Homosexual Identity vs. Religious Identity

The argument for legitimizing same-sex relations, either morally or legally, is based on a number of assumptions. In order to help people better understand the argument and make more informed decisions, I will shed light on a few:

Assumption #1: Homosexual identity should be regarded just as highly as religious identity.

The identity we choose to represent us can be our gender, occupation, family, cultural background, sexual preference, religion, diet, team loyalty, or political affiliation, just to name a few. Are these categories equal, though, in import? Let's discuss just two.

How is sexual preference different from religious belief? The answer should be clear from the question itself. Your religion, or philosophy, is the template for your beliefs about the nature of reality -- people, God, the universe, etc. -- which dictates what behaviors are morally appropriate. A homosexual identity grows from thoughts and feelings concerning same-sex preference, or desire. Without trivializing the nature or intensity of these feelings, I would like to point out the difference between desire and belief.

I would love the euphoria that comes from doing ecstasy. If I have done drugs in the past, my craving is constant, innate, and overwhelming. I think about them often and rationalize using them again: Ecstasy is a party drug, right? It doesn't hurt anyone! However, because I know drugs will have a negative effect on my life and on society in the long run (and I know my mom would be disappointed in me), I choose to suppress these desires. In this case, my rationality (thoughts based on true belief), overcomes my rationalizations (thoughts driven by desire).

Belief, not appetite, should determine our personal code of morality. C.S. Lewis said, "If 'being good' meant simply joining the side you happened to fancy... then good would not deserve to be called good" (Mere Christianity, p. 34). Regardless of whether I call it religion or philosophy, my rational, moral beliefs (or we could even stretch that to FAITH) allow me to control my desires, master my appetites, and channel my energies to accomplish and become what is difficult and healthy and good. “Reason saves and strengthens my whole system, psychological and physical, whereas that whole system, by rebelling against Reason, destroys both Reason and itself ... Nature may be rebellious. But from observing what happens when Nature obeys it is almost impossible not to conclude that it is her very ‘nature’ to be a subject” (Miracles, 4.13).

At this point some may say, I am not driven by appetites any more than any other person is driven by theirs. Or, they may say, appetites are logical because they indicate what our bodies and minds need. This may be true. But if we allow that argument, we open a can of worms including pedophilia, bestiality, bigamy, adultery, incest, and many other things that as a society we still generally consider reprehensible. In order to avoid this dangerous spiral, we must clearly distinguish what is true from what we would like to be true merely because it accommodates what we want.

C.S. Lewis attests to the importance of distinguishing between desire and belief in choosing a denomination:

"The question should never be: 'Do I like that kind of service?' but 'Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?'"

I am not arguing that the choice to pursue same-sex attraction is irrational. Those who make the choice to "come out" with their feelings and live the lifestyle openly surely spend an enormous amount of time making the decision. However, no one would say that they chose to be homosexual for purely rational or moral reasons. The fact that the gay community claims it is not a choice (and we have no reason to doubt them) attests to the non-rational impetus of their decision to "live out"; it indicates that no one pursues a homosexual lifestyle solely because they feel it is the right thing to do. Their decision always begins with desire--usually unwanted. Whether people choose to remain in the proverbial closet or come out (and may have logical reasons for doing so) is not about who has the strongest feelings. It's about which individuals choose to allow their desires to influence their beliefs and which individuals allow their beliefs to control their desires.

So, in response to this assumption, beware of the false comparison between groups who have a faith-based identity and those that are desire-based. They may both be persecuted, but they are not the same. While beliefs most certainly can change, we must be brutal in our examination of these changes to be sure they are motivated by truth and faith, not by appetites and desire. If not, we risk rationalizing away both our sense of morality and our sense of reality, and losing our humanity in the process.

Zion and Social Capital: An Argument for Civic Society

We Americans have talked about families a lot. Religiously and socially, I think we all get that strong families are important. Beyond that, we as Christians been also been told to create strong communities - namely, Zion. If you're anything like me, Zion is not a concept I naturally gravitate to. I think this is because the idea of a society where everyone is of "one heart and one mind" and where there are "no poor among us" sounds like either a really exclusive club with no diversity, or a communistic society. Realizing that God is probably not a fan of either, I've decided to explore the religious concept of Zion a little more in depth from the perspective of a sociologist. I've decided to relate the principles of Zion to the concept of building strong communities in general. What is so important about building a strong community, how is it different than building a strong family, and what does it look like?

First of all, this discussion must begin with the concept of social capital. Just like financial capital (such as assets) human capital (such as a college education) or cultural capital (such as the ability to speak someone's language) have inherent value, so do the social networks created between people. In other words - community. Wikipedia: "Social capital is a collective mental disposition close to the spirit of community."

The creation of a Zion community, specifically, requires the proactive participation of Christians, not just their reactive presence. Furthermore, it requires that we take initiative to act on the principles we believe (like charity, compassion, consecration, sacrifice, and obedience), not merely cling to our Christian identity with bumper stickers, or react by abstinence from worldly things like sex, drugs, and kicking puppies.

Our participation in communities is therefore one of the commandments of God. The communities He has especially designated for our participation are our congregations, although I believe that any community can and should adopt Zion principles to strengthen the emotional, mental, physical, and financial resources of its members.

The book Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam describes the deterioration of Zion and our need to strengthen it through individual action (this is taken from the review on Amazon): "He argued that civil society was breaking down as Americans became more disconnected from their families, neighbors, communities, and the republic itself. The organizations that gave life to democracy were fraying. Bowling became his driving metaphor. Years ago, he wrote, thousands of people belonged to bowling leagues. Today, however, they're more likely to bowl alone:
'Television, two-career families, suburban sprawl, generational changes in values--these and other changes in American society have meant that fewer and fewer of us find that the League of Women Voters, or the United Way, or the Shriners, or the monthly bridge club, or even a Sunday picnic with friends fits the way we have come to live. Our growing social-capital deficit threatens educational performance, safe neighborhoods, equitable tax collection, democratic responsiveness, everyday honesty, and even our health and happiness.'"

More and more, formal systems have replaced informal systems and policy is trying to compensate for what Putnam refers to as "social capital", or our social resources in the form of support, norms, and information. Here is an example of how informal support, which is the best kind of support, is being replaced in each category.

Support (structural -Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1973): A single mother has difficulty finding work because she has a child to take care of and can't leave him home alone. In some communities, the mother would have relatives or neighbors who would provide support. She will probably do the same for them later down the road. However, this mom usually does not have strong connections to her family or community. This can be because her family is broken and scattered, because her community is crime-ridden and neighbors don't trust each other, or because she personally does not participate in a church, club, PTA, or other informal organization that adopts these Zion-like principles of unity and love in a community-type setting.

To compensate, the government or other nonprofit organizations take on themselves the responsibility to provide or subsidize formalized childcare services external to a community context. Thus, without social capital, created naturally by the actions of members within a community, the individual or other organization is forced to rely on financial capital, which is a poor substitute indeed.

Norms (relational): A boy with no father joins a gang, does hard drugs, and gets a girl pregnant. In other societies, a lack of a father would be addressed by the role models of other strong and moral men in the community, who by their example and participation in the community teach what it means to be a "real man". The presence and participation of these moral agents reinforces positive social norms for the behavior of others. Additionally, when members of a community are invested in eachother's well-being and share frequent interaction, they create shared meaning about what behaviors are appropriate and pass those expectations on to their families and other community members. Finally, when people are invested in their communities, they take responsibility for actions that affect everyone, like graffiti, drug-dealing, or unfair political actions. They don't take advantage of their neighbors because they know their neighbors, and their love and investment is reflected in the way they behave as community members. In the absence of role models, frequent interaction of community members, and individual investment in community, financial capital is once again called on to compensate in the form of more police, more prisons, drug rehabilitation programs, welfare, etc.

Information (Cognitive): In order to be able to access and use this social capital, we have to be able to "exchange information, identify problems and solutions, and manage conflict." Who addresses the gang? Who knows where to find a job? Who has the chicken pox? Who needs help because they just got out of surgery? Who knows the kid that smashed my window last night? Who are the real leaders in the community? This is a form of social capital that craigslist and wikipedia can't compensate for. Real, applicable, direct information. In its absence, we create social networks online, look for information online, or do without. Most agencies provide lists of formalized resources but they do very little to provide the kind of informal, often unspoken information that makes communities strong and connected.

A happy, healthy community, in conclusion, requires social capital, which requires not merely participation but the kind of participation that is based on Christian values. Zion is not a holy clique - it's a format for creating happy individuals and families by fostering communities that are based on celestial principles of love, obedience, consecration and sacrifice.

I have seen bumper stickers lately that say "God bless EVERYONE" as though to turn their nose up at those who ask for His help just for America. The problem is, if you commit yourself to everyone, you tend to forget the people who belong to your community specifically. Frankly, I don't think it matters whether your community is a bowling league or Passaic New Jersey or the Orange County United Methodist church. Belong to a community. Be invested in one. Bring your resources and your wisdom and your time to your community and make it great. We can't keep pretending that strong families can develop and thrive without considering the strength of the community with which every member of the family interacts every day. Strong people both create and are created by strong families. Strong families both create and are created by strong communities.

God said, "If ye are not one ye are not mine" - regardless of your opinion about the proper level of government involvement,we can all agree that the best assurance of equality and prosperity is neither enforced nor ensured by external organizations, but by us as community members helping each other. God encouraged this, before sociology was invented. He knows, and I do too, that a strong community leads to safety, prosperity and happiness more effectively than any amount of financial capital, government power, or technology could ever hope to achieve.



Granovetter, M. S. (1973). "The Strength of Weak Ties", American Journal of Sociology 78 (6), pp 1360 - 1380.

Putnam, Robert. (2000), "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community" (Simon and Schuster).