The following is something I plan to propose to our denomination as a way to dialogue about this very divisive issue of homosexuality. I hope to move us beyond the usual exegetical and experiental arguments in a way that brings the two together. I offer it as a post because I want to "test the waters." OST offers fewer vocational repercussions than throwing it directly to the wolves in the denomination. I’m looking for your helpful critiques on this one. Thanks.
As of the 2005 General Synod meeting, the churches of the RCA have been instructed to participate in “an honest and intentional denomination-wide dialogue on the issue of homosexuality.” Some are hopeful at this recommendation and others are pessimistic. One does not need to converse long with a group of pastors, around a table at a consistory meeting or at coffee hour with a group of Christians before the dialogue becomes debate. The one group quickly becomes two: for and against, liberal and conservative, us versus them.
The two sides shore up their arguments from Scripture and experience and an impasse is quickly reached. The first of two sides will point to the passages in scripture that condemn homosexual behavior. Their interpretation “proves” that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful. Their opponents will point out (and rightfully so) that their interpretation fails to consider the context into which those words were written and may not be as easy to interpret as they portray. Rather than prohibit consensual, homosexual relationships these others see references to sexual activity in the context of ritual worship (Leviticus 18:22) or pederasty (I Corinthians 6:9). Ending, finally, on the passage from Romans 1:26-27, each side will argue the place of nature in this debate.
The progressive side will argue that Paul does indeed condemn homosexual behavior in this passage, but it may again refer to exploitative behavior within ritual worship. Regardless, it is certain that Paul does not know as much as we do. That is, Paul may know about sexual behavior, but has no knowledge of sexual orientation. If that’s the case, as the argument goes, God may have intended some men and women to be born with a homosexual orientation. Experience shows that homosexual couples share in fruitful relationships and homosexual pastors minister over fruitful churches. The more conservative side will quickly counter (and rightfully so) that just because something is part of our nature doesn’t mean it’s within God’s intentions. Alcoholism and birth defects are often cited.
Conflict over controversial issues is not new to the Christian community. Perhaps the first and certainly one of the most well known is the church in Corinth. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is meant to address the issues that threaten to tear their church apart. It seems that the source of much of their division is a mantra that has developed among the people. We find at I Cor. 6:12 and 10:23, “all things are lawful for me.” This mantra has lead some people in a direction that, to others, seems far from the will of God. In response, Paul neither agrees nor disagrees with the statement.
Paul could have written in reply, “Indeed! All things are lawful for you, proceed as you wish.” But he didn’t. On the other hand, Paul could have written, “All things are not lawful for you, stop everything that you are doing.” He didn’t write that either. Instead, Paul wrote, “All things are lawful for you, but…” He followed that “but” with three qualifications: 1) not all things are beneficial, 2) not all things build up, and 3) I will not be dominated by anything. Paul seems to be advising the Corinthians that all things are lawful as long as they are beneficial, build up the community, and are not leading the people to be dominated by anything except to love one another.
Consider the example of speaking in tongues. While Paul desired that all the Christians would do it as he did, he wanted to make sure that they maintained order in their worship with one another. While speaking in tongues was beneficial, without interpretation it could not build up, and their chaotic worship showed that they were being dominated by a lust for power and prestige rather than love for one another. In their debates, the Corinthians would have done well to ask themselves three questions in regard to their life together: Is my action beneficial? Will my action build up others in the community? Does my action show that I have become a slave to something other than love? These same three questions may be a guide for us in the next three years as we dialogue together over the issues that threaten to tear our church apart: homosexuality, marriage for homosexual couples, and the ordination of homosexual ministers, elders, and deacons.
Consider the example of marriage. Marriage is beneficial. The ups and downs of life’s journey can be difficult to navigate alone. In marriage we find one who allows us to trust, teaches us to love, and fills us with hope. It is in marriage that we discover who we truly are and see how our actions affect others, where our sensitivities lie, and how we can grow into Christ. Also, marriage builds up the community as we provide those same gifts for our marriage partner and, together, create a safe space to raise up the next generation. Finally, marriage, in order to succeed, must be dominated by nothing except love. Long work weeks, childish habits, infidelity, and stubborn points of view all put the marriage relationship in jeopardy. Are these things any less true when they apply to couples whose sexual activity may take a different form?
Or, consider the comparison of homosexuality and alcoholism. It is quite clear, and becoming more so, that these two behaviors are rooted in our nature and beyond our choice. How would alcoholism hold up to our three questions? Is it beneficial? Considering the cost to the body and wallet it is not. Does it build up others in the community? No. Rather, it destroys all kinds of relationships. Have I become a slave to something other than love? Yes. I’ve become a slave to alcohol. What about the same test with regard to homosexual relationships? Are the negative and destructive aspects of alcoholism anywhere to be found within the context of committed, homosexual relationships?
In our life together, Scripture should certainly be central to our conversation. Also, our conversation ought to take seriously the work of the Holy Spirit in our midst. This 3-question test comes directly from I Corinthians and allows us to interpret our experience in a way that is faithful to the Spirit’s work within the Christian community. Assuming the opportunity presents itself, in three years we would have to answer these questions with a definitive “yes” or “no.” There will undoubtedly be fear about whether we have answered them correctly or not. With trust and humility we move forward with our choice. Only God knows if we will have answered wisely, but time will tell. In the words of Jesus, “You will know them by their fruits.”
We may never know for certain the full meaning of Scripture on every issue. We may never know everything of what God intends for each human life. But this three-question test may be a guide that leads us into the right decision. If, in the end, our decision results in division and destruction we may have answered incorrectly. Thankful for God’s grace, we can repent, together, and begin again. If, on the other hand, we’ve witnessed the growth of the Spirit’s fruit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, generosity, and self-control) and a harvest of righteousness it may be that we have answered correctly. Thankful for God’s grace, we can continue our journey, together, more fully into God’s kingdom. Let the dialogue begin.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
PastorPete,
I’m glad to hear that the RCA is being intentional about engaging in a serious dialogue over the issue of homosexuality, and I think your proposal is a fantastic start. Particularly refreshing is the fact that your proposal addresses one of the major deficiencies in most discussions of Christian ethics: the work of the Spirit. I’m constantly struck by how central the work of the Spirit is to Paul, and yet how easily we marginalize it. Quite clearly (and understandably) we prefer our ethics to be carved in stone – tamed, dead.
However, I do question your use of divisiveness as a criterion of evaluation of Spirit-led activities (last paragraph). Sadly, it’s hard to think of a significant church doctrine or practice that has not led to divisions.
Please keep us posted on how the RCA responds to your proposal.
Seth
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
If you use the text of 1 Corinthians 6:12 you must be prepared to go back three verses. I do not think that your argument holds if the author has just stated that practicing homosexuals will not be admitted to heaven.
I took offense at the sentence "Paul does not know as much as we do". This view fails to see Holy Scripture as the authoritative word of God. Surely God knew exactly what He told Paul to write.
The example of speaking in tongues is not an equivalent example. The Bible does not refer to speaking in tongues in any list of sins.
The topic of marriage is not well supported. The origin of marriage is that it was not good that Adam be alone. Surely God could have made a friend of exact likeness for Adam. Instead a compliment was created. Your final question - "Are these things any less true when they apply to couples whose sexual activity may take a different form?" - can be answered with "Yes, at least one of these is less true for those with different sexual activity". That one is that their different sexual activity will not produce the next generation, which you suggest they "raise up". That is only the most obvious of the many complimentary systems of a man and a woman.
The comparison of alcoholism and homosexuality is a good one. Where alcoholism is mentioned in the Bible, it is called "drunkenness". It appears in the same or similar lists of sins as homosexuality with the same consequences (1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:21). The Bible does not seem to draw a distinction. Therefore, the same answers for your alcoholism questions from 1 Corinthians 6:12 would apply to homosexuality.
As you consider the work of the Holy Spirit in our midst, I would ask that you also consider that God does not contradict Himself. The work of the Holy Spirit would have us extend the gospel to everyone, homosexuals included. But in that invitation we must not leave out the need for repentance of sins.
First Timothy 1:8-10 calls homosexuality "contrary to sound teaching" according to "the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted". It therefore calls for repentance, like all other sin.
www.livebythecross.com
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
I am aware of Paul’s list of three verses earlier. The point of this proposal is to move beyond the arguments that stem from that list because the conclusions to be drawn from it are not as clear they seem. First of all, there is not a word for a homosexual in scripture. "Homosexual" wasn’t coined as a term until recently. The same is true in I Timothy, Paul is not referring to homosexuality as we know it. He is referring to malakoi or arsenokoites. What those mean is up for serious debate, but I want to move beyond that. It does seem, however, that whatever Paul was referring to was not beneficial, not building up the community, and showed a type of slavery to something other than love.
This view does not fail to see Scripture as authoritative, but it sees Scripture as authoritative to the context in which it was written. What I’m looking for is way to do the hardwork so that it can by a living word and remain authoritative today. Considering the revolutions in the sciences, Paul can’t know as much as we do. Paul certainly knows God as well as we do, and I’m sure better than I do. I’m wondering if a what we’ve learned over the centuries would have changed Paul’s view, not of God, but of the world.
I didn’t mean speaking in toungues to be an equivalent example, but to show why Paul was critical of that practice in Corinth. Namely, it wasn’t beneficial or building up the community. As for marriage, I don’t think two gay people would consider themselves an exact likeness of one another simply because they share the same genitalia. If sexual acts of heterosexuals cannot produce the next generation, are they sinful?
Again, I am wondering why the list that Paul mentions in chapter 6 is included. Why these acts? It seems to me it’s because they are not beneficial and do not build up. So, now, what if those acts are benefiting some and building up the community as evidenced by fruitful relationships and fruitful ministries? Would Paul see things differently?
Thank you for your response. It will help me know what I need to clarify and anticipate.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Pastor Pete,
I sincerely hope that you consider the Scriptures more carefully. The word used in 1 Timothy 1:10 (same as the word in 1 Corinthians 6:9) and translated as "homosexual" referred to the same sexual act (two partners of the same gender) as it does today.
The authoritative nature of Scripture is still questioned in this post where you state "Paul can’t know as much as we do". Our misunderstanding may have been my mistake in the way I articulated my previous statement. I shall try to state it more clearly. God wrote 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Romans and the rest of the Bible. God authored the very part of Scripture where you claim we now have more knowledge of sexuality. We cannot have more knowledge of sexuality than God, the author of the words in the Bible.
Cultural changes are frequently claimed by those trying to diffuse the teachings of the Bible. There is no more reason given as to what allows for such hair splitting. They say murder and lying are sin yet the same list contains homosexuality. They go on to claim it is not a sin. To be sure, God addresses the topic of homosexuality because it appears in the Corinthian culture. This does not allow us write it off by saying it does not apply because our culture is different.
In marriage, I hope I did not convey that males or females are all exactly alike. Also, it is a mistake of categories to equate infertile heterosexual couples with homosexual couples. The latter, even given the best case scenario, cannot physically have children. The former are a special case. There is no special case by which homosexual couples are able to produce children. So to answer your question, sexual sin of infertile couples cannot be determined because they fail to have children. Further, a general look at marriage shows that marriage between one man and one woman was the only marriage blessed by God. Sexual activity outside marriage is sinful. The practice of homosexual sex is outside marriage and therefore sinful.
The three questions you pose from the text are useful in discernment of things not addressed in the Bible. The sin of homosexuality is addressed in the Bible as sin. We can then be certain that the three questions will conclude with the same outcome. The major issue with the use of these questions for homosexuality is that it undermines what Holy Scripture clearly states. This is done because their use is second guessing the Bible.
www.livebythecross.com
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Joshua,
You say that "The word […] translated as "homosexual" referred to the same sexual act (two partners of the same gender) as it does today." Frankly I don’t think you can make that claim unless you believe that an act’s meaning is solely determined by the physical facts. And hopefully you don’t believe that. Rather, I’m sure you’d acknowledge that acts derive meaning from context. And since the context of the ‘homosexual’ acts in Paul’s letters is not the same as the context of the homosexual acts in monogamous loving relationships today, the question of rightness and/or wrongness of those acts needs to be settled by an appeal to some higher principles. PastorPete is trying to identify such principles.
For instance, to the question "Is heterosexual sex right or wrong?", we might answer "well, that depends." The context of that act is crucial to determining the rightness or wrongness of that act. Most Christians would say that (heterosexual) sex has to occur within the bounds of loving monogamous marriage to be acceptable, but also that the particular act needs to be non-coercive, loving, and done in a way that is consistent with the 3 principles PastorPete has identified.
I think PastorPete is trying to say that the same logic must apply to the question "Is homosexual sex right or wrong?" Instead of saying ‘oh my oh my, it’s got two penises, so it’s wrong!’ (pardon the caricature), it might be better to say "well, that depends—how does the context of that act affect its rightness or wrongness?" You see, being right or wrong is never just a matter of what physical facts are true. Meaning arises in context, and so this thread intends to be an exploration of the contextual elements that might validate or invalidate loving homosexual acts.
This is why both PastorPete and I can fully affirm the authority of Scripture on this issue. Though we agree with Paul that what he was condemning was bad, we are arguing that, contextually speaking, what’s going on today isn’t the same thing.
Regardless of your view on Scriptural inspiration (I doubt many people here would unqualifiedly commit to your claim that "God wrote the Bible"—why do you say that by the way?), the issue here is not the authority of Scripture, but rather the content of Scripture.
You say that infertile couples are ‘a special case’ but that homosexual couples are not. I disagree. I think both are, in a sense, abnormal. I have heard that an estimated 2 to 3% of Americans have problems with infertility. Statistics on homosexuality reveal similar numbers. Abnormality, however, does not ground immorality.
I would urge you, if you really want to argue for the unacceptability of homosexuality, not to point to specific texts (which have already been well discussed elsewhere), but rather to appeal to biblical principles that will help in the conversation. This is what PastorPete is trying to do for his argument, which is why your counters seem to be missing the point.
As an additional challenge to your view, one might bring up intersex people and what kind of sex is appropriate for them… Paul never talks about intersex—so would that make it ok for someone physiologically between a male and female to get married and have sex? Just curious… (see www.isna.org for more info)
God’s blessings,
-Daniel-
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
First, I would like to thank AngelaMarie and LostAndFound. It is encouraging not to be alone.
To Daniel,
2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 3:15-16 are one reason why I say that God wrote the Bible. Perhaps a topic should be started to explain the depth and power of the word "inspiration" in the Greek.
We cannot continue a dialog if you insist on setting aside the Bible by starting sentences such as "Regardless of your view on Scriptural inspiration". The inspiration of the Bible is central. If you do not agree that the Bible is inerrant (in the original text) and inspired (i.e. written) by God then we have no common ground to discern God’s will.
The paragraph where I included the phrase "special case" must have thrown you off. I am often confused when others are confused by me. I went back and reread my post. To quote myself "There is no special case by which homosexual couples are able to produce children". Being unable to have children is a special case among heterosexuals. Being unable to have children is the rule among homosexuals. The proof is not in the realization of children but in the design of God for the potential of having children. Following that you twist my words to mean that abnormality is sinful. Of course abnormality is not sinful in itself.
You urge me to drop the passages I bring up. Jesus used passages (Matthew 4) and principles (Matthew 5) to refute false teaching. I see no reason that I should stop either one. Further, my last post contained mostly principles - marriage, cultural change, critique of Pastor Pete’s principles.
Intersexed people should submit to Jesus Christ. I do not claim to have all the answers to every idiosyncrasy. My best discernment would be to refrain from sex. Barring that, science should be consulted to determine gender (Y chromosome perhaps) and the opposite sex sought for marriage. I would challenge your view with this - why not three "loving monogamous" partners, or more?
The act of homosexual sex is sinful. When you answered the question of whether heterosexual sex was sinful you included the context of a "loving monogamous marriage" to prove it was not sinful. Why do you refrain from using the same for a homosexual relationship? In particular the marriage needs to be included. As I stated last time, God only deemed one legal marriage relationship - one man, one woman (Genesis 2:21). The same criteria would prove that homosexual sex is sin.
I also want to caution those who teach that homosexual sex is not sin. If you are wrong, which Biblically you are, then you are causing people to believe they are not damned when in fact they are. Please consider the lack of benefit and increase of harm you perpetuate.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Joshua has a great point. If one says that homosexuality is not a sin, then where is the line drawn? That was what I meant when I said opening the wrong doors is not wise. This is why we have the Word of God, because it gives us a clear understanding of what is right and wrong. Just as Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and realized their nakedness, so the Bible and its teachings gives us that knowledge. The church in Paul’s time did not tolerate sin in the church. Why should we be tolerant? Just because the "world" tolerates it? We need to stop being afraid to speak the truth. The great martyrs in the Bible were not afraid. The reason why we should not accept homosexuality is because we should love people and want them to have eternal life with the Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot change a person’s mind and heart, only the Spirit can. All we can do is be a guide to those who do not understand.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
I also disagree and I think you did not fully represented Paul’s view on homosexuality. There is a passage in Romans 1:24-32 Paul tells us that homosexuality is a result of sin. I don’t think you have written a balanced article on this subject.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
To LostFound and to anyone else who would quote some specific passage in Scripture as opposing homosexuality, I would say that your input is welcome, but also that you would do well to read the other OST threads on homosexuality before you contribute to this one.
I’m sure most of us are aware of Romans 1, LostFound. I find it unfortunate that you failed to note PastorPete’s important point that "homosexuality" as we use it today does not mean what Paul meant when he used the words which are translated "homosexual offenders." If you would like to read a balanced account of the 5 or so passages in Scripture which seem to speak to homosexuality, I would recommend you not look for that on this thread. I think that would defeat its entire purpose. Rather, I think that the idea here is to look for larger principles which can guide our approach to this divisive debate beyond the very specific (and therefore hard to generalize) texts which everyone quotes.
The three aforementioned principles strike me as very useful in this approach. More constructive at least, than other approaches I have encountered. I would also argue that the disanalogies between alcoholism and homosexual monogamy, as highlighted by these principles, provide a strong counter to the association of the two that is so common in certain circles.
I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others on this matter.
All the best,
-Daniel-
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
I hear your concerns LostFound. I, too, have come to the conclusion the the Bible is against some kind of homosexual behavior. More convincing to me than even Romans is the mention of aresnokoites in I Corinthians and I Timothy. These are clearly references, for Paul, to the Levitical prohibitions. But we need to consider seriously what, exactly, they were prohibiting. I doubt it was consenual, monogamous, homosexual, adult, couples. It was probably something more exploitative of children or something that profaned worship. If that is the case, what would Paul say about these seemingly beneficial relationships? I’m seeking for a new way to evaluate that question. I think Paul provides that for us in I Corinthians.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
I don’t want to drag on irrelevant stuff into this discussion. However, I am sure you are aware that greek language have 3 different meanings for ‘love’. There is agape (godly love), fileo (brotherly love) and eros (lust). When paul speaks of love in the bible he never uses the word eros. Clearly homosexuality from the paul point of view is lust. There is nothing wrong with the ‘fileo love’ and relationships amongst brothers (men) however this does not include the un natural lusting for each other. I think there is a clear distinction in that verse given to us. Also.. Paul clearly tells us that this kind of sexuality is un natural (it’s NOT natural) and it was not meant to be like this (meaning that God did not create things this way and these things are a result of sin). I can’t see how you can go from there to ‘it is ok if it was in a loving relationship’…
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
LostFound,
"Clearly, homosexuality from Paul’s point of view is lust."
Once again, you should reconsider the use of the term ‘homosexuality’ in conjunction with Paul. The term wasn’t available for him. Perhaps, homosexual behavior is more appropriate. But if, as you suggest, homosexual behavior is lust, then it would fail to pass Paul’s categories for ethical behavior that I suggested. Lust is being "dominated by something other than love."
I wonder, however, how do you know that homosexuals are acting merely out of lust? Paul seems to tell us that, in his view, homosexual behavior is unnatural. But, then again, he also wrote (or someone did in his name) that women should keep their heads covered and not speak in the assembly. Science, on the other hand, is providing us with some valuable information. Just to clarify, I think Paul knows God as well as we do, and better than I do. But Paul, like us, was conditioned by his context. Facing what seems to be a new definition of reality today, I’m trying to think (with Paul) how to address it from God’s perspective.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Don’t misunderstand me here… I see your point. However we must not cover our eyes with our post modern thinking. There is no such thing as sin in it’s historical context being sin and we are living in different times and sins are not considered sins anymore. For instance where I come from (The Netherlands) prostitution is a legitmate profession. Hookers include VAT for their services and they need to have an accountant to their administration. We can buid a case around that, that for some women this profession is completly volentary and they should be able to continue to do that.
However the bible condems prostitution. In it’s context the people of Israel were often accused for their adultry against God and they were compared to prostitutors. In Hosea God builds his entire prophecy on Hosea’s wife falling into the temple prostitution (prostitution in the context of idolatry). We can now pull the prostitution out of the the idolatry context and that will leave us with a volentary legitimate profession. Can you see were I’m getting at?
You cannot make a point on that. Absolutely not! Men having sex with men is considered unnatural and an illigimate act of sexuality. Paul does not say wether this is a relationship or outside a relationship because either way it is just wrong. How I interpret Paul’s view on homosexuality that this was a result of sin.
We also have to see this in the context of idolatry. And let’s see what God says about this in the 10 commandments.
As far as scripture says in Exodus and Romans is that homosexuality is a result of sin and idolatry and it’s how God has visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. In my opinion this makes perfect sence. I don’t think we can just start questioning the seriousness of sin without compromising God’s holiness.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Thank you for your point and let me say that I am not questioning the seriousness of sin. If we apply the three criteria I suggested to prostitution, I think you’ll find that it doesn’t pass the test. Perhaps it benefits individuals in terms of sexual gratification, but that is it’s extent. It does not build up the community because it cheapens sex, a gift that God has given us. It is harmful to the marital covenant by providing easy access to adultery. It contributes to the objectification of women. Finally, people participate in it because they are dominated by sexual gratification, not love for their fellow human beings. In a sense, prostitution makes an idol out of sex.
Once again, because Paul was not aware of homosexuality as we are today, he couldn’t comment on it. He could comment on, and condemn, the behavior that he was witness to. I think he did condemn what he saw because it was not beneficial, did not build up the community, and showed a slavery to sex. Those things do not seem to be the case in adult, monogamous, homosexual relationships.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
I really fail to see how homosexuality builds up a community. I am far from a member of the roman catholic church but in homosexuality there is no procreation involved. How can it then build up a community. There is no added value in that at all. It is sad to see how you hold on to this heavily sekularized view on this subject….
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
I agree with LostandFound. Just because we live in a changing world does not mean that God changes. In my opinion, homsexuality was probably the same in Paul’s time as it is today. I do not think that Paul was any type of authority when it came to marraige or sexual relations. He said himself that it is better not to marry at all because it takes the focus away from God. That being said, he did give us some guidelines for marraige that were quite specific. We should not look to Paul for the answers, but to God. God used Paul in tremedous ways, but that does not mean that Paul should be the ultimate authority on life. Only God is and that is where we should start. Does God say that homosexuality is wrong? Yes, end of story. We are not to be judges of people, we are to be their light. As Christians, we should allow the Holy Spirit to move and work in our lives, so that we may be able to (only through the Spirit) obtain wisdom about this. Instead of wasting time debating it, let us start understanding that sin is very real. I do not think it is wise to start opening the wrong doors, because it allows sin to come in and have its way.
Re: A Noble effort
Pastor Pete,
It seems that what you are setting out to do is a noble effort. At the very least it is an attempt to get the discussion out of the "I’m right and you’re not" school of debate.
But to me it seems that you and many here are going out of the way to avoid use of Biblical reference in the discussion.
While it is true that there are many viewpoints on what is actually said in scripture it is equally true that not all of those viewpoints are correct.
Wouldn’t it serve the discussion on homosexuality better if an examination was made of the scriptures to see what is said, the complete Biblical context of the text in review and cultural context in which it was originally read? Then, instead of saying this was written for a particular context, determine if our cultural context is the same as the first century context.
I myself am prone to clobber people with the Bible when they disagree with me, and I must guard against that tendency. Still, it is to the Bible we must resort for guidance, not only in how to live the Christian life, but in how to interpret the text itself.
You have done an excellent job of going to the text to help in developing a methodology in discussing the issue (your 3 questions). Now, why not go back over you statement and instead of the parts of your statement that deal with the issues of homosexuality replace them with further texts and thoughts on the conduct of the debate.
2 Timothy 2:15 comes to mind as a starting place. We certainly need to study to find God’s definitive answer on the issue.
Our problem will begin if we find that God’s answer isn’t the one we wanted to hear.
Isn’t it interesting that this whole issue seems to have cropped up in the last 50 years?
Your friend in Christ,
SMcCloud
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
I was once in a very old church from the south and after a quick review of our very old by-laws we realized it had a paragraph dealing with "what to do if a black person entered the church". We were pretty shocked to realize that had never been removed from the by-laws. So we had to have a meeting and vote to remove the paragraph. It was embarrassing to say the least.
I am fairly confident that one day you all will look back on this and other similar conversations with the same level of shame. I have a prayer for everyone here:
For each of you, I pray that within the coming year God will grace your life with the friendship of one or more homosexuals. Not just a shallow Sunday morning smile and nod sort of friendship, but a loving meaningful relationship that will completely wreck your concepts of sin and grace. I pray that God will grant them the grace to love you in spite of your bigotry and ignorance. I pray that God will use that experience to reveal his concept of grace to you so that you may be more able to show grace to others. I pray that they will accompany you to your own church and force you to "do some explaining".
If you want to find out how to talk about homosexuality, why don’t you start with talking and listening to some homosexuals? It would seem that the only people that should have a say in this matter are homosexuals.
Imagine for a minute how it would appear if a group of the most attractive people in America, lets say maybe a group of movies stars, began a public campaign and discussions entitled:
• How to talk to ugly people about turning from their unattractive ways
• Purifying the body of Christ from people with acne
• How to address the sin of obesity in your church
• Ministering to the women in your church when they refuse to loose those sinful post-pregnancy pounds.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
PastorPete-
I think you’ve phrased the issue well, and anticipated how the discussion will probably go. By doing so, I think you’ll save your denomination a lot of trouble.
On the other hand, though, people here immediately started arguing with your points in a way that suggests they didn’t really read what you said. Hopefully the same thing will not happen in your denomination, and hopefully the comments so far will help you see what needs more emphasis or greater clarification.
One argument you might encounter in opposition to condoning homosexuality is as follows: loving, committed homosexual relationships may not have existed in Paul’s time, and thus we can’t expect him to condemn them, but that hardly means they’re OK as long as no one gets hurt, and as long as we’re not worshipping idols.
You might recall that people have fought very hard to create the vocabulary that makes it possible for us to even discuss "gay marriage" without being laughed at and dismissed. A very strong lobby worked for many years to create favorable phrasings to legitimize their perspective. Let us not think we are clever or educated for thinking of a new category of which Paul was ignorant; we think of "committed, loving, monogamous homosexual relationships" as a conceivably acceptable scenario because we have been conditioned to do so. I’m not saying there’s no legitimacy in this type of advocacy/education agenda, only that we shouldn’t allow it to affect us without being noticed.
How valid is the argument that our current medical understandings obviate the moral prescriptions and proscriptions of scripture? Is God OK with everything, as long as it’s related to factors the individual is born with, and as long as no one gets hurt?
I think the genetic predisposition toward alcoholism is easy to dismiss as a being nonparallel to the genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, because the former is obviously harmful while the latter is not.
This should lead us to ask: Is our only standard for biblical morality whether it’s harmful and/or idolatrous? Are there other rubrics which faithfulness to scripture demands that we consider? Is it possible that we could invent complex new categories for justifying whatever type of behavior we want to, regardless of what scripture says?
Hopefully these questions will be helpful as you prepare for your denomination’s discussion of these matters. Best wishes - I don’t envy you for having to go through this process, though I admire your courage.
Justin -|- www.RadicalCongruency.com
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
I am fairly new to the subject of homosexuality and Bible; and therefore I have been reading a good number of previous posts and of course this one.
I think I have been coming to a tentative opinion, and since I feel it might be a different one to those offered; I would like to present it.
It looks to me that there are mainly two sides or parties ot thought: 1. those who try to explain that the Bible really didn’t judge homosexuality as we know it today; and 2. a party that is persuaded it does.
Both parties try to back up their views with the Bible.
From an outside perspective as a person that has not researched much about the Bible and homosexuaslity it seems that the arguments of those who try to vindicate that homosexuality (as we know it today) was not really condemded in the Bible are weaker. It seems to me as some stated that there is a tendency to turn and twist the Bible until it fits our ideas. But again - this is just a tendative observation and I might be totally wrong.
However, I do not want to stop here.
I want to ask those who are the advocates of the seeminly better biblical position that homesexuality was considered sin in the Bible; if they eat blood. (many european countries have meat with blood in them that most people , including myself, eat). I also ask them if they demand from women in the church to have a cover and dresses.
you might now think; wait a minute! you can’t compare this. Homosequality is a real sin; nothing compared to eating blood.
I thought so first when this argument crossed my mind; but then I wasn’t sure.
If you grew up in a jewish culture and from children’s days on you were told how the proper ways of eating meat looks like and that the worst ritual act you could possible do is consumating blood - you would feel different about it. You would ‘feel’ the guilt connected with it. Just like you now might ‘feel’ the guilt in homosexual behavior.
In acts 15 it is reported that all the apostles came together and under the leading of the Holy Spirit decided that christians from non jewish background should restrain from eating blood - how much more authoritative could a theological decision get?
The reason why we (at least all I personally know excluding some jehova wittnesses friends which I dearly admire) argue on the line like ‘this was a cultural condition’, this ‘was not to upset the jews at the time, but now it is different’ etc, etc, is precisely because we don’t ‘feel’ the guilt of eating blood. we can’t relate to it emotionally what this means.
This is the same as a lot of people today feel about homosexuality. if you have homosexual friends you know that they didn’t ‘learn’ that, or necessarily came up by ‘sin’; even of earlier generations. This is how they are and they can’t help it.
Therefore it is ‘normal’ that we find theological arguments that ‘prove’ the opposite of the seemingly apparent.
What I want to suggst is twofold.
1. Christianity must be in dialogue with our own culture including scientific research that has been done to the subject. The same was tru for our christian ancestors that had to give up the ‘earth is flat’ biblical statement. they had to acknowledge that the Bible was written in a certain cultural context and that the people, also those who wrote the Bible, assumed the world was flat and that they also affirmed that in their writings. They had two ways of dealing with it a. say; ok we acknowledge Josusa (as an example) when demanding the sun to stand still actually believed the sun was moving; or b. find again theological arguments that ‘prove’ the opposit of the seeminlgy apparent and saying something like: ‘the Bible never said that the earth was flat’
2. Christianity can’t just accept all current culture and embrace it. The Bible and the Church must remain a critique to all cultures in a positive and prophetical way.
Having said that I do not knwo what that means for the topic discussed, but here is what I would say:
Let God judge about every person’s sin. I don’t. I would therefore accept homosexuals in our churches including leadership positions.
If we don’t, then we evaluate sin and judge people. What if a pastor doesn’t care about let’s say evironment? Why should that be acceptable but not homesexuality (even if it would be a sin)? Who is in the position to make those decisions?
Jesus word is true here too: whoever is without fault should throw the first stone.
However, I personally couldn’t go that far as to give the blessing of God for homesecuals and especially not for church marriages. The reason for this is that not judging on God’s behalf also means not affirming on God’s behalf.
those are my tentative thoughts.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Dear All:
I would like say that it is good for beleivers to dialouge about such topics in an effort to reach Biblical understanding so that the Truth of God’s Word would manifest itself in our lives.
With that I find several errors with some of the arguments stated, First the Scripture is Gods revelation to man not mans description of God. With that being said to say that Paul was lacking in knowledge as a person would be ok, but not with respect to scripture for "all scripture is GOD BREATHED" so to question Pauls knowledge of any given subject found in scripture is to question Gods. Also the authors of the scripture were not qualified based on thier exhaustive knowledge of everything but (it was Gods call on their lives). If this were a requirement then the OT prophets could not have written in the manner they did concerning the coming of the Messiah.
Secondly I take issue with anyone who tries to liken Homosexuality to minorities. If Romans, one might say does not prove that homosexuality is a sin it certainly proves that it is a choice. Therefore to liken homosexuals to the minority culture is an attempt to rally forces, seeing as though a race,or culture a person is born into is not chosen.
Lastly
I must say that we have to understand that biblical interpretation has never been left up to the culture. We are not to take our thoughts and ideas and say well scripture must mean this. On the contrary it must be the other way around. The scripture is the living Word of God, and it is not bound by cultural limitations because God is not.
CL
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
I disagree with you CL. I see that biblical interpretation of what is right and wrong has always been seen through the eyes of our particular culture. If that were not the case then how could you see yourself as living according to scripture while not following the old testament laws for clothing, diet, and worship rituals. Do you and your wife/husband follow the old testament laws for sexual relations and cleanliness regarding menstral cycles?
Most of our wives would have been stoned to death by the biblical authors for what they now wear to the beach. You can’t say that we don’t apply a different set of filters on scripture based on our cultural views.
There is not one single person on the planet that even attempts to follow 100% with all of the bibles statements of how to live. So we all have definately defined right and wrong for ourselves.
If we didn’t continue to interpret scripture for ourselves then it would cease to be the "living" word of God. It would be the "dead" word of God. We must keep it alive by allowing it to live and evolve with the rest of creation.
The question we need to answer here is not if something is right or wrong, but what right and wrong themselves actually mean. We must emerge into a culture that sees God’s description of right and wrong as warnings to help make our lives more fullfilled rather than laws that when broken sentence us to eternal damnation. It is ok for us to discourage the pursuit of any lifestyle or choice that causes harm and I would agree that the gay life is more difficult and more often less fullfilling, but that is easy for me to say becasue I chose another path. I wouldn’t try and push my choice onto someone else that may not have such an easy choice (or possibly no choice at all).
I think the reason you fundamentalists press so hard on the gay community is because you are afraid that God actually won’t punish them in the end and you want to be sure they suffer properly. I think that maybe you are afraid that grace is actually true. If you are so confident that God will punish them, then why do you see the need to punish them yourselves? Can’t you just have faith that God will punish them to eternal damnation just like he punishes all the people that decided to eat pork or the ones that didn’t give all they have to the poor and love their neighbors as themselves? Or does that cause a delima for your own salvation.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Mr/Mrs. Danutz
Let me restate what I said before, For clarification The Word of God is not limited to the culture. For example, people say the apostle Paul when writing that women were to not be in authority in the church, that he was speaking in a cultural since therfore having no bound on us today. However Paul when proving his stance on this utilized the order of creation, he went back to Adam and Eve to prove his point. Now what I mean is that a culture does not dictate whether or not the Word of God is saying one thing in one area and another thing in the next, that would make then the Word of God subject to culture.
The point you make about the OT Law is not applicable because Christ has now fulfilled the Law therfore making us no longer slaves to the Law which brings about knowledge of sin, but slaves to righteouness. It also sounds like you are saying that since we cannot be 100% obedient to Gods Standards we are to go on living how we have and not pursue truth or obedience. If this is the case that is completely illogical.
I want to disagree with you as well when you said that our interpretations make the Word of God Living, this is incorrect. Did not John say that "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" So it seems to me that the Living Word of God has always been living, even before our existence. It is in the Word that we find our life not the other way around. Yet, even if we do not it will continue to Live on. For the Word is God and God is self existent needing not our interpretations to give Him life.
We must understand that the Bible contains certain laws one of them being "The Law Of Non Contradiction" which means that, "A cannot be A and non-A at the same time". Therefore if the scripture the Living Word, condems Homosexuality and it does then it cannot be right and non-right. "The Law of Causality" states that every affect has a cause. Since homosexuality is and affect, then what is its cause. Paul makes this clear it is sin, so even if to men love each other and have sex it is a result of sin. Anything that takes its source in sin needs not to be defended but turned over to God for forgivness.
I find it amusing that when people make attempts to defend something that is wrong, they always tend to want to redefine the meanings of words, in this case ( right,and wrong ) the words mean the same that they have always meant. For instance nobody would argue that God is right while Satan is wrong. Yet when it comes to Homosexuality you do not have the same feeling, all of a sudden you want to define what the words mean.
Lastly
Please understand me, I have a desire to all men and women saved. Yet I am not willing to sacrafice biblical teaching. The Word of God never calls us to do so. It never calls us to be compassionate for people in that we excuse sin or try to tweak it were it no longer is sin. I wish that all men would come to know Christ but this will never happen if the vehicle by which God has prescribed us to use is being mishandled.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Curtlove,
I think part of what we experience here in this thread is a clash of cultures. Of christian subcultures. You are representing one christian subculture and others are representing another one.
It will be hard to reslove this, since you might not (I am just assuming) accept some people you talk to as being sound christians. On the other side; you might be perceived by others as a fundamentalist.
The gaps are wide.
We are touching here different areas; one of them being the authority of scripture and different interpretations of ‘inspired’. Perhaps it would be good to start a new thread on this. I also recommend to read what has been discussed on this topic in other threads on this site.
As it stands right now I would assume that this debate is not leading into a fruitful conversation. A willingness of trying to accept that there are different views and ‘cultures’ within christianity might be needed. A careful, thorough and slow debate about well defined areas of disagreement would be needed, so that it becomes clear where the other person exactly comes from.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Paulchen,
I beleive that culture is used to justify sin and a certain beleif that is not biblical. I also beleive that culture has been elevated to a higher plain then it intended to be. Eccl12:13-14 " Then end of the matter all has been heard is this, fear God and keep his commandments. For this si required of every person, for God will bring every deed with every secret deed into judgement"
This sounds like a humankind mandate to me, Acts 17 Paul says" God is calling all men everywhere to repent" The question is to repent from what, from breaking his comands from sin, and who not just certain cultures but every man. Gods standard His is a requirement for every human being whether you are christian or not.
I am not attempting to call some one unsound, just wrong in this instance. I also beleive that this debates arise out of people not understanding just how powerful sin is.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Curtlove,
i invite you to contribute in the new thread I started about ‘culture and Bible’. I think this conversation might drift away from the original intention of the thread.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
CL, are you suggesting that Christ freed you from the law but did not free homosexuals from the law?
Paulchen, you are correct to say this won’t really be solved here. Every one of these theological debates will always degrade to the basic point of one person believing that God wrote the bible himself and thier particular interpretation is the only possible godly intepretation. The other side will insist that men wrote the bible as a story showing how their particular culture understood God. You really can’t get past it. I am just not going to buy the fundamentalist view and fundamentalists are not going to admit that they have built a religion based on rules that are easy for them to follow and hard for everyone else to follow.
That is why I suggested above that we no longer try to solve the problem of if it is right or wrong (i.e. sinful) and begin to look at how to respond to people regardless of what their particular problems are. If the intent of this thread was to determine a new way to dailogue about homosexuality, then I think the point we have proven here is that trying to prove it is right or wrong won’t do anyone any good. Even if you could convice everyone here it will send them to hell, what good would that do? The target audience is the gay community and you are not going to convince them it is wrong.
We need to move past this point and realize dealing with gay people is no different than any others. You have to stop telling them what they need and start asking them what they need. More than likely what they will say is love and acceptance just like the rest of us.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Hi All,
I am new to this forum having just stumbled upon it the other night. The discussions here are wonderful and well thought out but this particular discussion seems to be missing an important part. Most of this conversation speaks of the homosexual in the third person as if we only exist "out there" somewhere. If this conversation is to help us dialogue in a better way regarding homosexuals especially within the church and our impact there, then we need to hear the voices of those we keep referring to in the third person. I would like to say that pastor Pete’s opening paragraph in this discussion was very enlightning to me and certainly provided me with a better means to discuss homosexuality as it relates to scripture and the church. So I guess what I’m writing to say is that I would love to add my voice to this discussion not only as a christian but as a gay christian if it is welcome.
thanks for listening
sherri
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
I like all the contributions which are attempting to reframe the discussion, from Pastor Pete’s three questions: "Is it beneficial? Does it build up? Does it dominate me?", to paulchen’s comparisons with other culturally relative biblical issues, and justin baeder’s provocative defence of infant cannibalism.
All the way through this particular discussion (and previous discussions on the same subject) I have felt that a major weakness has been the absence of the voice(s) of gay Christians and their community - and an unanswered challenge as to whether the views which we air have at all been shaped by interaction with the people we are talking about, namely: Christians with a gay orientation. How can we see what the Spirit is doing unless we relate personally to the lives of those amongst whom we seek to judge the fruit of the Spirit’s work?
Even amongst gay Christians, there are bound to be conflicting viewpoints. But I welcome the appearance of Sherri’s contribution, and ask whether it is possible to hear from more gay Christians about their actual experience of being gay. On a more profound level, the issue is whether the orientation itself is morally deviant, or morally neutral (about which the church engages in specious moral logic), and whether the Spirit endorses, by their fruit, gay monogamous sexual relationships as well as the gay orientation. Hearing from gay Christians would add substance to an otherwise somewhat hypothetical ethical debate.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Sherri, please give us your views. As I have stated before, I think the ONLY views that should really matter as to "right v. wrong" nature of the discussion should be that of the gay community. Why should I be debating about something that is between you and God?
What straight Christians should be discussing (and I think this is what the thread was originally about) is how to include gay and straight people in the work of Jesus. How can we make our churches welcoming to all.
There has to be some awkward discussions before we can move past the bigotry. This is the place to do it so forgive us for our awkwardness.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
I do not beleive that it is necessary to have the point of veiw of homosexuals in the debate as to whether th life style is right or wrong. For example when talking about whether or not murder is wrong will you ask a murderer his opinion. When talking about whether or not adultry is wrong will you seek the opinon of one who is unfaithful to their spouse. Christ forgave sinners he had comapssion for them he did not dialouge with them about how they felt about their sin, I have compassion for sinners and since I cannot grant forgiveness or condemnation I speak what the bible says to be the truth, because it is the scipture that bring about conviction of sin not any profound argument I could come up with. So to those who are gay my prayer is not that you meet condemnation but that God would grant fogiveness of sin in your life. We all have things that need to be forgiven however trying to prove that our sin is not sin, is not forgivness.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
As I said before, I think the only views that really MATTER as to the "right v. wrong" nature of the discussion should be those that are faced with the decision themselves.
Straight people can develop and even prove a view that homosexuality is wrong, but will that really MATTER since they are not the ones making this decision?
Sheri, I hope curtlove22’s comments will not discourage you from sharing.
Curtlove22, have you ever been attracted to someone of the same sex? Did you have to chose to act or not act on homosexual feelings?
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Let me apologize for a misundrstanding, I was not saying that Gays cannot be included in a dialogue about homosexuality, certainly they can. I was trying to say in determining whether or not it is right it is uneccesary.
Also Danutz you ask your last question as if being attracted to the same sex is as natural and as an everyday occurence as being attracted to the opposite sex. I know of attractive men in that they are nice looking people, but sexually no.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Personally I think all men are disgusting looking. Maybe you have a bit more of a homosexual tendency than I do.
It is a fact is that some people have those feelings and some people don’t. It is therefore an everyday occurence. This decision only pertains to those that already have that attraction inside them.
Are you suggesting that homosexuals are NOT really attracted to people of the same sex and they just chose to have sex with people that they are not attracted too? That seems crazy.
If you insist that we have this debate, let us assume for the purpose of debate that being gay is a sin. Do you think the sin occurs when a person feels an attraction to the same sex or is it only a sin when that attraction has been acted on? Is it a sin to be gay or to have gay sex? How about kissing someone of the same sex? I’m sure that open mouth kissing among non-married heterosexuals would be considered a sin to the authors of the OT. Would you agree?
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Well based on your response to my answer, it looks like a little of that bigotry you claim people have for homosexuals as a little root in your heart. To say that its gay for me to know when a person is a nice looking person is gay why I am sure that a homosexual would take offense seeing as though it is probably, for them more then that. Certainly a straight person would take offense.
I was suggesting that to have a sexual attraction man to man is not natural, as the everyday occurrence it is for men to be attracted to women. While it is obvious from the debate that men have given up natural feelings for women and have been consumed with lust for each other that the male to male, female to female attraction does happen. Is it a true attraction while sinful yes.
I beleive that any type of contact between a man and a women outside of the bond of marriage that is sexual in nature is sinful.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
It seems that humor is not accepted here. Sorry for the joke.
I understand where you stand now. As for my own bigotry. I am a horrible bigot of many things seeking recovery and forgiveness. Thank God for grace and more chances to learn to love rather than judge.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Danutz,
No need to apologize one of the problems with talking by way of blog is that you dont get to hear a person’s tone or humor. I am sure that I would have gotten the joke had we been on the phone together or in person. Likewise I am thankful to God for grace and mercy for He has saved me the vilest of sinners.
Grace and Peace
CL
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Hi,
Sorry it has taken me awhile to get back to a place where I could sit down and read the current responses. Thank you for welcoming my views and my voice and not to worry, a few negative comments will not discourage me from sharing. I’m not really sure I can add much to the "right/wrong" of the issue. For obvious reasons the idea that I am somehow "wrong" or "not natural" in God’s eyes just isn’t an issue with me. The idea that someone was trying to frame this debate away from the right/wrong issue such as what Pastor Pete is doing is what drew me here. I understand the struggle with the bible passages and the struggle that we all go through in trying to discern what those passages mean and ultimately what it is that God means or desires in our lives. Having discussions such as this helps us to better understand each other and ourselves but I’m curious as to why those that feel homosexuality is a sin and have their minds already set that way, appear to often dominate such discussions. I am glad to read in this forum such different opinions and see people graciously discussing back and forth without the hate that is seen on other boards. I look forward to becoming a part of this discussion as well as others. Thank you Pastor Pete for seeing a different approach to this issue and beginning a dialogue that might actually move beyond the who’s right who’s wrong issue.
sherri
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Sherri,
Can you offer some insight into our life as a gay Christian? I think conversations like this often need to have some real life stories to help frame the discussion and ground it in reality. What have your experiences in church been like? Hopefully their are some positive as well as negative things that we can draw on to build this "new way to dialogue about homosexuality".
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Danutz, I have spent the day thinking over my experiences regarding church and mostly they have been positive experiences. I attended the same church for about 17 years. I grew up in mostly small rural type evangelical, fundamental churches. My father is a minister and my mother has sang with a gospel group for over 30 years. So being like every other good preachers kid, I left the church I grew up in, rebelled and became a presbyterian. At 17 I began attending a charismatic presbyterian church in our town and I knew within a short time that I had found a church that would make a big difference in my life.
I went off to college for 5 years and returned home and continued my membership with this church for about 10 more years. The church was not open and affirming to gays and lesbians but I was not in any relationship so it really wasn’t an issue. I was busy working and very involved in the church so it was easy to put the gay issue on the back burner or in the closet as we say. I knew from an early age that it was a natural thing for me to be attracted to the same gender but for many years I had no name for it because that was something I had never heard of for most of my life but that is another conversation in itself. I watched some friends struggle with the issue and I watched my wonderful church try to minister to them but in the end the church turned its back on them because they couldn’t force them to change.
After years of being a part of the choir and the praise team and leading the youth praise choir, it just became increasingly hard to reconcile that being a part of this church meant denying who I really was for the rest of my life. I knew that God did not make me to be half of a person. It was a very hard decision for me to leave that church and the people that I loved and loved me but I knew that God had more for me than being single and living in such a way that denied who God had made me to be. I did not announce to the church why I was leaving but there were some that knew. I still have a good relationship with members of the church and I am thankful for the foundation that church laid in my life. Sorry this is turning into such a long post but it’s hard to sum up 25 years of church experience in a few paragraphs but I will try to wrap it up.
My passion is leading praise and worship and watching God bring healing to those who have been hurt especially by other churches and other christians. I firmly believe that true healing comes when people begin to worship God whether through song or any other means. When we worship with our heart and mind and soul, we can’t help but be changed and healed by God’s presence. So I knew that God would lead me to a place where the passion and gifts that God gave me would be best used. I began attending the local Metropolitan Community Church in our area shortly after leaving the presbyterian church.
I had no idea what to expect from a "gay" church but to try and shorten this story, the end result thus far has been a blessing. They needed a worship leader and I needed a community. The most profound experience from attending MCC has been watching God undo what others have done in God’s name to people. We minister to people who have been told over and over by other christians and family that they are going to hell and there is no redemption for them. Watching these hurting, battered, and bruised individuals embrace God and God’s healing and mercy and grace has been something that you just have to see.
Well I’ll leave my story there for now. I am so glad that there are people who are beginning to tear down these walls that have so hurt the body of Christ. Sherri
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Sherri. Welcome. We have so much to learn from you. Thank you for being here.
Many blessings,
-Daniel-
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Actually this issue doesn’t really have anything to do with the moral question if gay sexuality is wrong or right. My opinion is still that God has condemned these things in the old and the new testament. You can choose to view it in a cultrural context and have questions of restrictions on gay sexuality are still valid these days.
However I think PastorPete is asking the wrong questions here. The 3 questions he applies assume that we are talking about a monogamous hetero sexual relationship within legal marriage. You actually need the question of what marriage is..
Since marriage was instituted by God in the first and second chapter of the old testament it wasn’t to be viewed in a cultural context. These things were written as how God intended creation and marriage to be. A man and a woman becoming one flesh.
So what does marriage mean? And how did God intended marriage to be like? Or perhaps is the bible wrong about this?
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Hi LostFound,
I agree with you that the Bible confirms marriage between one man and one woman. However; God also blessed and confirmed polygameous relationships. (Examples being many; Abraham, David, Salomo…).
Do you consider those also still valid; do you ‘choose to view this in a cultural context’, or are those blessings of God for polygameous relationships still valid today?
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Paulchen,
I think you have opened the way forward. Thank you. The fact of the matter is that not everyone in this discussion finds themselves on either one side or the other. Unfortunately, people who take the middle road end up getting hit by trucks going both ways…
Louis Smedes took (what he understood as) Scripture’s teachings on homosexuality quite seriously (including the normativity of heterosexual marriage apparently described in Genesis 1), but refused to end the discussion there. He saw Genesis as a starting point for this conversation, not it’s ending point. He also talked about what he called ‘optimal homosexual morality’ which included monogamous marriage-like covenants. His thought (as I understand it) was that homosexuality is a manifestation of Creation’s brokenness, but that God is nevertheless still at work and can use—and even bless—creative adaptation. Much like adoption is how some modern couples ‘adapt’ to infertility (clearly not anticipated in the Creation accounts), homosexual unions are ‘adaptations’ to the couple’s orientation.
One of my wife’s uncles is divorced and remarried. He tried to stick with the first marriage, but his first wife wouldn’t have any of it and divorced him. He must not have had the gift of celibacy, because now he’s married again. Now, on a strict reading of Jesus’ teachings, he’s living in sin. Jesus specifically identified the problem with divorce and remarriage as being adultery—a sexual sin. The obvious conclusion being that a divorced and remarried person is sinning every time he/she has sex with his/her new spouse (a claim often leveled against gay couples—namely that they sin every time they have sex).
Thankfully the Church has had the discernment in recent years (it was not always so!!) to accept divorced and remarried persons into the fold (it used to exclude such people from membership and/or leadership). And when rereading Christ’s teachings on divorce, we now put the emphasis on the centrality of commitment, although we acknowledge that we live in a broken world. And I think this is correct. The fact remains that we are choosing to bypass a clear Scriptural injunction for the sake of remaining true to how we feel the Spirit to be moving.
I think (and I am borrowing this thought from the late Dr. Smedes) the Church (and the emerging church in particular) should recognize the precedent set by the decision to include divorced and remarried people, and extend it to homosexuals in gay covenants(/marriages).
What I have offered here is a ‘middle of the road’ view. While it may not satisfy people who are resolutely on one side or the other, I only hope that it might provide a way forward, such as the one I think PastorPete is seeking with his (as-of-yet unchallenged) 3 principles.
Much love to all.
-Daniel-
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Daniel,
I would like to thank you for your post above. It has given me much to think about. I think that it will be people like you who will change the face of this debate and turn it into something that will produce progress. Your thoughts give those of us on either side a starting place to begin to move towards some common ground. Thank you so much for giving me some new insight. I look forward to hearing more of what you think.
Sherri
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
Paul,
Are you really sure that God has put His blessing on these polygamy marriages??? It often resulted in heavy sin. Abraham demonstrated a piece of unbelieve by having a child with Hagar in stead of his wife Sarah, and this resulted in the departure of Hagar and Ismael. We know the story of David and Betsheba. The 1000 wifes of Saloman has led Israel and it’s king into idolatry and finally has brought division to the kingdom. I really can’t see how God has approve these things. However He does work with errors that men make and turns it to good. But this is not the same as blessing.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
LostFound,
IN 2 Samuel 12,8, when Nathan rebukes David for killing Batseba’s husband and taking her as his wife; he says that God has given him his master’s house and wives in his arms. This text doesn’t suggest that this was an ‘error that men made’. The error was that David also wanted Batseba; the sin here was not polygamy that Nathan rebukes; the issue was murder and adultery.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
So ok.. adultry is not part of the polygamy concept all of the sudden? Maybe I didn’t formulate my point too well but you can read between the lines and see what I am saying..
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
LostFound,
don’t get it. please explain what you mean.
Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality
I’ve been interested in this issue for several years now, and I welcome the discussion here and the participation of Christians of various persuasions, GLTB, and heterosexuals.
I must say that I am pessimistic that progress will be made. Already we have heard from some such as joshuafightingjericho who seem to be unable or unwilling to even question whether Christians have traditionally been correctly translating or understanding Biblical texts that seem to touch upon the subject on the one hand, and others such as danutz who turn to ad hominem lables such as "bigot" and "fundamentalist" (in referring to those who might be labeled "liberal" by people who call themselves fundamentalist). A priori claims that "the Bible condemns all expressions of same-gender sexual stimulation" or "not letting participants in monagamous, loving homosexual relationships have leadership positions in church is equivalent to not letting blacks have leadership positions in church" should be left out. Both are begging the question.
I believe the church has traditionally gotten it right that homosexual practice—as understood today—is sin. However, I recognize the weakness of several of the arguments in support of this conclusion, and am willing to consider counterarguments. I recognize that the voice of any but the heterosexual has been suppressed, and that the church may have something to learn or even repent of in listening to that voice. Finally, I do sense special pleading in that some arguments used to