by Lois Carlson
In the news recently was the announcement that the American Psychological Association is embarking on a review of its policy on counseling gays and lesbians. Gay-rights activists hope it will end with a denunciation of attempts by therapists to change sexual orientation. Conservative groups are questioning the review’s credibility because the panel is dominated by gay-rights supporters. At issue is whether or not reparative therapy or conversion therapy is useful or potentially harmful.
Reading the article I found myself thinking that it’s true if someone’s sense of identity is anchored in their sexual expression, there would be significant limits, if not cruelty, in trying to talk them out of it. Christian Science offers a completely different way to understand identity.
I know for from experience when you base your sense of identity on sexual expression of any kind, those feelings can be very manipulative and disorienting. What keeps coming clear is that the key to happiness is to challenge the assumption that physical longings—of any kind—dictate our experience or thought.
The thing I wish I had learned earlier in life is that the main purpose of sexual morality isn’t primarily to control behavior. The purpose of sexual morality is to support the stillness in thought that goes with the freedom to worship God and dedicate your life to express His qualities. We, as the image of God, exist to make God known, and the bright future of life is seeing how our spiritual being can manifest God’s love for others. For me that’s the only settled basis of identity.
God’s love for others is something very different than sexual longing. God’s love has no hunger in it. Just as God is satisfied and at peace with His creation, so we have a right to feel secure, abundantly loved, and able to generously support others. This is what stills the tempest of sexual loving. To honor the fullness of God loving us means relationships are safe as an overflow of the constancy of God’s love for us. God’s love nourishes, supports, and enables us to find the freedom to live in accord with His commandments and beatitudes. God’s love is exempt from envy, rivalry, pride, prejudice, and bigotry. Spiritual love includes a reverence which corresponds to peace.
Mary Baker Eddy knew the struggle and persistence that is required to win this peace. She wrote: “Christianity is not superfluous. Its redemptive power is seen in sore trials, self-denials, and crucifixions of the flesh. But these come to the rescue of mortals, to admonish them, and plant the feet steadfastly in Christ. As we rise above the seeming mists of sense, we behold more clearly that all the heart’s homage belongs to God”(Miscellaneous Writings 1883-1896, p.107).
As we open our hearts to express the love that comes from God’s love for us, we can better see how each relationship fits into the whole of creation.
Exclusive love is a love that’s suspect, and yet the Bible’s guidance offers good support to marriage commitments between men and women. This makes sense to me is because it is so essential to find the balance of masculine and feminine qualities as the basis of our own individuality. Obviously people don’t have to be married to find that balance, and yet there’s a problem in living lives focused on one gender.
While the world wastes a lot of time talking about men and women being on different planets, the model of Christ Jesus’ life shows the spiritual maturity that includes the natural correspondence of true masculinity and femininity in our character. The idiosyncrasies and pettiness of false manhood and womanhood fall before this model. The Christian walk is one where we find the balance of qualities like focus and generosity, leadership and patience, boldness and humility, strength and tenderness.
I remember a conversation I had with someone who had left homosexuality behind many decades past. He counted his love for his wife and children as among God’s most precious gifts to him. In his teens and twenties he had thought of himself as irreversibly gay, and yet he realized that the more sex he had, the more he wanted. He knew this was in conflict with his desire to know God and understand his spiritual being. The deepest part of his healing was to find the freedom from body-centered thinking. That freedom came through the prayer and support of several different wise and gentle Christian Scientists.
Obviously sex can become a preoccupation for people with heterosexual longings, but when Jesus’ talks about sex within the context of the Sermon on the Mount he’s alerting us to the need to stop looking and thinking about people in a lustful way. Sensuality isn’t just sexual longing. Sensuality is things like mental darkness, feeling out of control and manipulated, being afraid of yourself and others. Sensuality is the desperate fear of not having what you want and need when you want and need it.
Finding the peace of chastity (which to me means keeping sex within a marriage commitment between husband and wife) meant for me that I could trust God’s unfolding of my life. If I was single then I must have everything I needed to be relaxed and at peace with myself. Even though I had a desire to be married, I could trust that desire to God. Now that I’m married the same discipline of self-control has to be practiced to find the rhythm of affection that is true to God and to each other.
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. What Christian Science does so well is help us experience the tangibility of Spirit, the tangibility of goodness. Things like joy, unselfishness, peace, and patience are the gold of life that require and deserve the willingness to have sexuality tempered. The rewards are worth it.
Share This
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 article is ignorant and harmful not only to gay youth but to straight youth. Shame on you. It is time to start loving and stop fearing and hating and condemning those in our society who are not like you. African Americans are a minority and so are gay and lesbian people. Once, there was terrible persecution of African Americans, even within Christian Science branch churches. Today, those who discriminated feel ashamed. Someday, you may feel ashamed of this diatribe you have posted here. In the meantime, gay and lesbian Christian Science youth and grownups continue to know that “clad in the panoply of Love” your homophobia cannot reach us.
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.
I don’t agree with everything you’ve written, Lois, but I am grateful for the gentle way you’ve shared how you feel and for this open dialogue.
I don’t think that homosexuality is any different than heterosexuality. I think whether you’re gay or straight, you have to deal with sensuality. And some are hit by it harder than others. Some of those people are married and straight. That’s why there’s a huge porn industry.
I also don’t think that marriage is necessarily the best way for straight or gay people in their spiritual journey. That would be so unfair to the people who never find a romantic partner. I think every relationship we have is an opportunity to learn more about God. In my case, I’ve learned so much from a variety of people, but mostly I’ve learned about God as I’ve gotten to know my spiritual identity better.
To commenters 2 & 3, I think you came to this with your own pre-conceived ideas. I can’t find the things you claim Lois wrote in her blog. She mentions that sex can never offer a reliable foundation for questions about identity. She didn’t say gay sex can’t, but straight sex can. I always think it’s funny when those who are proclaiming to be so tolerant are so intolerant of anyone who doesn’t believe the way they do. I think we should use this opportunity to discuss rather than argue. It takes courage to state your side on this when it’s not popular.
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.
I am a bit saddened by the archaic tone of the article but am glad there is dialogue about it! Let’s keep talking! I agree with what the last person who posted said that Love (Divine Love/God) offers a foundation from which to live ones life…a life that expresses Divine Principle…
We really need to move beyond the Gay/Straight dichotomy - some of the most progressive spiritual thinkers today embrace all people and identities. As Christian Scientists, don’t you think we need to do the same?
There are wars, poverty, crime, among many other challenges that present themselves for healing…would it not be better to focus on these? Truly practice what the Christ (Jesus) came to do so many years ago? I kinda think we’re missing the mark…
In Peace and a commitment to understanding one another,
Bonnie, Chicago
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”
I agree that praying about this issue is the only way we’ll take steps forward.
I think our behavior while handling this (or any) contentious issue - be the “sides” gay and straight, vegetarian and not, democrat and republican, conservationist and big oil, Asian and Hispanic, east and west, whatever - is very important. There is a tendency in the world today to villainize the person who holds different views from ours. That’s too bad, because it frequently clouds the ability to hear kernel(s) of truth coming forward in conversation(s).
I think we need to recognize that people must articulate and take what they feel are moral stands about things. If they don’t, it means they aren’t thinking or reasoning at all… and the lack of moral reasoning (moral idiocy) has catastrophic results on the global scale (genocide, suicide bombers, etc.). But, it IS possible to have an idea and still love those who disagree. Just because someone has made a stand about a particular behavior doesn’t mean she is judging those who act differently – though the opposite is a temptation and sometimes unjustly implied.
(And no, I am not relating this issue to genocide… I’m merely pointing out mental tendancies being exhibited…)
Today, as I was praying about this issue, I received fresh, new-old light. (Aaah, the joys of continuous praying about any issue – I highly recommend it.) It was comforting to affirm that any issue is really all about God. Thinking it’s about something else is missing the mark. I love that God is our Father-Mother, all-harmonious, hallowed, whole, complete, loveable. I love that all of us, as the equally beloved children of this Father-Mother, must want His/Her government and will to be done, daily. We all want to be gracious in the process, nurturing each others’ affections, forgiving, and constantly turning to be led, not into temptation and out of any evil.
That prayer (which yes, resembles the Lord’s Prayer and it’s spiritual interpretation, p.16-17) does include firm stands about obedience and morality. It does indicate that we need persistence. And it does produce healing. Though known for many years, it is not archaic, it is time-proven.
Here’s to celebrating the healing, progress, and peace that only God’s individual spiritual inspiration (and not mere human agreement) can provide. Here’s to being in this walk together, even if we need to agree to disagree.
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 guess what bothers me most about this blog are three assumptions: one, that being gay is a “lifestyle” (as if anyone would actually choose to be gay, considering what they have to go through in this world!) the second is the notion that all gay people are essentially obsessed with sex. The writer didn’t come right out and state this, but the implication is definitely there. And the third is the idea that being gay is something that needs to be healed. I believe these assumptions reveal a lack of knowledge about the gay community, generally and specifically.
Why can’t we just accept gays for the children of God they are, just like all of us?
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 posted a comment earlier and it seems to have been censored. I have no idea what I could have said that might have been inappropriate. As with many other comments here, I merely expressed my discomfort with passing judgment on gay relationships, while praising the author of the essay for making good points about relationships in general. I’m baffled.
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!
Well, I love that statement too, about how “there is nothing either good or bad…” but remember, there are some things which have been consistently pointed out as bad by spiritually minded people (including Mary Baker Eddy) no matter what the majority of society thought at the time. Generally, people pointing out evil have done so because they loved God, loved society AND loved the person they were correcting at the time. If the “correcter” hadn’t been loving, they would have stayed quiet, let the evil alone and allowed it to harm the “correctee.” In other words, ignoring evil or trying to pin good thoughts on top of it is not loving/Christian Science.
Moses said: no graven images (materialistic definitions of God’s man), killing, adultery, stealing, lying, coveting…
Jesus and Mary Baker Eddy gave us plenty of “nos” as well, but actually, the number of their “yesses” far outweigh the number of their no’s, and they are complementary. They are worth considering. Check out the chapter on Christian Science Practice in Science and Health; it is chock full of interesting nos and yesses, at a ratio of about 2 yesses to every no - at least in the part where it talks about the Magdeline and the Pharisee (hmmm… great story about correction without condemnation, love, forgiveness).
I don’t claim to have everything all together. I am being corrected by God and people frequently - but I love it. I try to embrace correction, because it makes me better. I don’t always immediately hear or respond to correction, but when I do, it’s worth it.
And then, I get on to the loving recommendations!!! They are so great. Do: know that our Father-Mother God, Spirit, is All and the only model to hold in the forefront of thought; rest in the sabbath now of God’s complete, blessed, holy, whole “male and female” creation; honor your father and your mother…
Do: be blessed through being poor in spirit, mourning, meekness, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, mercy, purity of heart, peacemaking, and sticking with the Truth without wavering, even in the midst of persecution. Ah, the whole sermon on the mount is full of wonderful do’s… especially when it comes to relationships.
Alrighty, I think I’ll go read that now, and trust you all to be inspired. I think you’ve all put up with more than my two cents on this thread. Love to you all.
OK, my original post has been restored (thank you!), so y’all can ignore my second post.
Thank you Lois, for providing a very helpful framing of the core issue: “when you base your sense of identity on sexual expression of any kind, those feelings can be very manipulative and disorienting” and “the main purpose of sexual morality isn’t primarily to control behavior. The purpose of sexual morality is to support the stillness in thought that goes with the freedom to worship God and dedicate your life to express His qualities.” Although some of your readers may have failed to recognize the value of your insights, please know that many others will find spiritual power and healing through the ideas expressed in your article, this writer included.
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
Consider that there is really only one unforgivable sin that Christ Jesus addressed: blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. What could stop our unlimited progress in direct line with living a pure worship in Spirit and Truth? Could we continue to corroborate and explain the Bible texts in their spiritual import and application to all ages, past, present, and future, uncontaminated and unfettered by human hypothesis if the C.S. Mother Church Board of Directors advocated sodomy?
Christian Scientists look upon the Holy Ghost as being the “the development of eternal Life, Truth, and Love” - the ultimate Comforter advocating a reverential development of the Kingdom family of God as the body of Christ. A body of witnesses evidencing God’s trustworthy goodness of spiritual unity propagating a higher human species. Could this be based on sodomy?
No more than it could advocate the falsehood and deception of santa claus or limited allegiance to country or any other false claims that would set stumbling-blocks before us.
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.
There is a gentle study on the subject of same sex relationships by a Christian Science researcher of the Bible at: http://www.bibletexts.com/topical.htm#same-sex
In response to anonymous,post #18.
We are Christian Scientists,not fundamentalists.
” Union of the masculine and feminine qualities constitutes completeness. The masculine mind reaches a higher tone through certain elements of the feminine, while the feminine mind gains courage and strength through masculine qualities. These different elements conjoin naturally with each other, and their true harmony is in spiritual oneness. Both sexes should be loving, pure, tender, and strong. The attraction between native qualities will be perpetual only as it is pure and true, bringing sweet seasons of renewal like the returning spring.”
I was reading the above quote from Mary Baker Eddy. Especially where she says “These different elements conjoin naturally with each other”
What came to me to pray about is any resistance, and it can be seen in executive board rooms, class rooms, sewing circles, football fields, ect. it is worth challenging the thought in any form it comes, any contradiction to the metaphysical statement, “these different elements conjoin naturally with each other.”
For example, if a company said, it isn’t necessary for us to have women working here because our men embody all the feminine and masculine qualities….. I would probably think there is still a little more prayer that needs to go on here. That there is still resistance to womanhood that needs to be handled.
And, I would think the same about a woman’s group that felt they already embraced masculine qualities and didn’t need any men. Either case, if on the human plane, the sexes are not able to conjoin naturally together, I feel something needs to be healed.
And, under the heading “righteous foundation”
She also says….If the foundations of human affection are consistent
with progress, they will be strong and enduring. Divorces should warn the age of some fundamental error in the marriage state. The union of the sexes
suffers fearful discord. To gain Christian Science and its
harmony, life should be more metaphysically regarded.
For me this means that she felt all Christian Scientists should be actively praying to protect any idea that would chip away at a natual, honest, union of the sexes.
Where things get weird is if we think that homosexuals are exluded from a natural relationship with God. It is only thinking that excludes us from a full and natural relationship with God. Sensuality is one. Judging others is included.
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.
What a courageous article. Thank you, Lois for wading into this conversation, and thanks to all who are hearing it and particpating in it.
I’m a life-long Christian Scientist and someone who has had plenty of experience with both hetero and homosexuality. Looking back on the last several years, sex hasn’t really been good or bad for my spiritual life. It has been a way of trying to get something I yearn for - love, intimacy, trust, connection, safety - something hard to describe, spiritual, and intangible.
While most of the sex has been great (by its own measure), none of it has really satisfied me. In fact, it usually ends up leaving me feel more empty. Both hetero- and homosexual relationships have been fun, but none of them that grew out of a sexual attraction have helped me feel more safe or more loved.
I’m at a point where I want to let go of all of this in order to focus wholly on demonstrating spiritual peacefulness. Does that mean no more sex at all? I don’t know. Heterosexual companionship and intimacy seem to be pretty important, even to many committed spiritual practitioners. I’m not sure how homosexual companionship differs much as far as “temporary means” goes.
What I do feel is that I’m not defined by my sexuality. And I think that sex is already, in my 20’s, becoming less important to me. I can see where in many cases it has been a substitute for something meaningful and real in my life, and I can see how it has at times been an addiction. I’m also not afraid of sex. I have this feeling that I can trust my focus on spiritual growth to protect me. If I find myself in a situation where hetero- or homosexuality comes up again, I’ll know if it’s really my clearest expression of goodness and immortality.
One question I have for the group: in a relationship where the other person defines how much you love them in terms of the sex you have with them, how do you let the sex go or simply skip it from the start without hurting someone you love?
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.
You wrote: 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.
I don’t understand your point. How is this any different than heterosexuals? You could say that they only love the opposite sex, but that wouldn’t be true. I think that gays most certainly do love members of the opposite sex dearly — their mothers, fathers, other family members, friends, etc. They’re just not expressing that love sexually.
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.”
The questions that might be asked are if homosexuality needs to be healed - what needs to be healed and how do you go about it? Also, does being healed of homosexualty mean becoming heterosexual? It seems strange to suggest that being sexually attracted to the same sex would mean becoming sexually attracted to the opposite sex.
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.
I too am saddened by this entry and do not see that it is a “healing blog.” However, at least it is being discussed. As one who labels herself lesbian (for praticality purposes– as who needs to lead on men), and as one who embraces Christian Science, I found this article is biased, and leans on the old dogma, that if you are gay, you are overly sensual.
How can anyone know, if they have not gone through it themselves, that is the question. How can anyone know the paths and trials leading a person to the right place. I for one, came into Christian Science because of my relationship trials, which were a way for me to break into my only real important relationship, my inner core and connection to divine consciousness. However, at this point, that still does not mean that I am going to live without comfortable Love, and companionship.
Everyone eventually learns the expansiveness of Love, and that sex is just a playful activity, like surfing! I would not give it any more attention then what is really going on in MIND. However, this does not mean we do not ever go surifng.
Anyway, I hope this is understood…if it were not for Christian Science, I would not have accepted myself, I would have been ashamed and repressed, so I do hope that some day, people will not have to make a chose between being a christian scientist, or being gay…or forcing a healing. I know that some say they were healed…but that is “individual” and maybe that person was never gay to begin with, it was just physical thing. Most gay people are gay because it is a mental and emotional, and spiritual connection. Yes, there are always relationship healings going on…isn’t that the point…to keep growing in Love.
Finally, to a certain degree, we do have to label ourselves, for the purpose of meeting others, and being honest with others, as to not give them false hope!! I do not see myself as a sexual being, of course not, in fact, being spiritually minded has made me Love both men and women more, and made me understood my true companionship, even if it is manifested via the same sex, I still have to know My wholeness, and completeness, as a spiritual idea.
Clara –
I love htat you found healing and self-acceptance because of Christian Science. Your post makes me really happy.
Thanks so much Clara for adding your insights…
Probably the most important and inspiring comments I’ve read so far on this issue.
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.
I do not know the answer..and this question certainly runs thru many gay peoples minds…in fact, I would say the majority, just do not have children, but follow their passions helping children in other ways. I would personally rather adopt if I were ready to take on the responsibility. Sometimes I do wonder about how I would have been as a mother, as currently I am a teacher and this certainly fufills me.
As far as my analogy to surfing…I was simply downplaying the the physical emphasis of it, because it can sure get in the way…but the tenderness, and comfort of intimacy, is something that I would think is important. I also know that on some level, it is a release for people, just the way other physical activities are — yet hopefully there is an underlying comfort, an underlying understanding that there is already a foundation of love and trust.
I would have to agree that yes, gay sex is not for the purpose of procreating, of course…but…it may to some represent a symbol of closeness, a symbol of love, whether it be for children or not., and in general, sex may even fill a hole in people’s lives, at that moment. In fact I would not deny that sex is a human need…and as a young women, I cannot imagine denying it completely at this point - yet I do aspire to be in a committed relationship first.
But I think it takes a great deal of courage to be any kind of parent- whether a single mom, or with dads, moms, aunts, foster care, grandparents, etc…it is one of the most difficult jobs there is…so hopefully, whatever shoes you are in, one is thinking long term…anywyay…i am still finding the answers as I write this myself…
two quotes from CS Practitioners:
“more divine you know you are the more human you can afford to be.” RH
“Sex is the individual capacity to enjoy and
appreciate the beauty of Soul, the divine
wholeness…It will be a great day when Sex is given
its nobility as Soul and restored to Love as the act
of integration — the bond of cohesion” ML
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.
Until recently gay couples couldn’t marry — and many wanted to — but now that they can in some states, does it change it for some?
I think sex can be likened to a playful activity sometimes. I am positive that married heterosexual couples find it to be so at times. I don’t think that means they’re defiling their bodies. I don’t think it leaves you lonely, eihter.
But really, all of this is stuff that needs to be individually thought about/prayed about and dealt with. We can’t and shouldn’t impose our current beliefs on others. Opinions just don’t heal.
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…
Yes, opinons can lead astray, and Annonie I love the quote from Corinthinans…..
know i have used sex to close the deal, and was mistaken! but then again…there is only one thing that establishes your wholeness and strength as a spiritual idea…and I Now more than ever, have no choice but to contiually follow God every step, have to exercise the notion that God is my companion, friend, and playmate! Even the tenderness of a look or a smile, I remind myself, to know that all Love, stems from God, and not a person.
By the way, many view surfing as a spiritual activity! one that brings you so close to God, as you bargain whether you should take that scary looking wave or not…or how to handle not breathing under water for several minutes…i have so much respect….and as my thought opens up to how we demonstrate activity on earth…I see more and more how purity paves the way to whatever I am doing…from the details to the big picture…
whether with people or not, you are still with the One God. Anyway, I am sure we all know deep down when we are tenderly engaged with someone, (whether it is playful or not) or using them for our own gain…loving unselfishly has been the big test for me.
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.
It is encouraging to see so many thoughtful posts on this subject. I think it is important to keep an open mind, and an open heart when it comes to sensitive personal issues like this. For too many years I felt as if the Christian Science community had this all figured out - case closed, but the pat answers I received usually left me cold.
Sex, whether involving same sex or opposite sex couples works on so many different levels of consciousness that is difficult to sort out the legitimate messages from the selfish ones. It can be sacred, playful, energizing, comforting, intimate, or selfish, sensual, and even violent. Throw in a wide variety of religious opinions, scriptural quotations, personal feelings, social expectations, mixed cultural messages, and we have a confusing mess.
For me, the only way to sort through it is to disregard all the mental clutter, both positive and negative, and just let love guide. When I do that I see that sex is just another human activity, like surfing, working, or eating a meal. Then I don’t feel a need to define these activities as either spiritual or sensual. Nor do I pass moral judgment on them per se, only on the motives behind them. Most importantly, I only pass these moral judgments on MYSELF and not others, tempting as that may be. Everyone must have the right and freedom to work out their own moral issues in their own way, to work out their own salvation. As Christian Scientists our role is not to tell others what to think or do, but to help others learn how to listen to love’s direction, wherever that may lead, and provide prayerful support when asked.
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.
Thought people might like to know where to find the above quote by Lois Carlson in comment 41, “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.”
It’s from a spirituality.com chat that you can listen to or read the transcript. Just click here for the spirituality.com article
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.
Re: Post #18
The role of the Christian Science Board of Directors is not to direct religious thought, shape our prayers, or tell us how to practice our faith. Each of us has our own relationship with God. Each of us can pray for guidance, and hear, feel and know God’s wisdom. God’s words speak to each of us through the “still, small voice”. Let’s unite together in brotherhood. Let’s love each other more. Let’s look for the good in each other. Most importantly, let’s not put a false burden of responsibility and power on the precious members of our Board of Directors.
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.
re:post 39
Your comments about the selfless nature of marriage leads me to add to my post. When I married, I did not have a big romantic illusion about the relationship with my husband-to-be. What I detected in him was his need for my companionship and love. That need so moved me, that it was sufficient to guide us into marriage. I of course also needed him, and his strength and goodness. It just seemed like such a right idea to marry my best friend, and to proceed together through life. I see this marriage as the expression of our relationship with God, Love. I am grateful to say that the overwhelming romantic love did overtake us, somewhat down the road to be sure, but when it hit we were like two kids in first love. It was such a wonderful confirmation that our marriage was a right idea for both of us as well as a strengthening of the concept of marriage for humankind. Together we have made spiritual progress and each of us has been blessed by the union.
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.
I was talking with some friends about this blog and all of the comments. It seems to us that the biggest fallacy in the argument against homosexuality is that gay people are more sensual and identify themselves as sensual beings more than straight people. True, gays have had to fight for rights and they may have to say “I’m gay” whereas a straight person is assumed to be straight and their rights are assured.
I long for the day when we can just recognize the spiritual nature of each one of us and allow for differences in human expression of divine qualities.
I am really grateful that we’re talking about this, though. I don’t think it should be taboo in the Christian Science community.
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??
In response to #47. Thank you for your contribution.
In essence, don’t we all crave to love and be loved How we orchestrate that in each of our lives is individual, and we all learn from Principle..God, Love, etc.
In response to #49, “sex for the sake of the act is pointless and kind of depressing- not spiritually helpful at all.”
From a healing perspective — I am surmising there is much behind peoples sensual actions.. I sincerely believe there is a yearning from people to reach out, to love and be loved.
Sometimes the more sexual a person is, the more they are yearning to be loved, they just don’t know how to access it, but this helps me be less judgemental, and also understand my levels of idolatry (mostly emotional - which were just as harmful).
Perhap It may appear sensual and selfish, but maybe that person does not know how to find love any other way at that point.
Look at the international prostitute business, certainly something to pray about, ie, all the women (and men) who suffer, and try to make a living, be used etc, all over the world, for sex. ie movie “Born into Brothels.”
I am grateful that Mary Baker Eddy left us the answers, and I hope I can share the answers to those in need.
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!
To Mel#44 It is unlikely that you understand the role Christian Science is exercising in the world today. If the CS board of directors publically came out with statements that were contrary to the Bible you would see any honest CS calling for their resignation at least. At most this church would dissolve. You need to come to grips with the concept of total spiritual dominion which is in it’s purest sense unique to Christian Science. Lust and hypocricy is continually trying to infiltrate this body of Christ.
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Since you think that my statements where mere opinions, I hope that you ask God for His/Her “still small voice” about:
I John 2:16
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures 567:18
That false claim–that ancient belief, that old serpent whose name is devil (evil), claiming that there is intelligence in matter either to benefit or to injure men–is pure delusion, the red dragon; and it is cast out by Christ, Truth, the spiritual idea, and so proved to be powerless. The words “cast unto the earth” show the dragon to be nothingness, dust to dust; and therefore, in his pretence of being a talker, he must be a lie from the beginning. His angels, or messages, are cast out with their author. The beast and the false prophets are lust and hypocrisy. These wolves in sheep’s clothing are detected and killed by innocence, the Lamb of Love.
S&H 564:24
From Genesis to the Apocalypse, sin, sickness, and death, envy, hatred, and revenge,–all evil,–are typified by a serpent, or animal subtlety. Jesus said, quoting a line from the Psalms, “They hated me without a cause.” The serpent is perpetually close upon the heel of harmony. From the beginning to the end, the serpent pursues with hatred the spiritual idea. In Genesis, this allegorical, talking serpent typifies mortal mind, “more subtle than any beast of the field.” In the Apocalypse, when nearing its doom, this evil increases and becomes the great red dragon, swollen with sin, inflamed with war against spirituality, and ripe for destruction. It is full of lust and hate, loathing the brightness of divine glory.
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.
Dear Elizabeth,
You and I can debate opinions here and it would not be worth much unless we could know precisely what God’s Mind knew - and we agreed.
If though the official mouth piece of the Mother Church would state that it was okay for our members to be driven by lust, because Christian Scientists don’t have any standard for relationships between each other - you might as well throw away the Bible and close the church.
In fact though, real and genuine Christian Scientists have the highest moral and spiritual standard in this universe (which is the reflection of Spirit). The Christian Science stand is not an arbitrary “current sense of what’s right”. We also follow the teaching of Christ Jesus as in the Gospel of Luke 6:37
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Spiritual judgement can be purposed to exhort, rebuke, and reprove. And as far as I can see, when perfect Love is involved this will uplift each member of the body of Christ to equality; equity; being able to see “eye to eye”. We all need each others support to be:
Isaiah 52:8
Thy (God’s) watchmen (who) shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion.
Condemnation is a personal thing. It cannot uplift. We have to determine if our lifestyle is blatantly presenting the appearance of evil, and tearing down this church. You must look in the Church Manual about references to Christian Scientists being “in name only”. It is not a happy read. This becomes the issue if a Matthew 18:15-18 Code is brought to the attention of the Board of Directors. They would have to decide officially what is that unforgivable sin stopping the development of eternal Life, Truth, and Love. This activity would probably be considered what Mrs. Eddy calls, “fatal to religion”.
Matthew 12:31
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mark 3:28
Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
Michael
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?”
I recently read something that actor Harvey Fierstein said to Cardinal O’Connor (O magazine, March 2007), “You condemn homosexuality because the Bible says it’s a sin for two men to lie together. Well, turn back one page, where it says it’s the exact same sin to eat pork.”
I think he’s got a solid point. I think it’s less inspired to take the literal word of the Bible, and so much more imporant to see the golden thread of spirituality behind the words. In this case, I think it’s much more important not to judge others and to love all mankind, regardless of how they identify themselves in this human experience.
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?
Good question, Jim. I’ll be interested to see Janet’s answer. Not to be trite, but I ask myself during conversations like this: “What would Jesus do?” After all, he’s the model Christian, the highest example of child-like purity. My sense is that he was too busy healing and teaching and preaching about how to get into the Kingdom of Love to be “sexually aware,” much less sensually minded.
I ask myself how closely I follow the man who Mrs. Eddy describes this way on page 162 of Miscellaneous Writings: “The spiritual man, or Christ, was after the similitude of the Father, without corporeality or finite mind.
Materiality, worldliness, human pride, or self-will, by demoralizing his motives and Christlikeness, would have dethroned his power as the Christ.
To carry out his holy purpose, he must be oblivious of human self.”
Isn’t being “oblivious of human self” true childlikeness?
Certainly Mrs. Eddy modeled herself after Jesus’ childlike purity.
But just because Christ Jesus and Mary Baker Eddy had childlike pure hearts and childlike clean hands (see Ps. 24:4) didn’t mean either of them advocated putting people on guilt trips or making people feel corrupted. They didn’t judge, condemn or push a single man, woman or child to do what that individual wasn’t ready for.
Point being: if one’s goal is to imitate Christ, it’s a joy to put off the human self (meaning the mortal view of self, with its traces of sexual longing), and in so doing there is absolutely no hint of denunciation, either of oneself or of others.
It’s easy to say we want to be like a little child. It’s quite another to humbly strive to exemplify childlikeness, isn’t it?
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.
thanks to all above who have posted…
i definitely agree with Ann in particular! Love is the real solution here….
after all, “Divine Love always has met and always will meet every human need….”
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.
Certainly love is the answer. But what is this love? Is it simply an agreement to be nice, or is it a recognition of the Love that is Spirit?
The purity and perfection of divine Love is sinless. It is neither self-righteous or sensual. The only unity any of us can ever really experience is in this oneness with perfect Love. Anything less is a limited human expression of love that can easily devolve into hatred, because it is without Principle.
I am struck by something very important that Mrs. Eddy says in Miscellany: “Certain individuals, entertain the notion that Christian Science Mind-healing should be two-sided, and only denounce error in general,–saying nothing, in particular, of error that is damning men. They are sticklers for a false, convenient peace, straining at gnats and swallowing camels. The unseen wrong to individuals and society they are too cowardly, too ignorant, or too wicked to uncover, and excuse themselves by denying that this evil exists. This mistaken way of hiding sin in order to maintain harmony, has licensed evil, allowing it first to smoulder, and then break out in devouring flames. All that error asks is to be let alone; even as in Jesus’ time the unclean spirits cried out, ‘Let us alone; what have we to do with thee?’” (My 210-211)
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…
#63
I’m sure there are just as many people who have issues in Moslim communities as there are anywhere else — it’s just suppressed and hidden. People are people are people….
I’m not saying homosexuality is an “issue” though. And I don’t know where you got that God hates homosexuality. I haven’t found that in the Bible.
But I think God is a loving God, not a wrathful God.
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.
To all my friends, relatives, co-workers who are GLBT. I love you just the way you are. Don’t change, you are perfect. You can count on me for love and support! You don’t need healing, but society surely does.
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.
I agree and I can love you too! So happy that God speaks to us directly and individually and directs our paths every day.
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.
Bless any church for not making this an issue. For loving every member. For seeing each child of God as perfect and dearly loved and cared for.
Bless this website for being willing to discuss this issue openly.
Bless each one of us for growing and learning how to love more each day and learning how to be “still with God” and not give human advice.
Bless any dear ones suffering under discrimination or hatred, your courage and resilience are an inspiration to everyone.
Mrs. Eddy’s poem “Love” :
Brood o’er us with Thy sheltering wing,
‘Neath which our spirits blend
Like brother birds, that soar and sing,
And on the same branch bend.
“Poems,” p. 6
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!
Ah ha, I detect some chemicalization going on here. “It’s a good thing!” There seems to be two (or maybe three) sides to a topic going on here. We have been presented with a North Pole and and South Pole. Let’s hope most folks are on the Equator. Ann is corrrect in saying that love is our intent. We are all praying for love. I ran across this statement by James Rome in a letter from First Church of Christ, Scientist and Miscellany, p. 61. , “This taught me that I should be willing to let God work.” So be it a question of civil rights, that work will be accomplished. Be it a healing of gay versus straight, that work will be accomplished. Be it better morals for all parties, that work will be accomplished. Let’s let Love do the work now and take a step back with joy and acceptance in our hearts.
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 just discovered this website and all these comments. This quote comes to mind, so I decided to share it in case it might be helpful to someone. Thanks.
“Positive and imperative thoughts should be dropped
into the balances of God and weighed by spiritual Love,
and not be found wanting, before being put into action.
9 A rash conclusion that regards only one side of a ques-
tion, is weak and wicked; this error works out the results
of error. If the premise of mortal existence is wrong,
12 any conclusion drawn therefrom is not absolutely right.
Wisdom in human action begins with what is nearest
right under the circumstances, and thence achieves the
15 absolute.”
(Miscellaneous Writings, p. 288, by Mary Baker Eddy)
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.
Farther along on page 288 in Mis Wri MBE asks and answers the question, “Is marriage nearer right than celibacy?” She answers, “Human knowledge indicates that it is, while Science indicates that it IS NOT. But to force the consciousness of scientific being before it is understood is impossible, and believing otherwise would prevent scientific demonstration.”
As spiritual individuals, we are not sexual, just as Ben has said. And it makes sense that the more we recognize and live our true selfhood as spiritual, the less we would feel the need for sexual expression–not as giving up something fulfilling and necessary, but as growing out of a mortal view of ourselves that is natural and inevitable.
If this is the case, it seems reasonable that on that road to spiritual understanding the purpose of sex would become less about sensuality and more about its function as a means of reproduction–something only possible between a man and a woman. This would have its higher expression within marriage, as made clear in the chapter on “Marriage” in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mrs. Eddy. And, ultimately, even this purpose would fall away as we continue to grow spiritually, revealing our relationship to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Certainly, we all would have to agree that there is much within marriages and heterosexual relationships that leaves a lot to be desired in terms of harmony, care, love, and unselfishness–and the pull of sensualism that leads us away from spiritual expression. That does not mean that it would therefore be acceptable to compound the problem by deciding that because we all need to grow out of sexuality, any form of sexual expression is legitimate, since such thinking will only lead to an even greater sexualization of society. For me, this isn’t a judgment of how someone else lives their life; it is a decision that I make for myself that makes sense spiritually. This isn’t a “pat on the back,” but a desire to be as pure and as chaste as one is currently able to practice as a Christian Scientist.
There is a great article in the February Christian Science Journal that makes this all very clear. I really appreciate its message. It’s called, “2 Moral Circles.” It explains the relationship between our spiritual practice and moral choices.
Thanks for sharing
Our highest calling as Scientists is to heal. This is how we heal:
“Jesus beheld in Science the perfect man, who appeared to him where sinning mortal man appears to mortals. In this perfect man the Saviour saw God’s own likeness, and this correct view of man healed the sick.”
We should be careful about judging. Here’s a rule on that from Mrs. Eddy:
“The heavenly law is broken by trespassing upon man’s individual right of self-government. We have no authority in Christian Science and no moral right to attempt to influence the thoughts of others, except it be to benefit them. In mental practice you must not forget that erring human opinions, conflicting selfish motives, and ignorant attempts to do good may render YOU incapable of knowing or judging accurately the need of your fellow-men. Therefore the rule is, heal the sick when called upon for aid, and save the victims of the mental assassins.” (emphasis mine)
Anyway, could it be that this question of orientation is moot? As Scientists, we know that we have our being in Truth, which is “the resurrection and the life”. In Matthew, Jesus clearly states:
“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”
We are in the resurrection:
“The third stage in the order of Christian Science is an important one to the human thought, letting in the light of spiritual understanding. This period corresponds to the resurrection, when Spirit is discerned to be the Life of all, and the deathless Life, or Mind, dependent upon no material organization.”
This is a time for bold, accurate, metaphysics, not timid kowtowing to mere human culture. Mrs. Eddy’s requirements for membership in the Church were simple and practical. Any deviation from them is error, and will, of course, destroy itself. But Truth is eternal.
Personally, I’m disappointed in some of the ideas held by the writer and other commentators on this page. I think they (the ideas) represent a shallow understanding of what Mrs. Eddy discovered about who we are and what God is. But I’m glad this subject is coming out into the light. And we can rejoice to know that all the issues surrounding this conflict are healed, right now.
I embrace everyone who has taken the time to write on this page. You are very fortunate to know what you know, and you are the salt of the earth.
good news :).