Thanks so much for this practical approach to loving our neighbors better, and to really love ourselves better. It happens through loving God more!

This is a well-meaning but misguided article which could have been written by a spokeperson for one of the evangilical groups who claim to “heal” homosexuality through prayer. Even they are now admitting that curing homosexuality and replacing it with heterosexuality is essentially impossible, but that behavior can be “modified” in some cases where a person has an overwhelming desire to live a more “mainstream” lifestyle. These are invariably people who have been raised in a religious tradition which loads them with awful guilt and self-hatred as relates to their attraction to members of the same sex.
Considering the number of Christian Science practitioners, teachers, and lecturers who have been gay, being homosexual clearly does not preclude spiritual progress and attainments.
Equating homosexuality with uncontrolled “sexual longing” is certainly a huge generalization. It also implies that being heterosexual naturally infuses one with spiritual purity and inner peace, which is certainly at odds with what one sees in popular culture and in the world at large.
Most gay Christian Scientists, like most straight Scientists, do not “identify themselves by their sexual expression.” Most choose to emphasize their spiritual identity, and certainly don’t see God as mandating or regulating human sexuality. They occasionally refer to themselves as gay Christian Scientists because we live in a culture where most people automatically assume you are heterosexual (and tend to be uncomfortable if you are not), and where every aspect of being heterosexual is glorified, supported, and applauded every moment.
Heterosexuals don’t need to call attention to their orientation because the world does it for them constantly – in advertising, in films and television, in music – and encourages them in every way. Appear in public with your children, display your wedding ring, hold hands with your opposite sex partner, and the world smiles and quietly acknowledges your “sexual expression.” Quite the opposite for gay people
The clear message of this article is that homosexuality equals unbridled sensuality; is “bad” and needs to be “healed,”and that heterosexuality is wonderfully “normal” and “good,” and in line with God’s plan. This message only makes gay Christian Scientists feel condemned and hurt, and it justifies the prejudices of “straight” Christian Scientists who find homosexuality “distasteful,” but who wish to feel that they are “loving” in their self-righteous condemnation.

At first I want to say, that I am grateful from the bottom of my heart, that tmc.youth invites to a open discussion about this subject!

Quote »Perhaps two of the questions that the human heart most yearns to have answered is ’Who am I?” and “How do I fit in with others?” Sex will never offer a reliable foundation for answering those questions.«

I agree with this statement and would continue:
“LOVE does. LOVE will offer always a reliable foundation for answering those questions.”

And that is why I am living in a wonderful, loving, satisfying, samesex relationsship for over 8 Years now. And that’s a blessing for both of us, me and my partner.

It seems that society will always reduce homosexual people to their sexuality and limiting to it, and that is where healing is needed.

wouldn’t it be great if everyone who reads this article really prays about this issue and we make a big healing step forward? i like this, “In Peace and a commitment to understanding one another”

Once again,why is it that heterosexual parnerships are considered more valid than homosexual partnerships?
I am reading the Peel books on Mrs.Eddy at the moment and learning so much about her love,humor and amazing courage.Seems to me that she would tell us all to just get on with what’s important.
Love one another as God loves us and let man shine in his own individual way!

I, too, am uncomfortable with the author’s implication that gay relationships are somehow inherently inferior to straight ones. I’ve learned that relationships are as diverse as the people on this planet. No two are alike. Any relationship based on sensuality is going to fail. But who are we to say that gay relationships cannot be rooted in the same source of Love that straight couples enjoy? Doesn’t that really place limits on God?

That said, if you take all of the references to homosexuality out of this piece, the writer makes many vital points regarding relationships in general. In that context, I found it very helpful.

I’m thrilled to read the responses to this “archaic” article, as one responder put it.

Everyone who responded did so lovingly, thoughtfully and in the spirit of Jesus himself–good for you!

Homosexuality is not the issue and until we get past that, we can’t really make progress in the Christian Science movement. You know, Science and Health opens with a passage from Shakespeare:

“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

Mary Baker Eddy didn’t put any exceptions to that statement, therefore homosexuality isn’t good or bad, and neither is heterosexuality. It is how one THINKS about it.

Whether you are gay or straight, do you identify yourself primarily as a sexual being? Or is sex a beautiful part of your total expression of God?

I hope in the future, practitioners invited to write for this site will address difficult issues from the standpoint of thought.

Again, I’m so impressed with the level of thinking in the responses! Way to go!

OK, my original post has been restored (thank you!), so y’all can ignore my second post.

As always, this weeks lesson speaks to the issues in the for front of thought.

“Christian Science explains all cause and effect as mental, not physical. It lifts the veil of mystery from Soul and body. It shows the scientific relation of man to God, disentangles the interlaced ambiguities of being, and sets free the imprisioned thought.” 114

I work in the Research Room of The Mary Baker Eddy Library. Some readers of this particular blog asked us if Mrs. Eddy ever mentioned homosexuality anywhere in the some 28,000 documents by her that are in the archival collection. We have not found in the collection any mention of homosexuality by Mrs. Eddy.

In response to anonymous,post #18.
We are Christian Scientists,not fundamentalists.

Re: 19

But she certainly does address marriage. And she defines it as a provision for generation among humankind. I don’t see how any gay or lesbian Christian Scientist could say they think MBE might have approved of marriage between people of the same sex.

And while plenty of people of the same sex have had loving relationships (many have had college roommates with whom they’ve stayed close friends, and even shared an apartment with–maybe for years), when such a relationship approaches the permanence of marriage, it seems one might need to consider what is happening. MARRIAGE is the relationship Mrs. Eddy speaks at length about in the chapter with the same name. I think the lack of mention by MBE noted in the previous message says all we need to know about this issue.

My view is that it’s not the sex gays and lesbians may (or may not) be engaging in that’s wrong, but their refusal to accept that they can love a member of the opposite sex as dearly as they do one of their own. That is an attitude that needs healing.

Thanks to each of you who have responded. Every perspective has taught me something. “Anonymous #7” who encouraged us to keep praying about this issue is a wise friend indeed. The expectation is that prayer will offer us new perspectives, especially when we care deeply about something.

As long as the world struggles so mightily with sexuality, a Christian Scientist needs to find the quiet and humility to keep listening for how Christ is working in us. For me the hope is that our thoughts about sexual issues can settle in a way that we can each be freer to fulfill our unique individual mission.

My intention in agreeing to write the initial posting was twofold: 1) to discuss the perspective that identity is not defined by sexual expression; and 2) to support those of us who have been run ragged by the confusion of sex in society.

I’m sensitive to Jeff’s points (#3) that this is a hard discussion to have without people feeling unjustly condemned. Sensuality is not an accusation against gays and lesbians, any more than it is an accusation against heterosexuals. It is an aspect of the belief of life in matter from which we’re all needing to be redeemed. This is an ongoing assignment for all of us. I believe the Bible counsel’s best supports that redemption.

After reading the variety of responses in the blog, two points might warrant our further consideration.

First, is sex subject to moral guidelines, or is it a private personal thing that anyone should have a right to express in any way s/he chooses?

One of the reasons that the Bible’s counsel (i.e. keeping sex within the commitment of husband and wife) feels like an oasis to me is that it brought a simple order to my life which corresponded to dominion over sexual feelings.

At various times in my life I have been pursued by married men, divorcing men, and lesbian women and frankly it has felt cruel and chaotic in light of a genuine desire for wholesome companionship and for marriage. The Bible’s simple, and to me consistent defense of marriage has been a great comfort, whether I was single or married.

Second, it was interesting to me to see how some respondents moved away from gender issues into a defense of marriage. At this time when over 50% of marriages are dissolving, spirituality which teaches a true basis of identity offers a stronger foundation to the relationship between men and women. This will uncover the ‘natural conjoining’ that “Anonymous #22” appreciates in the Marriage chapter of Science and Health. I see in this is a promise for stability in the lives of children, less homelessness and less abuse for women.

Mrs. Eddy’s “Wedlock” article in Miscellaneous Writings (.285) shows she was not naive that from its earliest publication Science and Health came to blows with the practice of free-love. The experience of “Anonymous #24” makes the point that little of untempered sexual practice is ever satisfying.

Concerning #24’s question, an alternative to having sex with someone is to offer them such a radical and dynamic view of their spiritual identity, that they actually feel the happiness of their own spirit.

In the web cast

we discussed that sex is rarely the problem in relationships. Sexual questions submit to a deeper appreciation of what each person brings to the relationship.

In post #25 Lois Carlson asked:
“is sex subject to moral guidelines, or is it a private personal thing
that anyone should have a right to express in any way s/he chooses?”

That strikes me as a false choice. Why can’t it be both? Why can’t one
choose different sexual relationships within a framework of moral
guidelines?

However, If by “guidelines,” you mean “rules” then that is a different
question. Are there strict moral “rules” that govern relationships? I
don’t believe that genuine morality can be stated in a set of rules.
Morality, to me, is simply the application of love to a given situation.
Different situations may require different approaches that a rigid set
of rules may not be able to accommodate. That doesn’t mean “anything
goes” but neither does it mean “one way only.”

I would think that being healed of sensualtiy of any kind would mean a freer ability to appreciate and adore the fullness, intimacy and purity of Spirit, without any fear. And a greater apprecitation of Love’s creation.

Clara –

I love htat you found healing and self-acceptance because of Christian Science. Your post makes me really happy.

I have a couple questions… the first being, what about children? They often are forgotten in conversations about sex.

Sex between a man and a woman is more than just a fun activity, like surfing. Sex can lead to having children, and I don’t think there’s a person on this thread who wouldn’t agree that children are a huge moral responsibility. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons why many people (religious and not) feel that some moral contemplation/weight should be given to the act of sex. If they are sure that the sex going on won’t lead to having children, does that exempt the couple from having to contemplate sex morally? I would answer, no.

Now, there are many articulate threads on this site about the Christian Science perspective on the fact that children are more than just a physical creation as the result of a physical activity. I highly recommend those threads. In short, it’s very healing to remember that we are all always children of the one Father-Mother, God, as has already been stated here.

So, again, what about children? I’m not saying that homosexuals don’t love children – I know some who are running very constructive programs for youth. It’s just that I would love the wonderful, calm, constructive voices we are hearing on this thread to embrace and consider these questions.

appreciate candor and discussion. the “surfing” reference reminded me of my twenties (30 years ago) when sex was like a recreational sport. This is a bit off the subject of homo vs hetero but i ran across this passage from The Message (Bible translation) in the lesson last week. it’s a great clarification & for me, puts sex squarely into the protected marriage covenant:

1 Corinthians 6:16-20 (The Message)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson
[The Message at Navpress] [NavPress]

16-20There’s more to sex than mere skin on skin. Sex is as much spiritual mystery as physical fact. As written in Scripture, “The two become one.” Since we want to become spiritually one with the Master, we must not pursue the kind of sex that avoids commitment and intimacy, leaving us more lonely than ever—the kind of sex that can never “become one.” There is a sense in which sexual sins are different from all others. In sexual sin we violate the sacredness of our own bodies, these bodies that were made for God-given and God-modeled love, for “becoming one” with another. Or didn’t you realize that your body is a sacred place, the place of the Holy Spirit? Don’t you see that you can’t live however you please, squandering what God paid such a high price for? The physical part of you is not some piece of property belonging to the spiritual part of you. God owns the whole works. So let people see God in and through your body.

Right on, post #36!
We are all on individual journeys to know ourselves and God more deeply.
Gay,straight,married,single,w/ kids and w/o,young and old.
C.S. makes it plain to love them all and as the new Sentinel clearly points points out,without Love there is no healing…

marriage -

I like to look back with appreciation to the journey our spiritual forfathers and mothers took to arrive at the concept of marriage – a male and a female – united in a faithful monogamous relationship. The uniting of two different elements, for a whole.

intimate same-sex, heterosexual, mulit-sex relationships –ect..and the various other “ogmies:. Even open marriages, have existed since time. There is nothing new.

Any relationship has the potential for a close, loving relationship with kindness and union.

But the quiet insistence through the ages that a man and a woman- can conjoin together for more than just producing, but for a faithful, selfless, humble, relationship – where each serves the other…… Each serving to lift the other higher. And that the existence of this unique union is essential for the progress and procreation of higher humanity —–

Although it is not yet perfect, what marriage between men and women looks like now and what it looked like even 200 years ago, is I believe and example of each selflessly helping the other to rise higher.

Dear Friends,
I join this discussion from a desire to help and heal, not to criticize or condemn. I join it from life experience—30 years in “gay” society and “gay” orientation, and 37 years happily married. The change in orientation is due to Christian Science, and was several years in being wrought out through prayer. In all that time, the church never condemned me, but always nurtured a spiritual path to God and his Christ. Without going into personal details, which would not be useful in any case, I can affirm that in my experience the path of Truth is the only way to get closer to God and to love my fellow man and be of service to others. My early years were fraught with wrong decisions, and harmful thinking, self-thinking. In the name of trying to live up to my perception of acceptance, I was coarse of language and behavior. An addiction to alcohol developed, as well as experimentation with marijuana. I know now that those things are wrong thinking manifested in wrong actions. Wrong because they hurt me and those I love. I believe with all my heart that the commandments and instructions in the Bible were meant to guide us to happiness and blessedness, not to condemn nor to coerce. We have been given a Master and way- shower in the person of Jesus Christ. His example and his instruction lead us to God and an understanding of our Spiritual nature as God’s idea. It leads us to understand our relationship to God, and shows us the healing power of such understanding.

Of all the human institutions devised by mankind to strengthen our society, marriage has given me the most practical path to understand love—both of God and of man. It has been in my experience the best way to be myself, with all of the masculine and feminine qualities that entails, and it allows me to express in a very practical way my unity with God and all mankind. Were my gay relationships sexual? Yes, and though physically satisfying they were not spiritually satisfying. There was too much of personal sense, and too little thought of God. Is my marriage sexual? Yes, and both physically satisfying and spiritually satisfying. I don’t think we can discount society’s need to establish and maintain an institution designed to lift mankind as a whole as well as to perpetuate a sense of ongoing creation we know as children. And I don’t believe that there is a more complete human example of the divine parent than in the committed union of one man and one woman here on earth. Until we ascend and apprehend life as completely spiritual, where there is no marriage, as Jesus talked about to his disciples, we need the guidance of society and the protection of law to bless our earthly experience. Does that mean I would condemn a gay couple or deny them the basic rights of civilization and humanity? Of course not.

As Lois Carlson so tenderly puts it,
“we’re each working out of a material view of ourselves. Somebody sent me a card recently. I saved it, because I just love the quote that’s on the front of it. It says, “Flowers unfold slowly and gently, bit by bit in the sunshine. And a soul, too, must never be punished or driven, but unfolds in its own perfect timing to reveal its true wonder and beauty.”
Marriage is the garden in which those flowers can unfold safely. But until that is seen, appreciated, and demonstrated, friendships and relationships are the “experimental plot” in which to work and pray. That does not denigrate other relationships, nor consign them to the pit of discrimination and censure, but rather nurtures any goodness and expression of love as a step in the right direction. Surely loving is a better state of thought than self-absorbtion, and society needs to work out a better way of acknowledging goodness wherever it blesses mankind.

I could never forget the qualms I had about holding another woman (or man) in my embrace, knowing that I may be slowing her/his spiritual progress, as much as I wanted them in my own life. In a committed marriage, where we journey on together, I know that we are learning and expressing together our unity with God as we love each other to the exclusion of all others. Oddly this has lead to a deeper commitment to spiritual healing and service to others as we learn more of our true spiritual identity. I trust that a strong marriage is a closer sense of unity with God than the gay relationships I had, just as I know that ascension is a closer sense of God-likeness than living in the resurrection. Let’s not condemn the acorn for not being an oak tree. Let’s love its promise.

Isn’t Love the maker of our universe, and is not true that Love never denies us or others, whether married or not, and thus Love is our protection.

I understand Christian Science to explain that marriage is in your consciousness. Marriage is within yourself, your understanding of Your Love from God, and this provides your protection…proving your perfection, wholeness, and wedded – ness to Love, no matter who is humanly present (male or female) or who may “not” be present in your life, or whether your partner is on the same spiritual page (but of course hopefully close!). I understand this as the only protection as we can never depend on the human picture (as I needed to see this after struggling with the idea of being single for most of my life, which I no longer do) – and by declaring our perfection, we are able to emerge gently.

I do honor and trust that the institution of marriage is a moral haven, and a comfort to those involved, yet this is still a human institution. Without a consciousness wedded to God, we are never safe. Time after time, people are torn away from their loved ones, regardless of the marriage contract, and regardless of how much they love. Even within a trusted relationship, one still has to wrestle with turning completely to their relationship to God.

Reading some of the posts here that touched on marriage, I was reminded of a time in my life when I felt very much pressured by other Christian Scientists to get married. I knew people in the church who were always looking around trying to match people up, including me, and I confess that I unwisely entered into a marriage because of this (not blaming anybody but myself here, but still I think we need to be alert about this kind of manipulation, however well-intentioned). I allowed myself to be influenced (erroneously) into taking a step that turned out to be a disaster.

What I’m getting at here is that if we don’t use wisdom, anything Mrs. Eddy has written can become distorted. I think marriage is great, but we have to be very careful that it is God who is guiding us, and not human will – our own or others’. And, as Clara pointed out, what really matters is our spiritual understanding of what marriage actually means.

Today, I discovered this blog and its 46-and-counting comments. I’m smitten by the love shown by each post-er for their fellow post-ers, for God and for “The Science of Love” (to quote the Sept. 3 Sentinel cover). Even those who express their hurt are, it feels, longing to understand and be understood, in Love.

Here is what I would like to say, in hopes of shedding more light — with no heat!

~ for much of my adulthood, I was lost in a self-centered fog. Although I’m sure I did plenty of good things, looking back on myself, it seems that everything revolved around me, my needs, my wants. I saw everything and everyone through a circumscribed-by-self lens. Consequently, my needs and wants seemed insatiable. That’s why I was bulimic for more than two decades. That’s why I had sex before marriage. That’s why I settled for a spouse who proved to be, humanly speaking, a liar and a cheater. That’s why, even after I was divorced, I still felt the need to be in a romantic relationship in order to feel good about myself, worthy, loved.

~ with God’s gracious hand guiding me, I slowly emerged from that self-indulgent fog. One by one, God introduced me to His/Her children who needed, even more than I did, to feel the tender touch of Christ (or, rather, discover the Christ already within themselves). Today, I don’t spend nearly as much thinking about my own needs and wants. To a greater extent, I don’t put myself ahead of the interests of others. Instead, I live to give without thought of what I’m getting in return. That’s where all my joy, satisfaction, and self-worth come from. You could say I’ve found myself.

~ now, here’s the deal. What I learned from this emergence into the light is that the real “me” has nothing to do with sexuality or sensuality (I love Lois’ description of that word). Those mortal puppet strings — sexuality, sensuality — are what I used to let tie me down and tie me up — in knots. They cut off my ability to feel loved and to express love, confused and entangled me, and sent me scurrying in wrong directions. Basically, sensual feelings (which apply to more than simply sex) adulterated my thinking by having me believe that I was a puppet manipulated by the carnal mind. When I was ready to listen to the Mind of Christ, that Mind made clear to me that my selfhood is singularly spiritual. That my mission is, always has been, and always will be, to demonstrate Go(o)d’s infinite, unconditional love for Go(o)d’s entire creation. And I do mean entire — embracing every spiritual idea from my Congressman to the cockroaches that I can no longer exterminate or crush underfoot. (They no longer come in to my house, either.)

~ the more I grow in grace (away from focusing on what I need and want, and toward seeking and finding and accepting opportunities to give unselfishly, as the distinctly uncarnally minded Christ Jesus and the equally uncarnally minded Mary Baker Eddy did), the more people — and species — of all stripes I meet and fall in love with. Or should I say rise in love with? Put another way, the more I de-personalize love and stop looking desperately for it, the more, and more love-steeped, kinships I feel and friendships I form. And there’s no end in sight.

~ what does all this have to do with homosexuality or heteorsexuality?

For one thing, my individual journey clarifies, for me, that marriage is not the only place to find and express deep love, even intimacy. As long as we seek to relate primarily to unsensual Spirit, we are given, by unsensual Spirit, the exact expression of relationships that we need for our growth and for the world’s progress out of material beliefs.

For another, it proves, to me, that in proportion as I quit identifying myself as a sexual, sensual being needing to be physically satisfied, in that proportion do I find myself already, and always, spiritually satisfied and whole — the “male and female” of God’s creating. By the way, the Message Bible’s translation of the first citation in this week’s “Christ Jesus” Lesson Sermon (Isaiah 9:6,7) refers to the word “peace” as “wholeness.” Neat, huh?

~ what I hear in any argument FOR sensuality, whether it be for same-sex relationships or for out-of-wedlock sex or for an unwillingness to leave “the old” behind within marriage, is a plea to be understood, valued, cherished. The thing is, we can only find ourselves understood, valued, cherished as divine beings — by the Divine One. The fact that we are not, and do not WANT to be, sensual beings will NEVER come to us from human reasoning. It can only come from adopting “the new man,” who is reborn with a child-heart, appreciating his innocence and purity, which has no taint of flesh.

~ also detected, in some of the aforementioned arguments, is an unnatural reluctance to look deep within one’s heart and wrestle with that member of the “First Degree: Depravity” family: self-justification. Think about it: What better way for physicality to cling to us than to get us to justify that we ARE material — hence that we DO have a legitimate need of being physically gratified? Wouldn’t that be personal sense talking? I say this with no self-righteousness, because I know exactly how it feels to be self-justifying. I’m sure I rationalize something about myself wrongly every day, in some way. And yet I LONG to be rid of that demon of all demons, self-justification. Are we each so in love with being Christlike (the Lesson shows us all the ways to follow our Master) that we are all willing, with trodden-grass-like meekness, to admit that we’ve been arguing for our own destruction, have taken the side of our enemy, mortal-minded depravity? (Note: depraved will is also tucked into that definition of depravity, as are passions and appetites, which are often-acted-out expressions of a sensual mentality.)

~ as to practitioners, lecturers, teachers being gay, I’m reminded of what a CSB friend told me once: that if the majority (that’s 51% or higher) of our thoughts are Christlike, we can and do heal. That doesn’t mean there are not still deep pockets of self-justified unChristlikeness that must be rooted out by Truth and flooded out by Love. The same would apply to practitioners, lecturers, teachers who hold on to any other trait that misidentifies themselves as sexual/sensual beings. In saying that, I am feeling how the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, or “The Science of Love,” gently removes our blinders and our burdens, yet without sparing one single tare from being burned. Every single one of us is a stalk of pure, upright wheat, and cannot be confused with or enmeshed with those tricky tares!

~ final point: Some of my most-adored-and-admired friends call themselves gay. Some of my most-adored-and-admired friends call themselves straight. Some are married, others are single. All of them possess a childlike innocence, an earnest desire to grow and outgrow, and a willingness to put Go(o)d first, and others before themselves. They take Christ’s commands seriously, and live, more rather than less, in accord with the Sermon on the Mount. Of this I am sure: that God is blessing us all on our individual pathways from sense to Soul.

Thanks for everyone’s thoughts- they are really helpful and it’s good to have an open discussion. I am struggling with what to think about this issue- it seems like I agree with almost every point raised. All I can say from experience is that sex for the sake of the act is pointless and kind of depressing- not spiritually helpful at all.

But as other people have noted, if we try to do what is most conducive to our spiritual growth, we can’t go wrong. Whatever is most conducive should be left up to the individual person and God, right??

Just wanted to thank everyone for contributing their ideas and prayers on this issue here!

In my experience, so far, I’ve found it best to let this be a discussion between the individual and God. I know so many people are searching and praying and wanting to gain a better understanding of who they are and sexual identity falls under that search as well.

I am wary of making snap judgements about these “hot-button” issues because it seems throughout history that the truth will be revealed in its own way and in its own time. I also try to keep a watchful eye on what is influencing my thought – am I being swayed by society’s general drift of thought, or truly following God’s law?

Hopefully every day the Truth is being revealed a little more clearly to us all!

I don’t understand the references to the Board of Directors in a couple of comments here. The Mother Church and the Board do not take social stands or direct members on personal issues such as homosexuality, abortion, the death penalty, etc. This blog isn’t an official statement on homosexuality. It’s one person’s view and current sense of what’s right.

moment by moment we all come to enter the Kingdom of heaven or not. To enter the kingdom we must identify our being as that of a little child ie. innocent and pure( which is not sex oriented). I know as the kingdom relationship grows it purifies human relationships and activities because like Jesus we of ourselves can do nothing and we don’t have to justify pure divine love. It might not be terrible to ask ones self “if the whole world behaved in the manner I am behaving would the world be better for that?”

Janet wrote: “To enter the kingdom we must identify our being as that of a little child ie. innocent and pure( which is not sex oriented).”

Are you implying that sexual awareness involves guilt and corruption?

In reading over the comments on this blog over the course of the last month, it seems to me that the real issue is love. How do we love each other? What is the basis of genuine, Christian affection? Is it loving to accept homosexuality in society? Is it loving to accept it in the Christian Science Church? How is love expressed appropriately in our society? What constitutes love in all of our relationships with others?

Love and sex are not synonymous terms. Both Christ Jesus and Mrs. Eddy were clear on this point. And the chapter on “Marriage” in Science and Health take us gently and thoroughly through a spiritual reasoning process to see how each one of us must grow out of identifying ourselves sexually until we discern our innate spiritual purity and perfection. And in this way, even marriage between men and women would eventually become unnecessary, because mankind would grow beyond the need for this expression in our relationships and we all would find our satisfaction in the Christ–our relationship to God, Love.

Not many of us may feel we’re at this standpoint right now. But keeping in mind that this is our goal helps us see how casual sex, or, ultimately, even sex in a committed relationship, might distract us from a much higher understanding of our relationship with God, Spirit. After all, if we accept the Christian premise that matter isn’t real and offers no pleasure and no satisfaction, eventually, we have to realize that sex has more to do with belief in matter than love.

One would assume that we can all agree that when Christ Jesus admonishes us to love one another, he surely didn’t mean that we should express this love sexually. The agape, or brotherly, love he was referring to was chaste, unselfed, pure, and unconditional. It wasn’t love that accepted sin or sensuality of any kind, but destroyed it through the power of the divine Love.

Until this higher expression of love is understood and practiced through the teachings of Christian Science, Mrs. Eddy tells us that marriage will go on. For the time being, marriage is an opportunity for both sexes to find oneness in divine Love. On this basis, men and women have the ability to understand, learn from, and grow together in this unique union, until both recognize man’s spiritual selfhood. This provides a solid foundation for children for those who choose marriage and family.

For those who remain single, opportunity to learn more about how dearly God loves each one of us and the spiritual ways that we have of expressing this love will inevitably appear through a deeper study of the teachings of Christian Science.

Church members should always express the agape love of the Christ for every individual in our communities. Expressing love does not necessarily mean that we must agree with every concept that other individuals may practice. And branch churches have the right to determine the requirements for membership, prayerfully considering what best supports the spiritual practice of their members and the community. Spiritual love, rather than human will, should be the standard.

What seems most important to me, is not whether or not our opinions are in agreement with Lois, or even one another, its how we each choose and learn to agree with and love God, in our own individual communion with God, and then how we PROVE our loving convictions in thought and deed.

Let everyone choose to love God supremely. Let each individual demonstrate that love for God in their own way in their own experience — and let each individual demonstrate their own understanding of the Christ and God’s love for man by casting out fear in themselves, and healing sickness and sin in ourselves and in others, as Mary Baker Eddy showed/explained, as “the Way” of following the example of Christ Jesus.

As we each begin this way, following the example of Christ Jesus, and as we each grow spiritually, won’t it be wonderful (!!!) to watch how that expression of good goes on to heal humanity and everything that would attempt to keep us seperated and from loving one another? Let’s love each other, and love every single one of our political / theological / literal / hypothetical enemies, and destroy every division among us.

I currently live in a Moslem country. If they found out a man who practise homosexuality, then it is a legal right to torture the man. Sometimes, I wonder if this country could be as democratic as US, but sometimes I am grateful too..as there are not many perverts here….as I remember, God hates homosexuality… sometimes He spoke with soft tones..” Don’t throw stones to innocent.” but if they do not repent, God will show His wrath… I hope US will not become second Sodom and Gommorah unless faithful people do what they should do…

Christian Science teaches that God IS Love. It also teaches that God doesn’t know us except as His image and likeness. That likeness is spiritual–the likeness of Spirit. So God doesn’t know us as gay or straight, He only knows us as the image of Love, of Life, of Truth. He doesn’t “hate” homosexuality, because sexuality is not a part of His spiritual creation–He doesn’t know it.

Perhaps we’re confusing “hate” with “don’t agree with–it doesn’t make spiritual sense.” Lois, with great love and compassion, was making a case for our spirituality. She wasn’t condemning anyone.

One of the things that I love about Christian Science, is that we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ. No one is left out of God’s love. We do not adopt religiously fundamentalist hatred toward anyone. I know that anyone who genuinely practices Christian Science, for example, would never want another to be harmed for their practices and beliefs. So when a Christian Scientist says that they don’t agree with a particular lifestyle, it is because they feel it denies a universal understanding of man’s spiritual nature–they are not advocating “torturing,” discriminating, or otherwise hurting another. They are saying, “You’re so much more than a material body,” “You’re so beyond a belief of limiting yourself to sexual being or lust”! They are not saying that the man or woman that God created is evil or bad.

If I thought that our biology constituted who we really are, it would be natural to assume that we are what our biology dictates. But we are spiritual, and because we are, the more we identify ourselves spiritually, the more we see the evidence of that in what we call the human experience. If, through the practice of Christian Science, we can be healed of any bodily condition that seems to not allow us to function normally, then anything that would limit us biologically in any way should be healable.

Mary Baker Eddy says quite a bit about the relationships between individuals in her chapter “Marriage” in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. It is utterly clear that she expected all “sexual” relationships to be between a man and a woman and to be within the protection of marriage. This wasn’t a 19th century standard–it was and is a standard to support our spiritual growth and practice. It’s really a great answer to the highly sexualized depiction of men and women in every society and in every time.

I think we’re confusing apples with oranges here. It seems to me that we can’t compare the spiritual perfection of man as God made him with a mortal man, because we can’t practice spiritual healing of any kind on that basis. I love everyone I know, whatever they believe about themselves or me, because of their spiritual identity–the only way God knows them.

Thanks to everyone for the blogs on this subject. They have all been really helpful. It makes me think of hymn 196, second verse :

Let all that now divides us
Remove and pass away,
Like shadows of the morning
Before the blaze of day.
Let all that now unites us
More sweet and lasting prove,
A closer bond of union,
In a blest land of love.

Rather than “land”, perhaps “world” would be more appropriate.

It’s easy to use words like “discrimination” or “hatred.” Those are very strong terms, guys. I’m sure no one here really feels that way.

Aren’t there people on this site who don’t agree with sleeping with someone before they’re married? We don’t say that they hate anyone. Aren’t there people here who don’t drink, because they feel that better represents who they are spiritually? They don’t hate people who drink.

If we think gay/straight or any other condition of mankind is based on physiology, then we believe that we are our biology and we’re trapped in whatever it determines about us–good or bad.

What is the purpose of sex, really? It’s to procreate. Period. Popular culture tries to make it about love, but that’s popular culture–always trying to kick it up a notch. And Lois was simply trying to say that marriage between a man and a woman supports the normal function of the human circumstances. No discrimination, no hatred, just that.

I’m sure no one on this site intends to be anything but loving and kind. That’s why we’re here!

The human mind sees minds many and polar opposites; the Divine sees only its own Mind and its spiritual ideas.

I love what Mrs. Eddy says, “Diverse opinions in Science are stultifying. All must have ONE Principle and the same rule; and all WHO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE AND RULE have but one opinion of it.” (Mis 265)

I really like that passage (288 Mis.). Any conclusion drawn from the premise of mortality is not absolutely right. For example, the age-old, widespread belief in the goodness and wholesomeness and rightness of heterosexual attraction, couplehood, marriage, and sex is not and will never be absolutely right. I would like more people to admit this – religious, married heterosexuals especially.

There is no man-woman marriage in heaven. Jesus said that outright. There is no human couplehood in God’s realm, and no pseudo-spiritual beliefs based on the need for union of “masculine and feminine qualities” proves otherwise. A lot of people would like to twist M. B. Eddy’s writings into saying that marriage (and sex within it) is wonderful and God-ordained. She doesn’t. The only marriage she ever waxes poetic about is the symbolic marriage in the book of Revelation, which is very obviously not about women and men. And the best thing she ever said – no, implied – about sex, is that it’s acceptable when your goal is to have a baby. Marriage is the contract, instituted by humans for humans, that’s supposed to help people keep it together. Paul’s advice to the early Christians bears this out. Neither the New Testament, nor Mrs. Eddy in any of her writings, glorifies sex. Both sources show a preference for restraint, chastity, abstinence.

Why do they? It seems to me (and you can judge whether this is drawn from a mortal premise or not) that the one God has nothing to do with sex, and that his idea – his direct reflection – must be a non-sexual being. Man is not sexual. This conclusion does fly right in the face of the whole world’s belief and action. But so does the statement “there is no sickness” when you feel sick. It’s radical, and it’s true.

So, what does this bring to discussions of homosexual couplehood, sex, marriage, or even just attraction, in relation to church and to general society? Hopefully, some serious soul-searching and humility to believed heterosexuals like myself. It becomes a lot harder to sub-consciously criticize or condemn or ostracize any “other” when we get serious about thoroughly evangelizing our own straying, screwed-up human selves. That which is considered “normal,” that which is seen as “OK” – in this case, heterosexual relations – is never good enough. To mentally pat oneself on the back for being “normal” is immoral, and always a disservice to one’s own best self and humanity. “Be ye therefore perfect…” is a command, not a parable.

I think we all need to ask ourselves, What defines who I am – completely and absolutely and through and through? What is my G/god, and is this my only god? What tends towards the world and what tends towards pure Spirit? And, more specifically, if I’ve even tacitly accepted the belief that I’m a sexual being – say, in quiet hopes for in-marriage, opposite-gender sex – then where does that really put me – first, in relation to my God, and second, in relation to my sisters and brothers who’ve accepted the same belief (that they’re sexual beings) but with a twist (same- rather than opposite-gender sexuality).

If we take a good look at the gap we’re all individually going to have to get across in our growth Godward – from sexuality to spirituality – it puts the gap between various believed sexualities (ours and theirs) in a whole new perspective. Kinda like, apples and…more apples.

Thanks for sharing

good news .

I really think that Lois’ attitude reflects what many Christian Scientists believe. We still have branch churches who will excommunicate/dismiss any person who professes to be gay or lesbian. The Christian Science Board of Directors has failed to give any direction on this subject and their silence is deafening. Principia College will not hire any openly gay or lesbian faculty member and will not allow a gay-lesbian student association to be formed on campus. At a critical time when the church is facing plummeting numbers of members, I do not believe it is wise to further limit good Christian Scientists from entering the doors of divine Love. What would Mrs Eddy say?

Hi — We asked the folks on the forums about this article and here’s the response:

It begins on page 24 of the Feb 2008 Journal and it’s written by Nate Talbot.

Would you want to be held to statements you made a couple of years ago?

Anon. said 6/21/09 “Would you want to be held to statements you made a couple of years ago?”

My answer is: It would be fine with me if I still held the same view of the issue and felt I was right. On the other hand, if I had changed my position I would be happy to let it be known that I now viewed the issue differently.

The only reason I can imagine that I wouldn’t want to be held to statements I had previously made would be if the statements were discriminatory and hurtful and I was ashamed of having made them.

My question to you is, how would you like to be treated as a second class citizen?

Jesus says nothing of persons being gay except, “some are born that way.” Mary Baker Eddy said nothing to discriminate. Bible scholars are now finding that some of the Paul’s hateful statements were not written by him. So how about being bold and loving and being welcoming of the person (gay or straight, left handed or right handed, brown eyes or green eyes, tall or short, young or older) that we should be. It’s so easy to love. It’s our duty.

Thank you for the thoughtful, well-stated article. S&H 92:21

When I originally commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four emails with the same comment. Is there any way you can remove me from that service?Thanks

Hello to all the courageous ones who have contributed to this blog. It is an important issue. Having just discovered this discussion, I would like to add some ideas.

As a long time student of Christian Science, I have had much opportunity to not only study the teachings of Christian Science, but I have become a student of my own thought. That may sound a bit odd, but that is the way I think of it. So along with studying the writings of Mary Baker Eddy and striving to put these in practice, I have also had to recognize and acknowledge the qualities that were in my own consciousness. I have to admit that many times I liked what I saw there, when for instance, I recognized that I was kind to others because I inherently loved my fellow man. But there were other times, when I had to admit, although reluctantly, that my motives were not so noble. Many times in my study, I had to admit to myself that, in the words of Mrs. Eddy, “the adamant of error–self will, self justification, and self love” had crept in, or perhaps more often, were present without me realizing it. (The complete citation is found on page 242 of Science and Health and reads, “In patient obedience to a patient God, let us labor to dissolve with the universal solvent of Love the adamant of error, — self-will, self-justification, and self-love, — which wars against spirituality and is the law of sin and death.”) What does this have to do with the issue of sexuality which is being discussed here? Only this. As someone who had been involved in sexual relationships with both men and women, I needed to examine closely my motives in starting and continuing these relationships. When I finally was honest with myself, I realized that the relationships, both with men and women, were based on a mixture of qualities. On one level, I felt an emotional attachment which I thought of as love. I also had to admit to myself, that for several years, I had also felt a sort of bondage—not that this was ever discussed or even felt by the other party. It was only when I became honest with myself, that I realized that I needed to grow out of both the emotional attachment and the sense of bondage. This maturing of thought helped me see that sexual relationships in general must have as their highest and ultimate goal the propagation of the species—children. Any sense of pleasure or intimacy, which might have been my goal early on, had to give way to the higher view of true pleasure and intimacy being spiritual and only finding fulfillment in my relationship or sense of oneness with God. As I say, I did not arrive at this way of thinking for many years, and would not fault anyone who does not see it this way. But my spiritual journey has lead me to this understanding. I hope this helps and does not offend anyone.

And by the way, a hint that I found helpful to testing the thoughts that came to me was found in the word “adamant”. I often asked myself when I felt strongly about something, “Was I being “adamant”? I.e. Was I being willful and feeling self justified in my opinion? I often had to honestly answer “yes”, and thus begin rethinking, in humility, my position.

I’ve always found Christian Scientists like Lois Carlson self-deceived and dangerous, unwilling to acknowledge their own prejudice and self-righteousness. The purpose of CS is to express the highest form of spiritual love, not cast its with the reactionary pharisees of fundamentalism–I refuse to classify them within form of the term “right” . Know ye the truth about yourselves Lois and followers–first it might make you mad–then it might make free.

Thank you for such a clear, useful explanation of the deep purpose in sexual morality. It’s not to control behavior, but to allow for that space for stillness in thought that leads us to hear divine Love. Wow. Beautiful, and, unlike mere “Do this” and “Don’t do that,” it actually makes sense.

I really like what I heard a CS lecturer say when asked about the “issue” of being gay. She simply stated that she has no human opinion on it. (Making it a complete non-issue. As in “Who cares?!” At least that’s how I interpreted it.) That she just strives to see the beautiful spiritual qualities that we all express in our unique and individual ways.
If only the whole world could think that same way…

Love is a Spiritual quality of God. It is not a material situation, whether you are considered straight, gay, bi, umbongo or whatever mortal mind wishes to try to class/limit us. We are ALL the children of God and have always, do and will always express his Devine Love. That’s all that matters. God Bless EVERYONE…

This outlook is precisely why I am no longer a Christian Scientist. As a teenager struggling with worries that I was gay and simultaneously a strong desire to advance in Christian Science and eventually become a practitioner, I was ultimately faced with the choice to embrace Love in my life and that of others or to toe the line in CS. I am now a proud gay man in a loving relationship, living in a new country where I am accepted and enjoy equal rights (Canada), and I provide my support to others as a successful psychotherapist.

Mrs. Eddy’s teachings and contemporary Christian Science are not the same thing. Any church that encourages self-hatred, no matter how doused this sentiment may be in syruping coatings of “love” (as in this article), is misguided and will ultimately fall away as yet another erroneous material belief.

As we look at the final puddles of CS membership drying up and CS churches vanishing like dew in the morning, I am happy to see that Mrs. Eddy’s message survives but the world is finally being healed of the Church of Christ, Scientist.

What a wonderful and fascinating thread this is. I commend TMCYouth for starting it and for leaving it up even with all the varying viewpoints expressed. That itself, I think, points to progress within the church.

Comment #2 mentioned persecution against African-Americans, even in CS churches. As someone who previously served on a local branch church’s history committee, and spent some time digging around in old files, I was shocked to find that this was in fact the case in my own branch. Racism is so obviously contrary to Christian Science that this was incredible to me. I did feel, however, that that horrible legacy had been healed and transformed by the time I was a member, and was gratified for the proof that progress was possible.

So it will be with homosexuality and the church, I think. Old stereotypes about gay relationships being more sensual or somehow perverted compared to heterosexual relationships will, I believe, eventually yield to the fact they they are no different, as many others in this thread have pointed out. And I do think this realization is already coming about, albeit slowly. In my current branch church we have several openly gay members, all of whom are well-loved and accepted by the other members. I dearly hope this becomes the norm throughout the CS church community, including at the highest levels.

It says on S&H pg. 508 that gender simply means “type” or “kind” — something like that.

1. If we are going from the standpoint that we are ultimately spiritual, then that includes EVERYONE – therefore it shouldn’t matter who you love

2. If we are based on the fact that all is spiritual, even ourselves, then why make it “wrong” for someone who has one type of PHYSICAL genetilia to love another person with the same genetilia? i.e. “This person has a v—, therefore they can only love someone with a p—.” That’s ridiculous!

3. Sex is not a sin. The “great sin” that man is supposedly cursed with is the thought that man is a creator. Therefore marriage shouldn’t be based solely on having children, therefore eliminating the apparant “need” for every couple to be a man and a woman.

Alright I’m done here =]

@Megan -

I think that’s an idealistic view of relationships. There are plenty of relationships that are based on what some people call love that aren’t healthy. And that love doesn’t even have to be way off base to cause problems. Say the kind of love that includes jealousy or even plain old fear. Fear based on a human sense of love. I know you weren’t really going here, but it just hit me when I read your comment. I think even “healthy” relationships require constant care.

I found the exact quote from “Mary Baker Eddy – The years of Trial” by Robert Peel (page262).

“When Mrs. Woodbury offered advice to her students in regard to the sex relationship in marriage, Mrs. Eddy wrote that it is not for either of them to advise others on the most intimate of personal matters”.

Google “People magazine – One mothers tragic lesson” from Nov 19, 2007 vol 68 no 21. A colllege student killed herself due to the pressure from her mother stating homosexuality was a sin and asking her church to pray for her. It makes me angry that people are committing suicide. It is going on every day over this issue! I walked with the parents in the Out of the Darkness Walk in Chicago after their son or daughter killed themself and listened to their stories. Next, people have left Christian Science because they felt unwelcome for being gay. They gave up the true healing power and the only thing they had left. What do you think happened to them? Some went on to drug use to fill the void. So Yes I am angry to see this article as it can be harmful to those struggling with their sexuality. It is a big deal!

@Mina: IMHO it’s up to every individual in which channel he/she direct anger. If she/he follows God she/he will use anger to something constructive. In this case, anger can lead to healing, don’t you think so?

Those reports are wake-up calls to me. They has to disturb us! They should make us think and pray about. What a society is that, in which people commit suicide, because their sexual orientation does not fit in the so called norm?

What would Jesus do? Would he heal the sexual issue, or would he heal the lack of love? The identity of gay, bisexual and transgender people is just as little their sexuality, as it is for the straight ones.

No and Yes 25:19
Man is not absorbed in Deity; for he is forever individ‐
ual; but what this everlasting individuality is, remains to
be learned. Mortals have not seen it. That which is born
of the flesh is not man’s eternal identity. Spiritual and
immortal man alone is God’s likeness, and that which is
mortal is not man in a spiritually scientific sense. A
material, sinful mortal is but the counterfeit of immortal
man.

I do understand it that way, that we have to (and are capable to) express our spiritual God given identity in our very individuality. A gay man or woman can express exactly the same Godlike qualities as a straight man or woman does: Gods goodness, love, wisdom, joy, humor, inspiration ect. We should not let ourself keep us so much from thinking about right or wrong sexuality. We are all Gods beloved children.

And it make me angry too, seeing so much misconception, self-righteousness and pure nescience/ignorance. Nobody should be condemned because he/she loves the “wrong” gender. God makes no distinction between gay, straight, bisexual or transgender. So we should neither.

Amy, you say exactly what I mean.
“Anger let us know exactly how we think about something and then we know it’s time to get busy and pray.”
And it’s not that alone. It’s also a kind of indicator. If I see that there are people (just the above mentioned example) who admit suicide because they are not the way they should be (in that case heterosexual) if that would not disturb me, I would stay indifferent about the issue. I am sure the mother did her best and meant it good. Sure she was confident condemning her son was right. I am sure she loved him, and wanted to save his soul …

I did not say anything about Lois Carlson. I accept her view on the subject whilst I am not conform with it.

You know, about Jesus and what he would do … of course we can not really know what he would heal.
Perhaps it sounds blasphemous, but was he not man also? Do you really think he had no sexuality?
Of course the bible does not tell about his intimate-life, but I consider it possibly that he has not just platonic spiritual feelings. But that’s also just a guess, I know. And for the most christians a taboo to think about.

The crimes worse than the sin against the flesh (heterosexual or homosexual) are those against the spirit such as discrimination, persecution, self righteousness, deception.

This should be between you and your God not for a practitioner or some church official to decide for you. Take your struggles to God and sort them out with him.

In this weeks lesson it states the following: “We should examine ourselves and learn what is the affection and purpose of the heart, for in this way only we can learn what we honestly are” (Science and Health 7:28-30).

Ask yourself, did Mrs. Eddy write an article like this? Did Mrs. Eddy state after a lecture that somebody who is gay could not be a journal listed practitioner? Are there married people speaking out against homosexuality for being a sin while secretly engaging in the very act?

I close by saying to those of you who have been abandoned by your families, betrayed by false friends, persecuted against by the self righteous, discriminated against in the workplace, battling the belief of illness, or contemplating suicide, – “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5; 3).

Rob Scott – Chicago, IL

Just listening to S &H on audio C.D. Hope this helps:

“Gender is mental not material”
“God determines the gender of his own idea” Track 9 Ch 15A.

Also:

“God forms and peoples the universe”
Track 10 Ch15A

How beautiful, how blessed we ALL are.
God Bless everyone.

@ Rita -

I don’t think anyone is going around saying Gay Pride parades are “classy.” At least I’ve never heard that.

I look at the parades like this: they are something that’s necessary now until people all over treat gays with the same respect they treat straights. After that, they’ll be unnecessary. It’s the same type of thing with the demonstrations that went on in Martin Luther King Jr’s day. That was necessary then to change public opinion and forge acceptance. Straight people don’t have to have a parade because it’s the accepted norm.

Dear Lois Carlson: I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you in the very near future. I will be reaching out to you to set up a time that is convenient for both of us.

Sincerely,

Rob Scott
Member, Board of Directors – Emergence International