Sexuality must be seen in relation to sin.

Over a month ago we received a thoughtful note from ruling elder Eric Muñiz, putting forth some basic arguments against the views of Prof. Douglas Ottati in his theological reflections on "why we shouldn't wait."

In the rush of the holiday season, we lost track of his note.  He recently sent a very gentle question about where his comments had gone.  Well, the lost is found, and we offer his thoughts now ... at last ... with our apologies for the delay.   [1-30-04]
 

To whom it may concern:

I found Professor Ottati's article entitled "Why We Shouldn't Wait" quite interesting. At the outset I must state that the article weaves true statements regarding the God of Grace that we serve. But at the same time it fails to acknowledge that this God of Grace has spoken quite clearly on certain issues. So clearly that no degree of exegetical creativity can get around the intended sense of certain passages without inflicting violence to the text in its original meaning and without disregarding how the community of faith has understood the text throughout the ages.

The first statement made which draws my attention is the following: "we belong to the God of grace and that, therefore, we have little reason to exclude either ourselves or anyone else from the scope of redemption." This statement is so true. However the article fails to point out that God's work of redemption is a work of deliverance from something. God's gracious work delivers us from the slavery of sin, from our brokenness. God's redemption delivers us from our marred humanity. This is what God's redemption is intended for. It is intended to deliver us and give us the freedom that we long for as He reconciles us to himself. Of course God is not capricious or exclusionary. But He is not so based on human devised standards. God will have mercy on the Jew or gentile, man or women, white, black, Asian or Hispanic. Where professor Ottati wants to extend his view of being inclusive is when he attempts to legitimize a behavior that is not accepted as legitimate by the God of Grace as he reveals himself in the bible. Of course God does not want to exclude from the scope of redemption Gays and Lesbians. That is not the issue. My brother was gay and died of Aids. I saw God's grace to redeem in action. God extended his mighty arm and REDEEMED him from his brokenness, his sinful life style and delivered him from it all. He had enough time to prove God's redeeming work and his repentance, as he married and lived a life that rejected the homosexual lifestyle. That is the scope of action of the inclusive grace that professor Ottati alludes to, but a grace of inclusion he unfortunately misunderstands.

The article also attempts to redefine the understanding of marriage and family. It states that marriage and family should be understood "first and foremost, as covenantal relationships and communities of love, responsibility, and care." True marriage is a covenant. But if we have any practical use for the bible as our rule of faith then we should honestly consult it and let the text speak for itself. "For this reason a MAN shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh". The union between a man and a woman in marriage should be viewed as a covenantal relationship of love. But it is a covenantal relationship that is solely between a man and a woman. By this I am not invalidating a family that has E.G. a grandmother raising the children of her offspring. A covenantal understanding of the family in general would include such a scenario. The issue at hand is marriage and not a broader definition of family as the article intends to weave them together.

Another point the article makes is that "Embodied sexuality is a feature of God's good creation……" This is so true. I agree 100%. But Professor Ottati immediately states "although this does not mean that all sexual activity is appropriate." Here there is a tension introduced and a big oversight made. The tension is created by the common sense that dwells in all of us that tells us "there has got to be a limit somewhere in how we express our sexuality". This is not explored in depth so it is simply left to the reader to reflect on this. Then the professor makes an appeal to "studies of the sexual behaviors of human societies and populations, as well as comparative studies of the behaviors of other animal species". I wonder, very honestly and respectfully, if the bible is of any use at all to Professor Ottati in understanding what constitutes moral and proper behavior or in deriving consistent principles that help resolve modern ethical questions. It grieves me to see that a person would seek the definition of moral behavior from the scientific community when morality and ethics are not within the scope of study of science. But it grieves me even more that it would come from a bible professor.

The one oversight I alluded to above when the Professor deals with what is natural sexual behavior is that there is no mention that humans are fallen beings. By "fallen" I mean that our humanity is marred. Something is broken. Or as some would say in the hood "something ain't right!!" To simply accept as valid something that IS, is simply to ignore that something that IS could simply be wrong. There is not even the thought of this possibility in the article's reasoning. There are deep burning desires in me. Heterosexual drives that ARE. The fact that they ARE does not legitimize them. I have an obligation to my wife of 15 years to be faithful to her. I made a vow before God and men to be faithful to her. But if I would say: "Well, God gave me my sexuality and it really drives me to do this …… and it feels so good…… why not I actually care for this other woman…….. " This line of reasoning would not only be stupid it would violate what is clearly revealed in scripture. If I were to look to studies of sexual behavior I am sure the scientific community would produce many studies that would "prove" that exploring my sexuality outside of marriage could be healthy and also good from my humanity. It would even be fun!! This is where I have to decide who is in charge when it comes to moral behavior. Is it public opinion, science or is it Jesus Christ the Son of God? I am not sorry to say I go with the Divine one.

As for the second major section of the article the disappointment only grows. There is only one way to understand the passages quoted by Professor Ottati, not to mention others that were not referenced. God is opposed to impure sexual behavior. This includes pre-marital sex, sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, and prostitution. Sexual purity is a big deal for God. Such a big deal that some religious groups have misunderstood it greatly to the point of thinking that it is better not to have sex at all. The church has misunderstood things about sex in the past. No doubt. I agree with Professor Ottati that sex is more than an act of procreation. It is a gift that brings joy. Sex is a celebration of the intimacy a man and a women have and it is an outward expression of my surrender to my wife and her surrender to me. It is a beautiful, beautiful gift from God. But to read Romans 1: 22 -- 32 and come to any other conclusion other than "God is against sexually impure relations and this includes lesbian and gay sex" is to be foolish. As the same text states: "Professing to be wise, they became fools…… ".

One text that Professor Ottati may want to consider is 1 Corinthians 6:9 which states: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals nor sodomites nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists will inherit the kingdom of God" The great thing is, as Professor Ottati stated so well, "we belong to the God of grace and that, therefore, we have little reason to exclude either ourselves or anyone else from the scope of redemption." In the very next verse the Apostle Paul says "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Sprit of our God. " This is God's way of being inclusive. His Gracious arm reaches us all. No matter what our brokenness is He can redeem, liberate and transform the heterosexual as well as the homosexual. If someone that has homosexual tendencies is transformed and delivered from this lifestyle I would say it is ok for that person to be ordained. But if that person is a practicing homosexual that person is disqualified on the same grounds that a zipper happy heterosexual would be disqualified from serving as a minister.

I sincerely hope that my view will encourage further reflection. But more importantly I hope the reflection will be guided by what the Spirit of God has handed down to us in the bible. Otherwise we might as well come up with another reference book and save ourselves a whole lot of time we could invest in reading other materials.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely in Christ,

Eric Muñiz
Ruling Elder