Human sexuality: A God-problem?

I hold membership in a Christian denomination threatened by schism over the issues of covenant and human sexuality.  The covenant issue relates to the commitment of clergy to observe denominational polity as prescribed by the Church’s Book of Discipline, more specifically the prohibition of clergy administration of marriage vows to homosexual persons and the willingness of an increasing number of clergypersons to ignore this prohibition.  The human sexuality issue relates to differing interpretations of the thinking of Biblical writers about homosexuality, but more specifically to union of homosexual couples in marriage.  The latter issue is the dominant issue because denominational polity in many other situations is already subject to “blind eye” exception.

I view this as another example of the failure of so-called sacred texts to provide answers beyond human interpretation, and the predisposition of human beings to be guided primarily by personal prejudice, both in their interpretation of sacred texts and their insistence that their interpretation reflects divine will.

I believe that, regardless of the church’s decision regarding division or continuing organic unity, a basic issue will persist, one that eventually may render the church both irrelevant and impotent as an effective agent for spiritual renewal and transformation in society.  That issue is our reliance on differing human understandings of  the nature and character of our God, by whatever name.  God experiences vary from person to person and cannot be effectively regimented.  Yet, religious institutions exist in part to regiment thought and behavior.  Humanity has been accommodating and amenable to such regimentation historically, but younger generations seem much less responsive to the authority and dogma of institutional religion.

Unless institutional religion rethinks its role in society from that of a spokesperson for God and guardian of what it perceives as sacred (not something I envision as a likely course), I believe it will eventually be relegated to history’s dust bins.  That is a sad outcome for me because of my strong perception of the church’s unique potential as an agent for peace and harmony in human affairs.  One step in this direction would be a recognition that human sexuality is a human issue, not a God issue.  If the church has something to say about it, and I believe it should, it should be in the context of an understanding of God as creator, provider, sustainer, healer, lover, and not as dictator, rule maker, behavior monitor, and punisher.  That doesn’t seem to be the way of the Jesus I strive to follow.

Your thoughts?

Can a book be “of God?”

I see a book, any book, as a human product, divinely inspired only in the mind of the writer and reader.  Though its content may be attributed to divine revelation, it reflects a human perspective, the product of the understandings of the writer.  Further, its words, written in a language employed by the writer, may have multiple meanings when translated into other languages.  Further still, its message, in whatever language written, is subject to differing interpretation as received through the reader’s sensory filters.

I believe that God-messages are in ample supply through the rhythms and systems of the natural order.  They do not change and are not subject to varying interpretation of essential meaning.  They are also apparent to the observant, reasoning mind, in the relational dimensions of human existence.  For example, our human experience tells us that hostility in human relations encourages conflict, which can lead to destruction of life.  It also tells us that when we strive to live in a harmony of mutual respect, where human life is valued and protected, and where differences of understanding are subject to conciliation and compromise, humanity flourishes.

In each major world faith, an essential life lesson has been communicated by its inspired leader: treat others as you would be treated by them.  The words differ from tradition to tradition, but the meaning is the same.  It comes from an experiential understanding of what works for the good of all and what does not.

Faith traditions have experienced schism and internal conflict through their respective histories, largely due to differing interpretations of the language of their sacred texts – the Bible, Qu’ran, Torah, Bhagavadgita, etc., and their need to appropriate and apply acceptable interpretation in their common life as circumscribed by community identity - political, tribal, ethnic, etc.  Attribution of an interpretation to a community deity elevates authority beyond human challenge.  Codifying it in “sacred” text solidifies its authority.  The medium becomes the message.  The community complies out of its need for answers to life’s more difficult questions, vesting interpretive authority in self-identified human representatives of the community deity.

Perhaps it is well past time for us to look beyond the books and their multiple interpretations to those persons who understand the rhythms and systems of nature.  Such understandings may be found in many books, but the book is only a medium of communication of ideas.  I suggest the ideas are human but with higher purpose, that being the well-being of all humanity, and perhaps having superhuman inspiration.

Do you have a different view?  Please share.