even if one does not regard these unpublished works as having Divine holiness and power, still their testimony might be worth considering. Since homosexuality or sodomy was an evil not to be named, it is not surprising that most of the places where it is named appear in unpublished manuscripts, which served as the basis for the published works.
5. “Lesbians”: see SE 3895-3900; also SE 3712-18, 1202-3 and 3697e; and 5457; De Conjugio 55 -57; LJ post. 109; and Conjugial Love 54:4e.
In general, there are very many teachings that say something like this: “all the happiness of heaven springs from the delights of conjugial love, as sweet waters from the sweet vein of a fountain” (CL 316:3). It seems there is room in the lower heavens for people who practiced polygamy from religious principles, though it’s not clear to me whether they can continue with polygamy in heaven. At the outskirts of heaven there are places for those who cannot renounce celibacy. But all the indications that I have found in the Word are that people will need to be cured of homosexuality in order to enjoy the life of heaven, where very nearly all are married, just as much as we need to be reformed of other much more common kinds of adultery, and murders, thefts, deceits and covetous lusts of all kinds.
I hope these thoughts and this selection of passages are of some help. I hope they show why I am concerned for people involved in homosexuality and for those who are seeking wider acceptance of it as a useful lifestyle. I do not think it is correct or helpful to anyone to call such a relationship a “marriage,” nor that parents should be compelled to have their children in public schools taught that such relationships are normal and orderly. But I believe we should offer our love and respect to those who struggle with this problem, though I have not done a good job of this myself.
Michelle,
Thank you for your thoughtful article. I also agree with you that we should welcome gays and lesbians in the New Church.
The problem arises when unnatural appeal, both physical and cultural, leads people to falsify truth to condone disorderly behaviour.
It reminds me of the guy who wanted to redecorate his mansion just to match his favorite ashtray. Rather than leaving the heavenly Ideal of marriage in its matrix, activists seek to replace "The Holy Marriage of one MAN with one WOMAN...."
with an "abomination". Activists attempt to educate us out of our common sense by relegating "The Jewel of Human Life, and Pearl of Great Price" as just one of many "viable lifestyles". And what's more offensive- is the indoctrination of innocence without permission of parents. Gay activists gain entrance into public schools and violate children by opening their minds up to deviant sexual behaviour long before their understanding is developed.
Jesus showed love to the woman caught in adultery, but also commanded her to "Go, and sin no more". Gay activists only hear the first part, and then make an 'emotional' rather than 'rational' appeal by playing the 'victim-card'.
If we are to love the Lord our God we have to obey his commandment-"Thou shalt not commit adultery"- and if we are to love the neighbor as ourselves -the church is our neighbor in a higher degree- we should defend "The holy marriage of one man and one woman" .....as it is "the jewel of human life, and pearl of great price in the Christian Religion." CL 457
I love your line, "let ourselves be open to hear what He has to tell us individually." Totally with you on that. It's one of those forgotten truths. That the Lord is still alive. That He can actually still talk to us individually, like one on one. That we can actually listen directly to Him when the books don't give no answers.
What did we learn from this four-article debate? Did we agree to anything?
I think we did.
All of us agreed to the need to the greater inclusion of homosexuals in Swedenborgian communities and churches.
With that consensus, can we declare a victory for both sides in a successful debate?
Regarding the "other" issue of homosexual marriages: I do not think either side is going to be swayed by argument. That debate will be won or lost in churches and in governments on the basis of numbers rather than on syllogistic reasoning. It will inevitably lead to schisms (as it already has in Anglicanism and Lutheranism).
Roger
Yes Stephen! Thanks for highlighting that point of induvidual perspective again.
Lawson, I am touched and impressed by your depth of study in this matter. I see love for these friends and family of yours overflowing in the extent of your search and in your words. I am caught a little on this idea of the difference between homosexuality and the kind of madness that goes on in prisons, or when individuals are desperate in their search for new experience and cross boundaries in the name of a good time. I think the abuse and madness talked about in the Word is very dark and very real, but I still see it as directed more towards these obvious distinctions (and a barrel of others which I will not name either).
Roger, hurrah for a consensus. :) this is intruiging to me. How do we go about this communal love and support of those who may or may not be coloring outside the lines?Since I know the culture can be a pill for adult unmarried people and for those with other non white picket fence diseases..:-) I can pretty comfortably state that this is a project much needed and for more than just a spot for homosexuals to worship in too. It's more than the examples given in church or the topics of a sermon. It's more than giving some workshops on raising awareness about how when we look around and size people up we run the risk of showing a critical glint in our eye.
There's just no stopping some of the grand old ladies in societies like Bryn Athyn from marching up to someone with a serious agenda. I love these ladies and there is no changing them. At the general church assembly last month I heard more than one (young) person echo the shocking sentiment on the cover of Time magazine which read something like, " ok baby boomers, just die already -we'll take it from here" gasp, my parents are the youngest of the boomers so I didn't appreciate the headline, though I chuckled at it's audacity. I didn't quite catch why your (Roger) young uns comments from earlier was so harsh since I've heard it before so often! Young people are really struggling with the idea of how we can be involved in the general church at all with the older generations often white knuckle approach to truth (so un-swedenborgian:-() As a child of the youngest boomer I (born 1981) feel like the last of the dinosaurs, and get advice from my younger sisters about "kids these days" I find this in- between age to be very politically/religiously painful. There really is an age gap struggle along side some of these other quandaries. Maybe an age duel next?
Anyway, point is, ideas about how to be a more accepting crowd, is this even possible for some of the more culturally committed? Are we talking about sermon content? Etc.
I have thoughts on the topic of marriages performed in the church, but I am more concerned with the acceptance angle.
Rebekah,
Hopefully, I will be dead and in the spiritual world before the General Church starts performing same-sex marriages. When is it going to happen? Someone in an earlier post said in 10 years. I doubt that. Maybe folks like Brian will hold the fort when the older generation is gone, and it will never happen. Maybe it will not happen in my life time.
Isaiah 39:8
So Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “The word of the LORD which you have spoken is good!” For he said, “At least there will be peace and truth in my days.”
Roger
Stephen,
Is it as you say: "the books don't give no answers"? The books do give answers, and very clear ones!
Mr. Muires, I believe in the revelation of Jesus Christ through the writings of Swedenborg:
Swedenborg describes the male and female generative organs as Holy because they correspond to societies of heaven. He also relates how angels consider the abuse of these organs as "heinous". DP 144 says: Man's seed contains the rudiments of another human being, and the commixture of man's seed with an adulterer is an abomination.
Pastor Muires, please explain how mixing the rudiments of another human being (seed) with feces from the anus is no longer an ABOMINATION? "Man shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is ABOMINATION". What books are you reading when you say "when the books don't give no answers"? Is the WORD just any book? Do you not consider the writings to be a revelation from the Lord? Can you FALSIFY the writings to condone evils?
Pastor Muires, the Lord gives answers from the WORD! Please explain how SELF-LOVE replaces the Lord's revelation.
Communication is a tricky thing. Maybe the trickiest.
When we debate things like this, I wonder if we're really discussing issues as much as trying to negotiate what language is actually for, or what it's best at doing. I feel like people generally adopt similar rhetorical styles in whatever they're arguing - it would be an interesting experiment to remove the specific issues from people's responses, and compare just the structure of the arguments, of ways of expressing oneself.
When we argue with people, what are we trying to accomplish? This sounds overly philosophical, but it makes a difference in how we do it. Are we trying to dismantle and then recreate our thought structures in a way that other people can take them on, try them out, see if they agree or disagree with their own? Or are we just trying to influence people, use words as a hammer to manipulate or bully them into agreement? Obviously both things happen with language, but I would suggest that the first tactic is more productive, especially since the other goal can be better accomplished with actual hammers.
With that in mind, when we try out an argument and it doesn't work, either because people aren't receptive to it or they thoughtfully disagree with the premise, trying the exact same argument again seems more like the bullying approach. Frank, whether or not I agree with you, I don't know that you do your "side" any service by this approach, by capitalizing every other word and reusing passages that people have given you very thoughtful rebuttals of, in terms of how they interpret them. Interpretation, mind you, being something that comes as a necessary part of language, one of the things we have to agree on for language to get its job done. When we don't agree on the interpretation of language, no worthwhile thoughts are really communicated.
When someone suggests the "books don't give no answers," - I think if you're listening for their intent, you can see that this statement is true in the way they're saying it. The books do not give "very clear" answers on homosexuality, except to the degree that you feel that your interpretation of certain passages is rock solid. Not everyone agrees on those interpretations, mind you. In fact, many people disagree, maybe even more than agree with it. This isn't to say that your interpretation is invalid at all. But your interpretation alone is not going to be enough to convince someone else to think about things from your perspective. The trickiness of language has crept in here, and though I don't have a solution for it, I think you're going to need a different way of helpfully expressing your thoughts, if helpfully expressing your thoughts is your aim (which I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume it is).
I write this as much as a reminder to myself as to anyone else. The trickiness of language spares no one, but maybe we can try to work better at communicating with each other, even if we think the things we're trying to communicate are in disagreement.
Dylan,
You have a right to your own opinion but not your own facts. The Three- Fold Word DOES give definite answers, and the Writings confirm those answers. The problem is- those answers DO NOT confirm homosexuality, so there's an effort to blot out the truth.
It's not so much that you have a problem with my language. Rather, you have a problem with the Lord's revelation through Emanuel Swedenborg. He's the one who calls homosexuality a "foul conjunction". Swedenborg also tells us that the male and female generative organs correspond to heavenly societies, and they are HOLY! The misuse of these organs through "foul conjunctions" is PROFANE!
Dylan, a man's seed contains the rudiments of another human being, which is why Swedenborg says "angels consider the commixture of a man's seed to be "heinous". Lawson and others have listed dozens of passages clearly showing homosexuality and lesbianism to be hellish behaviour. That does not mean we give up on individuals who are struggling with sin.
"Man shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."
.....continuation:
My questions were directed to the newly ordained Stephen Muires.
1) How is the male-female organs and exalted use no longer holy, and how is their misuse no longer an "abomination".
2) Are the writings of Swedenborg a revelation from the Lord, or just specualtive literature?
We are told that individuals and churches should debate homosexuality with an open mind. Fair enough, but how long?
I think I know the answer. The great debate on homosexuality shall continue in the General Church until it is wearied out and relents. Otherwise, this debate will continue for the next 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 years. It will not end, the issue will not be settled - until it is settled in favor of elevating homosexuality to the level of Conjugial Love.
I have given up debating the issue of homosexuality per se. I am willing to discuss the pastoral care and the inclusion of homosexuals in this (and other) churches. But the debate on the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior will never end - not in this generation, not in the tenth generation from now unless all demands for the sanctification of homosexuality are met.
Maybe this is the reason why churches can deal with heterosexual adulterers but not with homosexuals? Because the latter clamor non-stop to elevate their sin to the status of high virtue? Because there is no "wife-swappers' pride" or "pornographers' pride" or "whoremongers' pride" but there is "gay pride"? Maybe that is why churches are fearful of including homosexuals, because homosexuals and their friends do not let the church rest or focus on other matters until they have won complete victory for the Great and Holy Cause of Sanctifying Homosexual Behavior in all its forms and variations? And demand endless debates until that happens?
Roger
"And Jesus went into the temple and drove out all who bought and sold in the sacred place, and he turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those who sold pigeons.
He said to them, The Scripture says, My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of robbers."
Was Jesus failing to love the neighbor?
Were the sellers hurting anyone?
Do any scriptures clearly forbid selling things in a temple?
What is this 'Love'? Is it consent, approval, or even the blessing of behavior that the scripture clearly says is an abomination?
As an example of 'loving the neighbor' we are told the story of the 'Good Samaritan', who cared for an injured stranger. Did the Samaritan have to agree with the strangers beliefs or lifestyle choices? Had the Samaritan disagreed, if asked, would the stranger say the Samaritan was hateful and bigoted?
Just wondering.....
Karen,
Just to add to your thoughtful response:
The neighbor is the 'good' we see in another person. Also, Swedenborg tells us the Church is our neighbor- in a higher degree.
On a lower level, I do my best to treat people with love regardless of their current spiritual states. On a higher level I care for the Church- especially when it comes under attack from the hells.
If it is true that "The holy marriage of one man with one woman is the jewel of human life, and the pearl of great price in the Christian Religion"- we can understand why it is under such a vicious attack by the hells. Conjugial love causes a man and woman to grow in love and wisdom from the Lord to eternity. Along with it comes all the joys and blessings of heaven. It is the ultimate endeaver of hell to pervert and destroy conjugial love, and we should defend it in ourselves, as well as in the New Church.
Frank, you didn't read what I wrote - or if you did, I couldn't tell from your response. So we're not having a conversation. Fine. Be that guy, preaching in the street for all who will hear. I will walk on down the street, because I have other things to do.
Before I go, tell me - did you write this piece? http://www.debunkingtfc.info/InterRacial_Marriage.html
I can't tell, but from the tone and arguing style I would assume you did. I would also assume you agree with what he wrote, because your argument and his use the same rationale. Is it true?
Dylan,
Please DON"T accuse without evidence.
I did NOT WRITE this piece of garbage:
http://www.debunkingtfc.info/InterRacial_Marriage.html
The only thing that is common between me and the person who wrote this piece of GARBAGE is the USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS :-)
Dylan,
The New Church teaches that there is nothing wrong with interracial marriage, and I COMPLETELY SUPPORT that position.
PLEASE STOP YOUR MISCHIEF.
freelance writer