The Official Site for David Freeman Coleman

The Official Site for David Freeman Coleman
a.k.a. Funkyman

Did He Ever Talk About . . . ?

Loading...

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Vows


Hello Funkachusetts,

"I Take You To Be My Wedded"
On Thursday, December 1, 2011, my younger brother Anthony got married. A - MAZING

You: Funkyman, why is that so amazing? Is your brother a bad catch?

Funkyman: Not at all. He's a great guy.

You: Then what gives?

Funkyman: Well, I'm glad you asked.


"To Have and To Hold, From This Day Forward"
It's amazing because the woman he married has been with him for 15 years, perfectly happy, and the entire world had given up on the idea of them getting married because it wasn't important to them. In our minds and in every practical definition of the word, they were married. You see, in the end, their happiness was all that ever mattered to our family. Of course we are rejoicing for them that they took this step, but in truth, we all would have died happy if they never did - as long as it was what they wanted. Their marriage - correction, their relationship - was never about us.

And this event reminded me that no one's marriage is about me, except my own. I have strayed away from the topic of gay marriage on this blog for a very long time, but it's on my heart and the wait is over. So buckle up.


"For Better or For Worse"
The institution of marriage is sacred to me. This is largely due to the fact that my parents divorced when I was a teenager, and though I knew it was what was best for everyone, I vowed never to let that happen to me - divorce that is. Of course, the best solution to never getting a divorce is never getting married. Then I met my wife . . .

It was difficult for me to think about spending the rest of my life with my best friend with the fear of a possible divorce hanging over our heads. At least it was difficult until I had the revelation:

I am not my father. Fadie is not my mother. Our relationship is not their relationship. Our paths our different. Our marriage will be different - for better or for worse. In truth, I cannot guarantee what will happen tomorrow. However, I can choose (if I'm blessed to wake up this morning) to devote myself to my God and my wife so that I will honor them both.


"For Richer, For Poorer"

A lot of the controversy surrounding gay marriage is centered on the definition of marriage. There are those that believe adding monogamous homosexual relationships into the patchwork of marriage will injure the very idea of marriage itself. The common point made by advocates of gay marriage is 'what does two people of the same sex getting married have ANYTHING to do with your marriage?' I myself had come to define marriage as a holy institution - a relationship between two people that involves a third party - God. I still view my marriage that way. Not everyone shares that opinion/view - and guess what my response is? Who cares what you think? It's my marriage. What does my marriage have ANYTHING to do with your marriage? If the point works both ways, it's a good point.

I will not go into the obvious points of how we heterosexuals have already done an excellent job of injuring the idea of marriage. But regardless of how you feel personally about hetero or homosexual relationships, someone out there right now is falling in love with another person, and it's beyond our control. And control seems to be so desperately what society is trying to hold onto.

I've known people who view marriage as an arrangement. It makes a lot of financial sense to be married if you live with someone. However, those same people are in love-less, life-less relationships and have opted for comfort and stability versus intimacy. I also know people who wait to get married until "we get on our feet financially" - waiting until that right job, right house, right portfolio is set up. Well, to each his/her own, but that's not why I got married. Once I realized that I wanted to die trying to make my relationship flourish with my girlfriend, I couldn't WAIT to be married - money or not. My life was not going to begin until that day arrived.


"In Sickness and In Health"

After divorce, sometimes people consider getting re-married because of fear. Fear that they won't have someone to take care of them when they get sick and/or grow old. I know personally those who got married for this reason alone. I think that's unfortunate, but is that a crime? Not in America.

In America, as long as you're a man and she's a woman, you have the right to get married for whatever purpose you see fit. Because the government has concluded that they cannot judge an individual couple's motives for getting married, just so long as they register and follow the rules.

Now remember, this goes completely against my earlier definition of what I think marriage is. Shouldn't I be protesting the government for allowing this "travesty" to occur? Should I be running for office so I can change the laws and instill my "correct" definition of marriage?

No? You're right. Because if MY definition of marriage were truly instituted - a relationship between two people devoted and committed to a God-centric union - MOST people - hetero or homosexual - would NOT be allowed to marry! Most HETEROSEXUAL couples would have to register as civil unions and I would reserve the title of "married" for the select few who fit the "holy" requirements. How do ya like 'dem apples?

. . . but, no, that's not what I'm going to do, because I cannot judge anyone else's motives for marriage or with who and how they fall in love.


"To Love and To Cherish"

My brother's wife is now legally a member of our family. But my brother's wife was ALREADY a member of my family many years ago the moment they decided to commit themselves to each other and love one another. I cannot express to you the joy in my heart the day he told me he had found someone special in his life. I cannot express it because I already knew how big a deal that was to me when I fell in love with my wife. It's not LIKE winning the lottery. It's better. And if you've been blessed enough to meet someone like that in your life, then I'm happy for you too.

You: Funkyman, aren't you a Christian?

Yes, and by Christian standards, my brother and his wife were "living in sin" for almost 15 years. In fact, I expected his phone call last week to be about how they finally were expecting a child. And if they were pregnant and had a child out of wed-lock, do you know what I would call that child? My family. The status of their sex life does not define their relationship to me.

My Christian brothers and sisters quote the Bible passages relating to sexual behavior - which is the only way homosexuality is referenced in the Bible. We get so caught up in thinking of relationships and marriage as sexual. But sex does not define your relationship or your marriage. When you truly fall in love and reveal your heart and trust with someone - that's not sex. When you hug someone and hold them and tell them "It's going to be OK" - that's not sex. When you nurse your best friend back to health, see them through the hard times, go to events together, laugh, live, love, play and celebrate life together - that's not sex. That's love. And whether Christians are ready to accept it or not, homosexual relationships - especially ones that seek marriage as a life-choice - are founded on love, not sex.

I've found that in my life, and my family and friends are happy for me. When my friends and family find that, I'm happy for them. And even if you haven't found that special person in your life yet, it is my prayer for you to be happy and to be well. My personal relationship with God has nothing to do with how you will experience pain and loss in your life. I won't let it get in the way of your pursuit of happiness either. Whether or not you believe what I believe, I am praying for you. :-)

So I ask you, my friend . . . Are you happy? Are you well?

That's all that I care about. That's all that matters.

"'Til Death Do Us Part."


Hopefully, we'll be together after that too. Amen.

- Funkyman

8 comments:

Ryan Phelps said...

What up Funkyman. Hope you and the fam are well.

Serious topic, bro! And you discuss it with grace. Would it be ok to push back a bit?

Just so I understand your position, you think that marriage is a holy institution. It is two people with God; a “God-centric” union. And generally, that union is joined and defined not by sex, but by love. And if that is true, then some things that Christians have called “unholy”—namely, homosexual unions, unmarried unions—should be understood differently. In fact, they should be accepted precisely because they are founded on love, not sex. And this, in your estimation, goes in line with what the Bible teaches.

So here are my questions, and they are not meant at all to be leading, just clarifying.

1. What are the ramifications for you of how the Bible views homosexual sex? In other words, is the Bible true in your estimation on this specific point? (Not how it view homosexual marriage.)
2. Is this why you mention early on in your post “monogamous homosexual relationships”? Is your position that what is permitted is a loving, non-sexual relationship between two people of the same sex?
3. What do you think the purpose of sex is? How does the Bible (that is, God) think of sex and what is means inside of marriage?

Hope this is ok to discuss here. This is a really important topic and I don’t think we should shy away from discussing it openly, but with absolute gentleness and grace!

Peace,

Ryan P.

DavidColeman said...

Hi Ryan! Miss you man, and so sorry I won't be able to see you at this year's Christmas Concert. I and my family are well, and I pray yours is too.

You're right about this being a serious topic, and normally I stray away from theological discussions on Funkyman blog because it is such a complex area to discuss. However, I rejoice in your questions, and I'm more than happy to discuss further.

Your estimation of my position was correct except for the last sentence of that paragraph. I do believe in celebrating two people in love - but I would not state that the Bible specifically co-opts that stance in every situation. The point I was trying to make in this blog is that I cannot nor should I be able to control what other people do in their pursuit of happiness. And though I personally believe what the Bible teaches, I cannot express those beliefs through anything but preaching (which is what I am not doing - just sharing my thoughts) and life example - not by using the government, politics, and the law to be party to institutionalized discrimination. Not everyone follows the Bible.

I'll try to answer your great questions:

1. Concerning how the Bible views homosexual sex - is the Bible true on this point? Wow - talk about your serious topics!

Let me start by saying I believe the Bible is true and the Word of God. However, with that acknowledgement comes a whole lot of baggage and necessity for study. For instance, there are several instructions in Deuteronomy about marriage that we would laugh at today (i.e. if your husband dies, you have to marry his brother - 25:5). We both know that the New Testament is there to free us from the old law and these accounts remain in the Bible to teach us the history of the relationship of God with His people. Unfortunately, there is a lot of quoting from the Old Testament (especially from Leviticus) used to prove that believing anything in the Bible is ridiculous. That is not my experience. However . . .

I don't believe the Bible has a view on homosexual sex. The Bible does not ever use the term "homosexual." When it references the ideas of a man "burning in lust" for another man or "lying with a man as one lies with a woman" as sinful, it most certainly is referring to these acts in regards to heterosexuality, and yes if a heterosexual man did these things, that would be against one's nature and therefore sinful and an "abomination." It's the "against one's nature" part that gets sticky.

The truth is that there are people out there who think they're heterosexual and end up identifying as gay. There are people who thought they were gay and ended up identifying as straight. And there's everything in between. There is no verse in the Bible that refers to the "transformation" of sexual orientation or sexual orientation at all for that matter - because as I tried to write in my blog - sexual orientation is not simply about sex. It goes to the very core of a person's identity, and trying to navigate through the intricacies of a person's character and convince them they're not gay is not our job as Christians. We are to speak the Word, live our lives as an example, lift the name of Jesus, and people will draw near to Him. In the end, if a man cares deeply for another man and they both identify as homosexual, then that does not classify as an abomination. Sex is beside the point.

Which leads to your second question:

DavidColeman said...

2. Is my position that a loving, non-sexual relationship between same sex partners is permitted?

I think I answered this question in my last sentence above. But in addition, of course, we as a society already accept and the Bible already permits loving, non-sexual relationships between same sex partners - it's called regular old friendship. However, if you mean do I believe God permits homosexuals to be in a romantic relationship as long as they're not engaging in sex, I would say that is not the point I was making. Monogamous homosexual relationships are not referenced in the Bible. (if I'm wrong on this, please help)

3. What do I think is the purpose of sex? How does the Bible think of sex and specifically in marriage?

Well I think the purpose of "normal" intercourse (also a tough topic, Ryan!) is 3-fold - reproduction, pleasure, and intimacy.

As for the Bible - the Bible teaches that God has reserved sex for a husband and wife (1 Corinthians 7). However, the Bible is not specific on how to specifically practice these purposes. Even heterosexual, monogamous, married couples do things outside of these parameters. The Bible does not reference mutual masturbation, oral sex, toys/vibrators, sado-masochism, psychological domination, pain, use of foul language and several other ways couples use sex for pleasure. So therefore, should I conclude that since it's not in the Bible it's wrong to do those things? No. Just as I argue, that just because monogamous homosexual relationships are not in the Bible, it doesn't mean God is against it. The fact that Paul refers to sex for a husband and a wife is because he is writing in reference towards what most of us are - heterosexual.

I understand if my reasoning seems unorthodox. However, I have been praying for clarity on these matters for many years, and I want God to know my desire to do His will. Hopefully, by doing His will, others will be persuaded to follow.

Love you, man. Let me know if you want to talk more.

- David

Ryan Phelps said...

Great response, thanks. I think, mainly, I'm not looking to debate, just to make sure I know what you really think. Just one comment. (Let me know when this gets too heavy for your blog and we can chat via email or over the phone.)

You say: "The point I was trying to make in this blog is that I cannot nor should I be able to control what other people do in their pursuit of happiness. And though I personally believe what the Bible teaches, I cannot express those beliefs through anything but preaching (which is what I am not doing - just sharing my thoughts) and life example - not by using the government, politics, and the law to be party to institutionalized discrimination. Not everyone follows the Bible.”

Perhaps you don’t want to go here, but the reason I posted is because I’m trying to uncover what your “preaching” would entail. The sense I get from your comment above is that we're talking about beliefs vs. how we impose those beliefs on others. So, for example, I might believe that homosexuality is a sin, preach that it is a sin, but not believe that the government should be in the business of regulating that sin. Is that true?

But the foundational question is still, what does your "preaching" entail on the subject? That will probably clear things up for me.

Thanks again.

DavidColeman said...

"So, for example, I might believe that homosexuality is a sin, preach that it is a sin, but not believe that the government should be in the business of regulating that sin. Is that true?"

The conclusion is correct, but that statement doesn't reflect my position. I do not believe homosexuality itself is a sin, because I do not believe homosexuality is defined only as sexual behavior with the same gender, as it is only referenced in the Bible - as I explained earlier.

As for what I would preach:

I would preach that the lusts of the flesh separate us from God (sin). I would preach that sex with anyone other than your spouse (before or during marriage) is not God's best for your life. I would preach that God wants our bodies clean and presented as sacrifice. I would preach abstinence. I would preach being equally yoked with your partner and encourage people to find a God-fearing, Holy Ghost filled partner in order to honor God with your marriage and be an example for others. I would preach that promiscuity is not of God. I believe that these same rules apply for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.

For all of the reasons I stated in the longer post, what I would NOT preach is that homosexuality is an abomination. I would NOT preach that the references in the Bible concerning sexual behavior clearly condemn homosexuals.

Hope that helps, and I doubt anyone is reading these comments besides us anyway, so I have no problem using this as a forum! Heck, that's why I started the blog 6 years ago! Keep it coming!

Thank you, Ryan

- David

Ryan Phelps said...

David-

Really sorry I have yet to respond. The busy season hit and I forgot we had an ongoing discussion!

I think, if it's cool, I'll email you later today to continue this. There's just something impersonal about "debating" on a blog!

For Jesus,

R

tiaolou004 said...

Public health officials launched an aggressive campaign, Cheap Newports, aimed at stamping out smoking in Norway. Today' s move, called " Time to quit? " (" P? tide ? slutte? "), is designed to prevent smoking' s 5,100 annual deaths. The government has set aside 19 million kroner to spend on the previously unconfirmed campaign. Norwegian Directorate of Health Director Bj?rn-Inge Larsen states he is tasked with ensuring young people today are the smoke-free generations of tomorrow, whilst motivating and helping current smokers to stop. " The campaign' s core message is that quitting smoking is good, and help is available," he says Newport Cigarettes Website.

An Australian film containing vivid scenes showing some of the consequences of smoking, including the doubled risk of strokes, will be screened on national television as part of the drive. According to health officials Newport Cigarettes, the footage, dubbed into Norwegian, has been thoroughly tested and shown to have been extremely effective in the US, Australia Marlboro Lights, and several European countries. Two additional films show the connection between smoking and lung Newport Cigarettes.

kevin21 said...

Amelie Shearling Boot

Caroline Ballet Flat Tory Burch Sale

Cheetah Reva Ballet Flat

Tory Burch Amelie Shearling

Tory Burch Christal Boot

Tory Burch Christal High Heel Boot Review

Tory Burch Duck Boots

Tory Burch Flats

Tory Burch Flip Flops

Tory Burch Model Tb0151

Tory Burch Riding Boot