Answered: May 16, 2010

Let's look at this question biblical and practically. From a biblical perspective, there isn't a single command of Scripture that relates to the raising of children that loving parents cannot adhere to. Those who would claim that the biological sex of the parent matters (e.g. when Scripture tells FATHERS not to provoke their sons) have a huge problem. Do they actually believe that it's okay for mothers to provoke their daughters, or do they take such passages for what they are--admonitions to parents, in general, and only gender-specific because of the particular culture they were originally written in? So, all passages can be fulfilled by a person regardless of sex.

On a practical level, the argument that a child deserves and needs both a mother and a father is a very problematic one. It has led to many bad home situations--situations that could have been prevented if people did not view things so legalistically. For example, there are women who remain with abusive husbands because they don't want to break up the "family"; but is such a situation really a family, at all? Is it so vital for a child to have a male in the picture that even an abusive male is better than none at all? No sane Christian leader would advise a woman to remain in such a situation; neither should they advise such a woman to remarry as soon as possible in order to offer their child a household with a mother and a father. So, their logic falls flat in real life.

Here's the question: Is a male incapable of nurturing his children? Is a female incapable of disciplining her children? I submit that the biological sex of the parents is of little to no importance whatsoever. What matters is love. Do the parents nurture their children? Do they support and provide for their children?

There are countless examples within our society of households with two parents in which the children are neither loved, nor nurtured. There is no support structure, and the children feel isolated and alone. Yet, there are also plenty of examples of single-parent households in which the children ARE loved and nurtured, and they have all the support they need. Now, I'm not advocating single-parent households; but I recognize that the sex of a person is not what's important. It's a person's capacity to love and rear a child. Male or female doesn't matter, as can be attested to by numerous real life single-parent situations all around us.

Now, what is important for children is that they have a two-parent household. In such a setting, all of the responsibilities of providing for, yet supporting and nurturing their child(ren) does not fall on one person's shoulders. Two people can share responsibilities and resources, and can help carry the load as a team. Two parents can reinforce one another's authority, provide better oversight for the children, support them better in various activities (e.g. sports, schoolwork), etc. It's a NUMBERS game, not a gender game.

And think about it... What is it exactly that a woman can teach a child that a man cannot? What is it that a man can teach a child that a woman cannot? Such notions are outdated and belong in patriarchal societies, not in societies where, in many cases, both parents work outside the home, or where there are now soccer dads and not just soccer moms, where women are no longer seen as homemakers and child rearers, but are equal partners in the public square. Christians who use such arguments are locked in the way things used to be, and are not comfortable seeing the world for what it--thankfully--is, a society in which people are equal, regardless of race or sex.

So, on both a practical and spiritual level, there is no benefit to a male/female household that cannot be received in any two-parent household. From a biblical perspective, one would have to have a very legalistic view of Scripture (e.g. turning gender pronouns in a text into points of doctrine) to require that both a male and female is present in the rearing of children. To the contrary, a two-parent system is the ideal, not a male/female system.

For more information, please reference my article, The Real Threat to the Family, posted @ http://www.thegaypastor.com/2010/03/family-real-threat.html
 

 
Answered: May 16, 2010

These are really two separate questions, so I will answer each one individually. As an affirming ministry, GCF believes that a person's sexual orientation or gender identity has no bearing whatsoever in regards to whether or not God will call and use a person in ministry. Any and all positions of ministry should be open and available for all Christians with the call of God upon their life, whether straight or gay.

As for a person being a smoker, GCF has no policy position on such matters. So, I will answer this question from my personal perspective as a pastor, in relation to how I run the ministry of my local congregation. I do believe that smoking is harmful to the body, not only because it is an addictive habit, but also because it releases multiple toxins that, over time, can and most likely will do irreparable damage to vital organs of the body. Because of bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, we should take good care of them, and treat them as holy dwelling places of the presence of God.

Now, what we SHOULD do and what we DO do are two different things. I'd be hard-pressed to find people to serve in the ministry of my church who has no sinful or bad things in their lives at all. In fact, I would NOT find such a person and would, myself, be disqualified by the very standard I would set for others. Jesus promises that the very standard by which we judge others, He will judge us, and I don't plan to make things harder for myself than they need to be. :)

Although so many churches act as though it's not so, the reality is that there isn't a perfect person out there. From the pulpit to the door, all of us have sin and/or bad habits in our lives that we (hopefully) strive to overcome. Thankfully, God does not call and use us in ministry because we're so wonderful. He does it because He's placed a wonderful and valuable gem on the inside of each one of us that allows us to be uniquely qualified for His use. Notice that we're not qualified by what we do or how we live, but by what God has placed within us... by the call that He's placed upon our lives. The moment we start looking to ourselves for our qualifications is the moment we completely miss the point and hinder our own potential. According to Scripture, God needs a WILLING vessel, not a perfect one.

Now, none of what I've said excuses the bad habit of smoking. But, I would not prevent a person from serving in the ministry because of this bad habit. I think it's shameful for churches to do such things, and it breeds a self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitude amongst ministerial leadership--a horrible offense against God, if ever there was one.

This doesn't mean that people should be allowed to do any and everything they want to do. It doesn't mean that they should be allowed to sleep around with people, use foul language, and engage in other types of sinful activity as a matter of course. We should all be making a genuine effort to walk uprightly before the Lord. As long as I perceive that this is the case with one of my ministers, I will not remove or discipline them with regard to their position in ministry. As to how other churches may approach the issue, I'm sure you'd get plenty of different answers; however, Scripture itself encourages us to not sit in judgment of one another and to, even as mature believers, RESTORE those who are in sin... restore, not condemn or judge.
 

 
Answered: February 11, 2010

What you're ultimately referring to is called Complementarity. It's a theory that male and female complement one another in a way that two people of the same sex cannot. As you have indicated, the primary basis for this theory is the Creation narrative. However, there are a few major problems with this theory.

1) The theory is not in Scripture. It's derived from conclusions based off of the biblical narrative; but nowhere does Scripture actually teach this theory as a principle.

2) The theory REQUIRES all humans to get married, lest they live a lifetime incomplete. If the male is incomplete until his missing rib returns in the person of his wife, then no man without a wife is complete... and it would CERTAINLY mean that no woman is complete without a husband, as she only represents the rib, while he represents the rest of the body.

3) The theory indicts all single people as not being whole, including Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist, John the apostle, Paul, and, dare I say, Jesus Himself. All of these mighty men of God were single. Can we say that they were incomplete because they were not married, especially considering point #1--that Scripture doesn't actually teach this theory?

4) We have to ask what the point of the Genesis narrative is in relation to marriage. Is it that woman completes man, or is it that marriage provides a means for two people to become as one? I think the latter.

I believe that the creation narrative shows a beautiful picture of two distinct people coming together in both body and soul and becoming as one through the joining of the heart and of the body. This principle certainly does not contain a mechanism that prevents it from being applied to people of the same sex in precisely the way that it's applied to people of the opposite sex. They can, indeed, unite in soul (through emotional intercourse). They can, indeed, unite in body (through sexual intercourse).

I think about David and Jonathan. God told Eve that she would "cling" to her husband. The Bible tells us that Jonathan's soul was "knit" to David. There was, indeed, a clinging involved. In fact, the two Hebrew words used in both passages are synonyms of one another. Did the fact that Jonathan was a man prevent his soul from clinging or being knit to David? And, even more important, does it matter to God?

When God created Adam and realized that it wasn't good for Adam to be alone, what did He do? Most people immediately state that He created Eve; but this isn't true. He first brought every animal He'd already created and presented it before Adam in order for Adam to do two things: 1) name the animal, and 2) determine whether the animal was a suitable companion for him. After going through every animal life, "there was not found a companion suitable for him" (Gen. 2:20).

This doesn't mean that God would have been perfectly fine if Adam wanted a giraffe. But, God went through this process to demonstrate a principle to us. The point is that He allowed Adam to determine suitability. It wasn't determined by the Divine, but my the human perspective. It was only after Adam found nothing suitable that God put him to sleep and took his rib to create Eve.

But, even then, God brought Eve and presented her to Adam, much as He did with the other animal lifeforms. God didn't pronounce her suitable. It was ADAM who said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh..." It was Adam who basically said, "Alright now, God. THIS one works!"

The suitable companion for Adam was Eve. But, the suitable companion for Doug might be Jason, while the suitable companion for Danielle might be Elise. We each determine suitability. We each determine the person that complements us, and allows our soul to join together in the way that Eve's joined Adam's, and Jonathan's joined David's. This is not determined in Heaven. It's very much determined in the heart of each human being.

So, I don't think the doctrine of "one flesh" precludes same-sex couples at all. It's not at all about whether the one has a penis and the other has a vagina. It's much more about whether the soul is knit together in love. This certainly can be the case with same-sex homosexual couples, exactly as it can be with opposite-sex heterosexual couples. Contrarily, it CANNOT take place with opposite-sex homosexual or mixed-orientation couples.

So, if love truly is what God is after, and if He truly looks upon the heart, while man looks at the outward appearance (1Sa. 16:7)--e.g. whether one has a penis and the other has a vagina--then gay couples absolutely fit into the paradigm of one flesh.