Love and Sexual Preference
Only harmony can
resonate with harmony
It is important to pay attention to a misconception we often run into when talking about our MOM.
When these three aspects - sexual orientation, marriage and faith - come together in one person, they are often lumped together without the application of nuance within the general broad-mindedness based on culture.
Prejudice that admittedly *seems* fair; sexual orientation is your identity; after all, you don't want to stay in your own closet.
Yet we want to point out this important distinction, because what appears is not always a correct assumption.
One (unconsciously) does not bother to consider the correctness on, - or the consequence of, the bias. Is it really so? Is it really so in all cases?
-
You deny yourself, you put your feelings in 2nd place and under great pressure.
-
You are not the person you really want to be, you are not in the place you really want to be.
-
That which you have (marriage) just can't outweigh the preference you actually lack internally (sexually) so: a pitiful marriage that drags on.
-
You say it is different...but we don't believe you in the deepest sense. Dear gay, you are fooling yourself and we know better.
-
Non-Christian mindset: Oh HELP...You also thank for this situation? That can't mean anything other than you are overruling and subordinating your feelings.
-
Christian mindset: Oh how GOOD! ...You give thanks for it...! Yes! He gives strength to override and subordinate your feelings. God is so good! He really helps! With this you really do what God asks of you. I respect that!
-
Non-Christian mindset: Gosh...you see beauty in it? Now it gets really scary...(=O.M.G. poor Christian...😢under a yoke...but yes, they have to....Nashville, Bible, May Not Divorce....
-
Christian mindset: Ohhh...you see beauty in it? How nice that God is helping you like this. Good that you put away your gay preference (because that's what God prefers to see anyway!). Of course, we really understand how it's difficult for you to have a relationship based on this.
Often unspoken prejudices and all part of the mainstream thinking where it's almost impossible to break through or dismantle with a different story.
It is striking how often both non-Christians and Christians assign the above text a single limiting core value to underscore obedience and dependence.
However, both views, each from their own point of view, produce a limited, negative interpretation.
This while the original context intends, in a framework in which they are designed as right and good, to belong in a healthy and loving relationship.
For example, where marriage is described as a symbol of Christ's love to the church.
Make terms like "submission" and "obedience" equivalent to meeting demands from forced obedience and the oppressive fallacy is laid. Especially in the case of a Mixed Orientation Marriage. A strange, docile attitude, hiding away feelings and yet giving what the heterosexual partner wants to see and find. It seems like everyone is happy, but meanwhile..... poor gay! Or, sad hetro partner.
The conclusion is a label you definitely don't want to be labeled with, because it actually overpowers and belittles.
It completely denies who the SSA partner is and entirely ignores the meaning of a spouse. And unfortunately, much more of what God wants to express with this metaphor. And what is there has little resemblance to 'free' will.
But isn't TRUE love a two-way street and not a "demand"?
All in all, it implies: have to, obligation, no balance, denial of each other, ignoring and lack.
However, if SSA is a factor, the crucial question is not whether sexual orientation is a priority, but: do I want to fully accept the other person as he or she is. Totall mutual acceptance that acknowledges each other and wants to act accordingly. After all, it's about flourishing and purpose of one another that gives fulfillment for both.
"Loved and known" in Christ, His promise of "faithfulness" and "I love you," it becomes an empty hollow promise within marriage if it is simply fulfilled for the benefit of only feeling (of either partner).
Feeling as origin. Feeling that is important and completely I-centered.
The basis then lies in the "own" desire, want to experience and a feeling that prevails over and above the "together" and "made promise": I do not have to be sincerely(=honestly) faithful to what I promised. My sexual preference indicates that I not only can't, but I don't have to, in fact I can't help it. I am who I am. I cannot deny myself.
But if feeling is (only) a consequence. A consequence of that which I need to give a place within who I want to be in totality, then it becomes a different story. I am not authentic by embracing just sexual preference alone but disconnecting the other, that which also belongs to me, as genuine.
That would be something like, "God has told me that He loves me unconditionally, my sins are completely forgiven. He no longer cares! His blood has promised, and by grace He calls me His loving child. But I can put this aside in regard to someone I love and have promised faithfulness to.'
Kind of strange...isn't it?
Real
Romans 12:2 and Ephesians 4:23
I discovered the essence of being sincere and authentic, in short, "REAL," right there at that point. In English there is a beautiful word for that: Legacy, = who I am in totality: "What I want to identify with is about so much more than just my sexuality, it includes my legacy of what I believe, moral worth, am I trustworthy and can I trust, and the image I want to portray of myself."
God helps, teaches and carries and (re)forms.
Also in marriage, even if sexual preference turns out to be different. The belief that there are no barriers between me and God also means that I should not set up the barriers myself by the choices I make.
My sexual preference is also part of me. But it is also important that God will not miraculously take it away.
But I am not my sexual preference. I am so much more than that.
I have a sexual preference. And that preference God accepts as He has accepted and knows me in its completeness. Indeed, He knew this before I knew it myself. I am allowed to be who I am, in its totality. In His love and grace. There is no sin in that.
However, how you handle and shape things, can be sinful. And in that, God asks to deal with accountability and value. Not only with myself but also with the people with whom you share your life.
Reforming one's thinking does not imply changing circumstances.
But rather, it changes yourself.
It seeks truth and genuine love, and who you truly want to be.
Obedience far from a victimizing straitjacket but understanding that you need each other to create something beautiful and precious, and it's intend to keep that place pure so it can be a safe and protective harbor
It holds a promise for eachother.
Submissiveness doesn't mean unwillingly complying, but knowing who you belong to who is reliable. Dependence on someone you can lean on every step of the way.
It holds full trust in one another.
It dares to accept the consequences of choices.
Not opting for the easy way out or being trapped in a sense of lack (for both).
Basically, that has nothing to do with sexual preference, but yet...at the same time it does.
Perhaps that's because the prejudice that culture wants to impose as a basis: cling to independence and belief that you don't need anyone, certainly not to tell you who to rely on.
But faith is not a sideline,
marriage is a commitment between two individuals,
So... SSA isn't the top priority anyway, is it.
With issues like SSA, marriage, and faith, the emphasis is never on being gay but on being together, and that notion may resonate quite differently as culture tends to think...
That has nothing to do with sexual preference but at the same time everything.
