In part one, I tried to demonstrate that the issue of “homosexuality” is not a point of discussion in the Bible. It is a contemporary issue tied to the social and political conditions in the United States, particularly during the 1970s and 1980s. Moving beyond this argument is the point of this second part.
To be clear, instead of arguing that those evangelicals that say “homosexuality” is mentioned in the Bible are wrong, I’ll take a different tack. They aren’t wrong so much as creative.
My argument is that many evangelicals creatively weave the contemporary word “homosexuality” and its attendant meanings back into the Biblical text and context through the process of story telling. Specifically, they take a topic that emerged enforce during the 1980s and project it back into history as if “homosexuality” had always been a hot button issue for Christians and evangelicals. The effect of this creative storytelling is to tie the Holy Bible to the present political issue of “homosexuality” in a way that justifies the speaker’s condemnation on Biblical grounds. The result is that even though “homosexuality” is not literally or empirically in the Bible, many conservative evangelicals imagine it there anyway.
As Albert Mohler demonstrates, the story telling happens smoothly and unquestioningly. Watch, for instance, as he creatively and confidently weaves “homosexuality” into the Bible, all the while remaining vague as to the books, chapters and verses he is paraphrasing.
“Let’s get this straight — God’s condemnation of sin is not determined by science, but by God’s Word. The Bible could not be more clear — all forms of homosexual behavior are expressly condemned as sin. In so doing the Bible uses its strongest vocabulary and places this condemnation in the larger context of the Creator’s rightful expectation of our stewardship of the sexual gift. All manifestations of homosexuality are thus representations of human sinfulness and rebellion against God’s express will. Nothing can alter this fact, and no discovery in science or any other human endeavor can change God’s verdict.”
This creative weaving powerfully enables Mohler to condemn “homosexuality” as “sin” and “rebellion against God’s express will.” This puts Mohler in the Right and “homosexuality” in the Wrong. In effect, the problem of “homosexuality” is used by Mohler to not only condemn, but to brighten his own righteousness and Godliness and to situate Mohler as the knower of this unquestionable and timeless fact about “homosexuality” (while not explaining how he knows or from where this knowledge is derived).
Usually this creative reading of ‘homosexual’ is sewn into three places in the Bible:
Leviticus 18:22 which reads “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13 which reads “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Romans 1:26-27 which reads “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
From these versus, it is often inferred that the Bible was referring to “homosexuality.” Yet, historically speaking, as I demonstrated in part one of this two part series on “homosexuality,” it would have been impossible for Paul or anyone else to know or say anything about the contemporary phenomena that we call “homosexuality.” But this logical and historical impossibility is of little concern to many brothers and sisters in Christ. They don’t explain their inferential leap from the words in the Bible to the word “homosexuality” and they don’t discuss the contexts in which the Bible was written or the contexts in which the word “homosexuality” emerged. They often fall silent on these matters and instead move quickly into a condemning story told with certainty—“the Bible says clearly that homosexuality is a sin.”
But does the Bible say clearly anything about “homosexuality” or are some Christians just being creative?
The Bible can be read differently. Nothing compels one to imagine “homosexuality” to be in the Bible. No. It is a modern, interpretive grid that some conservative evangelicals creatively use to make sense out of the words of the Bible. Let me stress, I don’t think that it is a wrong interpretation. I believe it to be a creative one that is politically loaded with modern ammo. But more importantly, it is a creative and politically loaded move that risks propping up our desire for righteousness and Godliness on the backs of those marginalized groups and peoples that we should embrace and affirm rather than condemn and reject.
Definition?
Homosexuality – Adjective – 1) of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2) of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex; noun – 1) the quality or state of being homosexual 2) erotic activity with another of the same sex.
How can you say both the Torah and Paul are not against homosexuality, as defined above?
How exactly do you define homosexuality?
Re: Definition?
“How can you say both the Torah and Paul are not against homosexuality, as defined above?”
I didn’t say Paul was against homosexuality the way you defined it here. I said that it is historically impossible that Paul would have spoke about “homosexuality.”
Re: Definition?
How can you say both the Torah and Paul are not against homosexuality, as defined above?
For starters, I would disagree with those definitions. Specifically the #2 definition for both adj. and noun. It is exceptionally rare to read or hear someone using the term “homosexuality” to describe actions/behavior rather than a collection of desires and attractions (aka an “orientation”). I would even be willing to suggest/argue that those versions of the definitions are only present because of the repeated mis-use of the word by religious persons who refuse to make a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
Take the recent unfortunate incident involving Senator Craig. He insists that he “is not gay”. He insists this repeatedly. Why? Because he knows that in the minds of most conservative people, only a gay man would seek out a same sex encounter in a public toilet. So, if he can bolster the view that he is heterosexual, loves his wife and family, and is not gay, then he is by extension also innocent of the charges which were filed against him. But this clearly makes absolutely no sense. How we define and label ourselves and how we actually behave are often at odds with one another. Priests who are expected to be chaste and virtuous molest children. Politicians who are expected to be civil servants become power hungry and corrupt. Parents who are expected to protect their children and provide for them are abusive and waste money on gambling, drink, drugs, sex and other more subtle vices. There have been in the past, and there will be again in the future, men who thought of themselves as “straight” who have had sexual encounters with other men. If for no other reason than the unfortunate size of the pornography industry, there are many women who would be repulsed by the notion that they might be a “lesbian” who engage in same sex behavior on a regular basis (and get paid for it).
How exactly do you define homosexuality?
I would define homosexuality as having attractions to members of one’s own gender, having desires for sexual interactions with members of one’s own gender, or simply, being oriented towards same sex rather than hetero sex. This is a very modern definition of a very modern concept. Ancient peoples were clearly aware that same sex interactions took place. They were also aware that some people seemed to prefer these (either in part, or exclusively) to heterosexual interactions. But they did not have discussions about “orientation”. That is a modern concept, and it is the most commonly accepted definition of the word used in our culture at the moment.
I get the impression that the several posts I see on this topic are attempting to illustrate that there is a distinction we need to make between this modern concept of an “orientation”, which the Scriptures do not address in any way, and “sexual behavior” which the Scriptures clearly do address. The Torah and Paul present rebukes of sexual behavior not sexual orientation. (I hesitate to use this example/comparison because I do not want to create the impression I am suggesting homosexuality is an addiction, but I believe the comparison is apt.) Just as it is possible for an alcoholic to stop drinking, it is possible for a homosexual to never engage in same sex interactions. A drunk is forever a drunk. A drunk who ceases to drink is still a drunk. One drink could cast them back into the depths of their addiction. In the same way, simply refusing to engage in any kind of sexual activity does not mean that a person ceases to be gay; ceases to be a homosexual. They are simply chaste/celibate.
What I think becomes important once we reach this understanding, is that if the Bible merely speaks out against a behavior, and not an orientation, then we need to examine those rebukes of behavior in the exact same way we examine all the other rebukes of behavior found throughout the Torah and in Paul’s writing. There are many rebukes in both places that the modern, orthodox, mainstream church has chosen to label “cultural” and so are no longer practiced. Many (if not all) of the calls for strict behavior by women (not cutting their hair, keeping their head covered or keeping silent while in church, etc.) are completely ignored by modern Christians. I am aware of no major denomination which keeps kosher.
Does it not, then, become important to consider and discuss why it is that we remain adamant about these rebukes of sexual behavior when we are so willing to label surrounding materials as no longer bearing on the modern church?
Sorry, that got a lot longer than I planned it to be.
~jhimm—
it’s smarter to be lucky
than
it’s lucky to be smart.
Re: Definition?
“I get the impression that the several posts I see on this topic are attempting to illustrate that there is a distinction we need to make between this modern concept of an “orientation”, which the Scriptures do not address in any way, and “sexual behavior” which the Scriptures clearly do address.”
That isn’t exactly what I meant, but that’s the thing about meaning, it’s more than the author can contain or limit or predict. Either way, I agree with what you say. There is a distinction that needs to be maintained between our contemporary words and concepts and those that appear in the Bible. Not least because a great amount separates now from then, and then again, a great connects now and then together into a coherent storyline. But “homosexuality” is a modern, very modern term and it carries with it much political baggage having to do with our current context of a so-called cultural war between the Left and the Right. It carries with it much more than Paul logically and historically could have meant. And we need to be aware of that baggage and I would even say stop using the word “homosexual” altogether and go back to something closer to what the Bible actually says.
Re: Definition?
“What I think becomes important once we reach this understanding, is that if the Bible merely speaks out against a behavior, and not an orientation, then we need to examine those rebukes of behavior in the exact same way we examine all the other rebukes of behavior found throughout the Torah and in Paul’s writing. There are many rebukes in both places that the modern, orthodox, mainstream church has chosen to label “cultural” and so are no longer practiced.” […] “Does it not, then, become important to consider and discuss why it is that we remain adamant about these rebukes of sexual behavior when we are so willing to label surrounding materials as no longer bearing on the modern church?”
Just to clarify if I understood correctly:
First you make a distinction between ‘orientation’ and ‘behaviour’, then tell us that the Bible says nothing about ‘orientation’ but only ‘behaviour’. Then you say that what the Bible says about ‘behaviour’ should be rethought if it is adequate to contemporary culture like we did with the other examples you gave.
Was that right?
So I get the impression you want indeed discuss these rebukes and want to get rid of them like we got rid of covered heads and silence rules for women.
An adequate statement, I think, can be found in 1. Cor. 6,12: >>”Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything.<< (NIV)
So: Is homosexual behaviour beneficial?
You compare it to alcoholics, and right: There is an abusing behaviour of alcohol which is even rebuked today.
The contemporary culture got rid of many sexual rebukes and stopped talking too loud against premature sex between teens and extramarital affairs. Seems kind of ‘normal’ according to the media.
But now it is the job for the churches to sweep the trash and try to heal the hurt hearts and help the sixteen year old grow up their children, and to found AA groups.
We do not really rebuke any more but is this now more or less ‘allowed’ behaviour beneficial? It is not AFAIC.
So what about homosexual practice now?
Many translations (english, spanish, german) use indeed the word “homosexual” in verse 9, only three verses before the quoted one.
So is really a ‘rethinking’ of the rebuke necessary or a reverbalisation, say: the way God’s (Pauls?) view is communicated?
Who effectively tries to make a reasonable job in teaching and declaring the non-benefit of all those behaviours?
For me the answer to all this somewhat hair splitting debate about the term “homosexuality” is not in defining and rethinking it but in looking at the results it produces.
So: Talking about the ‘orientation’ with an upraised forefinger and agressive voice causes damage to the so rebuked and to the relation between the person and the church.
But OTOH the practiced ‘behaviour’ causes damages too. An issue which has to be addressed, I think.
Re: Definition?
So I get the impression you want indeed discuss these rebukes and want to get rid of them like we got rid of covered heads and silence rules for women.
If I wanted to get rid of them, I’d have said “we should get rid of them”. Since I didn’t, please don’t leap to that assumption. Personally, I think a Biblical rebuke of homosexual sex is one of the least important issues that the contemporary church faces. My concern is that we waste a massive amount of resources (monetary, political, emotional, and spiritual) debating this issue among ourselves and engaging in a war against the supposed homosexual agenda in the political arena and meanwhile children starve, go uneducated, lack healthcare and live in poverty and depravity.
This strikes me even more as a problem of priorities than a problem of interpretations.
You compare it to alcoholics, and right: There is an abusing behaviour of alcohol which is even rebuked today.
And you conveniently glossed over where I said: I hesitate to use this example/comparison because I do not want to create the impression I am suggesting homosexuality is an addiction Homosexuality isn’t an addiction, a disease or a choice. We have enough trouble interacting with homosexuals without now going so far as to start inadvertently labeling them as addicts!
Many translations (english, spanish, german) use indeed the word “homosexual” in verse 9, only three verses before the quoted one.
So is really a ‘rethinking’ of the rebuke necessary or a reverbalisation, say: the way God’s (Pauls?) view is communicated?
Or we could see that as modern political religious thinking imposing itself on modern translations of an ancient text in an effort to bolster anti-homosexual tendencies amongst christians.
But OTOH the practiced ‘behaviour’ causes damages too. An issue which has to be addressed, I think.
What damage? Unlike the teen mothers you cite, how does homosexual sex impact anyone other than the two people who are engaged in it?
Far more important to me than how we define terms and how we interpret isolated verses of scripture is how we as christians treat each other and how we treat the world around us.
A strict interpretation of these verses as a condemnation not only of sexual behavior but also of -people- (afterall, a homosexual is a person) has resulted in decades of treating people as less than worthless and abandoning them to a slow painful death at the hands of a disease we foolishly concluded was G-d’s wrath upon them.
That doesn’t sound like the Jesus I read about in the gospels, and so I must conclude that interpretation is incorrect. And while I am not necessarily willing to say that we should simply dismiss these rebukes in the way we now dismiss Paul’s injunctions to women, I am willing to say that we at least need to learn to start making a distinction between people and behavior which is -no different- from how we make that distinction with many many other rebukes presented to us in Scripture.
We do not label “liars” as a caste in society to be abandoned, shunned, ignored and stripped of their dignity and their rights. We do not do this to adulterers, in spite of the damage they -do- cause.
I see a massive over-reaction to a non-problem which is now feeding into itself and is self-perpetuating.
Don’t we have far more important things to worry about?
~jhimm — it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.
Re: Definition?
Sorry jhimm,
I think you misunderstood my post a bit, maybe like I misunderstood yours first ;-) .
“My concern is that we waste a massive amount of resources […]meanwhile children starve, go uneducated, lack healthcare and live in poverty and depravity.”
I am fully with you about this point. Although: 99%
if we are talking now about homosexuality in this thread, we talk about it now and not about the other problems. They must and will have their own threads.
“you conveniently glossed over[…]”
I think I did not. I never said that homosexuality is an addiction. I’m far away from that! May be anything but not an addiction (sexuality per se can be an addiction, but that is a totally other topic).
First again: I talked about the behaviour, not the orientation.
Then I talked about “an abusing behaviour of alcohol” which is not the same as addiction as it begins much earlier with the decisions one takes in tempting situations and the values on which he bases his decisions.
I referred to your alcoholics example after asking: Is homosexual behaviour beneficial?
And that was my whole point about the comparision. See: Where I live there is no rebuke of alcohol per se. You can publicly drink whatever you want whithout having to hide it in a paper bag like in the US. There is no public warning-campaign, like it is with sex (there are posters advising young people to use condoms to reduce risk at least) or with smoking (we have big labels on each tobacco box hinting the possible damage).
So the right way to handle with alcohol is not taught, (And paper bag is not the right way) much more movies and tv give the imagination that it is ‘cool’ to drink a lot. So we have a problem with alcopops in the young generation now.
But if one abuses alcohol, people cry for social services to catch this guy. They don’t want to take any preventing counselling but agressively demand for professional help afterwards.
You asked: “how does homosexual sex impact anyone other than the two people who are engaged in it?”
It is enough if it impacts the two. The question is HOW? That is where it suddenly is a “more important problem”, when people start suffering in some way. Then suddenly the church shall be present with counselling offices and social help.
And yes: We have to ask (and I have no answer at the moment!) if it has an impact on more people than the two. This may be an issue and waiting until we see it once as one of “the other problems” is not the right way.
E.g. if somehow children would be involved, if the transformation of the society would impact the next generation’s growing. We have to think about the impacts of social trends now.
“Far more important to me than how we define terms and how we interpret isolated verses of scripture is how we as christians treat each other and how we treat the world around us.”
Yep. It is. And the homosexuality discussion has to be seen in that light.
But this “treat the world around us” is not only handling the damages by pastoral care afterwards but try to prevent those by teaching Gods good rules for life.
So -like we try to teach young people the right way to deal with sexuality and the temptations- we have to find an adequate(!) way to talk about it.
“I am willing to say that we at least need to learn to start making a distinction between people and behavior”
Well, I tried to do that in my previous post … didn’t shine through? My whole post was about behaviour.
Re: Definition?
Firstly, let me apologize if my tone seems combative. I do not intend it to be. I am asking a lot of questions which I intend in earnest and I can see how they may be interpreted as being biting rhetoricals.
if we are talking now about homosexuality in this thread, we talk about it now and not about the other problems. They must and will have their own threads.
I was not raising other concerns and priorities in an attempt to change the subject. Those other subjects are an aspect of my opinion on this subject. I cannot understand why so many christians are so obsessed with sexuality - specifically other people’s sexuality. It strikes me as dangerously judgmental, and as a lack of willingness to examine the potential flaws in our own lives.
I am deeply troubled by the fact that so many christians are far more concerned with what other people do together to their own ends than they are with living their own lives to the tenants of their own faith. Why are we a people for whom someone like Mother Teresa is a rare gem, and a people for whom hate spewing, money grubbing preachers are commonplace? Why are we a people who will picket a gay man’s funeral to make sure his friends and family know that he got what he deserved, and a people who allow millions to die unnoticed in poverty, pain and suffering?
If the whole point of sexual morality is to prevent sex from becoming something out of balance with our lives and our relationships to others, why has the church allowed sexual morality to eclipse almost everything else the world seems to know about us? We have been reduced to a people who hate gays, shoot abortionists and justify oil wars in an effort to bring about Armageddon.
I am not trying to suggest we shouldn’t talk about the topic. I am suggesting that we ought to be examining what it is about who we have become that has allowed this topic to loom so large in our faith. And I believe “the culture wars” are an insufficient answer, because the church does as much or more to create and fuel those as “the world” does.
addiction: I am willing to believe i misunderstood your intent. this: You compare it to alcoholics, and right: There is an abusing behaviour of alcohol which is even rebuked today. read to me as though you were agreeing with an intended comparison on my part between homosexuals and alcoholics. If that was not your intent, I am glad.
You asked: “how does homosexual sex impact anyone other than the two people who are engaged in it?” It is enough if it impacts the two.
Since I see no evidence that it does impact those two, other than the endless insistence by christians that it is “wrong”, “a distortion”, “unnatural” etc. this starts to feel like circular reasoning to me. It is harmful because it is unnatural, it is unnatural because it is wrong, it is wrong because it is harmful. Maybe that is an over simplification, but the conservative defenses of an anti-homosexual position I see in our society all seem to boil down to “its just wrong” as if this should be self evident, when to anyone who is actually gay, that is clearly not the case.
This may be an issue and waiting until we see it once as one of “the other problems” is not the right way.
E.g. if somehow children would be involved
I would rather see a child raised by two men than raised in an orphanage or in our (horribly broken) foster care system. Is a gay or lesbian home the “best” place for a child? Maybe not. I don’t see any compelling reasons why not, but some people with expertise seem to think maybe it is not. OK. But are we not condemning many children to something worse by banning homosexuals from raising children? And this is only a partial solution anyway, because we can only ban them from adopting, we cannot ban them from having children.
Well, I tried to do that in my previous post … didn’t shine through? My whole post was about behaviour.
I agree with you that prevention is preferable to damage control after the fact. My concern with this line of reasoning remains two-fold:
1) Being “pro-active” about preventing homosexual “damage” to persons and society has lead the church into a habit of horribly mistreating homosexuals (trying to make them straight, denying them basic rights, forcing them to remain closeted, even committing violence against them). Is the church capable of being pro-active about this potential damage without falling afoul of its own tenants of charity and good will? So far, the answer seems to be “no”.
2) I cannot get beyond this sense of circular reasoning that underlying this entire issue. Straight men have an (understandable) distaste for the notion of gay sex. This seems to be much more the case than women. My impression is that this distaste for the notion of gay sex drives much more of this discussion than any solidly defensible Bible-based theology. In the past, when christians still treated Paul’s writing as The New Law, and kept all (or nearly all) of his teachings to the letter, I could understand an insistence that the Bible rebukes homosexual sex. But in light of our modern interpretations of Paul, and our willingness to put much of his teachings aside, I find it odd/confusing/difficult to defend that we are strangely unwilling to do so with regards to his comments on gay sex.
I am not a trained theologian. I’m not even necessarily well trained in rhetoric. I am trying hard to remain open to the notion that there is a “good reason” for continuing to condemn homosexual sex within the christian church, because I am more than willing to believe that there are many people how are far better equipped than I am to dissect and reconstruct these aspects of our theology. But as time goes on, that becomes increasingly difficult for me when no new, better constructed defenses seem to emerge and there are such seemingly obvious problems with the old ones.
Maybe I have fallen afoul of some common flaw in my own thinking which puts me in a position to see things this way. I am open to that notion as well. But so far, no one has been able to point it out (that sounds arrogant or like a challenge, but I do not intend it to be).
~jhimm — it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.
Re: Definition?
“I am suggesting that we ought to be examining what it is about who we have become that has allowed this topic to loom so large in our faith.”
A wonderful suggestion. Who have “we” become? How have “we” become this way? Can “we” point to a time before “we” became this way?
In some ways, “we” have sex on the mind. And it isn’t just sex, though sex is what “we” talk about a lot, but it is specifically “homosexual” sex that “we” have on “our” minds.
Who have “we” become?
Re: Definition?
I think I am having trouble parsing. Is this rhetorical?
~j — it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.
Re: Definition?
The question of who have “we” become is not so much rhetorical, as historical. “We” Christians, as many are want to say, have never been a stable group with clearly defined boundaries between whose in and whose out. So in asking who have “we” become, I’m asking about the historical trajectory of those Christians that elevate “homosexuality” to a question of inside or outside the group. Not all Christians make “homosexuality” into an issue that determines one’s status as a Christian (e.g. if you are “homosexual,” then you can’t be a Christian). Tracing the history of those Christians that preach and practice such a view toward “homosexuals” would be an interesting way of understanding how “we” have become this way.
Re: Definition?
I tend to use “we” a lot not in an attempt to crowd all Christian thought and positions on theological issues into a normative monolithic front, but to ensure that at least I take some responsibility for my brothers and sisters. No matter how much I disagree, we are still a “we” and I have to remember and accept that. So, I will often speak about the church writ large, even though this is more or less impossible to do, given the spectrum of opinion.
As someone who left protestantism because the core of protestantism is schism, and typically schism as a form of mutual rejection, this is kind of a core issue for me. Who “we” are is a diverse people who historically have struggled to accept our differences in spite of all espousing a faith which should be rendering those differences less important instead of more.
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.
Re: Definition?
~jhimm writes:
“We do not label “liars” as a caste in society to be abandoned, shunned, ignored and stripped of their dignity and their rights. We do not do this to adulterers, in spite of the damage they -do- cause.”
Alario asks, should we?
Neither do we brand and shun fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like, even though they which do such things (according to the apostle) shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
We seem very confused about sin-or sins-or harmful behaviors-or predispositions toward certain behaviors-or whatever pseudo-polite terms we settle on using. (As an aside, Alario wonders are these predispositions to harmful behavior coded in our Adamic spiritual genome, “…the lust of flesh?)
One woman will defend homosexuality (pick your preferred definition)and consign to hell the homophobe for hatred, bigotry and intolerance but will issue herself a pass for hypocrisy.
Another man will castigate an adulterer or a morally lax woman who has chosen her fourth abortion for reasons of her health and well being but, on trips to the hunting camp with his fellow deacons, has no problem with excessive consumption of whiskey, non-stop pornographic videos, profane language and frequent taking of the LORD’s name in vain.
A college professor whose liberties have cost others, not him, blood takes perverse pleasure in humiliating a young Marine in his Introduction to Philosophy class whose logic and rhetoric lack the professor’s mature and refined sophistication, accusing the young man of war crimes equal to Hitler’s. The professor goes to the apartment of his mistress (also one of his students) and preens and gloats over his accomplishments and triumphs of the day. After dinner and sex the professor leaves and goes home to his wife and children to lavish further praise on himself.
The Marine’s father, when told of his son’s humiliation, shares his own experiences in southeast Asia, of firing through civilians being used by his enemies as shields, driven like cattle in front of a determined attack. He tells his son that he fired so much his barrel burned through his glove and that when he awakes from his personal nightmare, from the vivid replay of an October day almost forty years ago, he awakes screaming rapidly and repeatedly, “Thou shalt not kill!” “Thou shalt not kill!” “Thou shalt not kill!” “Thou shalt not kill!” …and the scar on his hand burns and is hot to the touch. After he tells his son this he retires for the night and lay awake hours thinking of ways to kill his son’s professor with his bare hands with a rage which leaves him breathless and shaking. It passes. On Sunday he hurries to the rail, kneels, holds out his hands, eats the body and drinks the blood and thinks his deepest theological thought, “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner.”
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law [cometh] the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth [to be] a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, [I say], of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay: but by a law of faith. We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God [the God] of Jews only? is he not [the God] of Gentiles also? Yea, of Gentiles also: if so be that God is one, and he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make the law of none effect through faith? God forbid: nay, we establish the law.
Have a blessed Yom Kippur!
Alario
Re: Definition?
I’m sorry, I can’t even begin to make heads or tails of this response. You seem to have turned what I was saying completely on its ear. My comment was intended to point out only one thing:
The hypocrisy we see from many Christians who seem to revel in the condemnation of homosexuals and actively do all they can to make them second class citizens in our society while doing nothing of the kind to any other kind of sinner.
I have -no- idea how your response has any bearing on that comment. But it was disturbing and full of images I’d have preferred to have had the opportunity to shield my mind from now remembering, so thanks for that.
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.
Re: Definition?
~jhimm writes: “My comment was intended to point out only one thing: The hypocrisy we see from many Christians who seem to revel in the condemnation of homosexuals and actively do all they can to make them second class citizens in our society while doing nothing of the kind to any other kind of sinner.”
Exactly so ~Jhimm. My original question still stands in response to your earlier posting. Should Christians exert the same kinds of pressures or demonstrate the same kinds of condemnation towards other sin, sins and sinners?
Given your tender conscience respecting disturbing images and persons, let me share that every person and every incident I shared is based on a person or persons or an incident or incidents of which I have personal and, in some cases, intimate knowledge. Do you think such things, in a fallen world, are for The Illiad, Pan’s Labyrinth or the Bible only?
Again, given the disturbing incidents and persons, wasn’t there someone you wanted to condemn and consign to the bin of second class citizenship? (I have several in mind personally) How about me? Don’t I qualify for the same kind of treatment from you that other Chrstians demonstrate toward homosexuals?
And if you were disturbed by the incidents and persons I related, do you ever wonder what God might have thought and felt about them? The real incidents, I mean.
Do you have any mercy toward the young Marine’s father who threw himself upon Gods mercy seat or do we condemn him like some Christians do homosexuals?
My point is, and has always been, whenever I have contributed to this site: We are all sinners. If it’s not one thing, it’s something else. The law shuts us all up before God. I want to see Christians look at themselves and be as hard on their own sins (harder really) than they are on another’s.
What disturbs me is a seeming perpetual tap dance to minimize or eliminate some sins and elevate others to the status of “real” sin.
An example: Someone reading this, a Christian, is stealing hours of his employer’s time bloging on a site devoted to mobilizing Christians to take seriously their call to be good stewards of the planet and its resources by the boycott of ecologically unsound corporations. Corporate rapacity-bad! Getting paid for work he hasn’t done-good! That’s just a silly example, but maybe you get an idea of my point. To paraphrase The Firesign Theatre, “We’re all Hypocrites on this Bus.”
Anyway, ~Jhimm, I was not specifically responding to your particular post, it just happened to be where I was when I responded to the general conversation. My comments were intended as a general comment, though your quotation I borrowed seemed a good jumping off point. I had no intentions of upsetting you personally. As it seems I did so, please accept my apology.
Alario
Re: Definition?
Alario,
Are we nothing more than sinners? It seems you wish to reduce humans to their sinful nature. But are humans not more than that?
That we are all sinners, how should we treat human beings?
Who did Jesus condemn? Where did he condemn them? To hell…? How did he condemn them?
Re: Definition?
Good questions Jacob. Yes we are far more than our sinful nature and we were that first if you believe that man is lapsed from his original state in fellowship with the Almighty.
We are created in God’s image and, as such, each (man, woman, child, Christian and non-Christian) is endowed with a worth and dignity which pales in comparison to the ways we often assign worth and dignity to one another and to ourselves.
Perhaps it is helpful on occasion to reduce man to his sinful nature, knocking away the accretions of self satisfaction, self-justifications and good works and reflect on the extent of the Lapse and, in sharp contrast and comparison to it, God’s great love and gift to us by restoring us to fellowship with Him and with each other by the blood of Jesus.
You don’t really not know how we should treat fellow human beings, albeit sinners one and all. Look at the Jesus’s example of the good neighbor, or the woman at the well (Jesus didn’t condemn her, but he did not let her slide on her sins either).
Alario
homosex
Jacob, perhaps it is wise to be critical of Dr. Mohler’s hasty use of the vague word ‘homosexuality’ (though notice he is at least once capable of saying ‘homosexual behavior’, which is far more precise). Certainly the emerging church seeks to infuse its language with precision and kindness.
Nevertheless, to argue that there are three texts in Scripture which speak to the question of homosexuality (broadly or narrowly construed) seems quite wrong-headed to me. In fact, coming to Scripture with the question "what of homosexuality?" may not be the best starting point.
It’s worth first figuring out what the Bible says about sex in general, and then secondly how what Scripture says about sex is to be normative for the new Israel of God. A narrative reading of Scripture cannot blithely ignore the Creation stories. All this is just to say we must first know the story of Scripture, and know how we are related to that story, before we can even begin to think about how the Church might speak to the homosexuals within and without its walls.
My two cents.
-Daniel-
Re: homosex
Since Adam and Eve caused “the thorn” to “come up” in place of “the fir tree” and “the brier” in place of “the myrtle tree” (inverse of Isa 55:13), I tend to look to Eden as a vague example of what New Creation is purposing.
While those that “shall rise from the dead […] neither marry, nor are given in marriage” (Mar 12:25), I think we can look to Eden to see what we should be manifesting in our lives as a precursor of what is, albeit it similar and yet different, to come. So while marriage and sex have no place in New Creation, I think they were given to us to enjoy in the mean time. However, God created man, and for him, lest he remain alone, created a woman. God did not create a man for a man to be married, nor did he create a woman for a woman to be married; for anatomically, neither could properly become the “one flesh” that is symbolically manifested through sexual intercourse. Since acts of homosexuality are basically distortions of this pre-fall image, I think it should be avoided, whether it is spelled out as sinful or not.
Does anyone else have any opinions?
Re: homosex
God did not create a man for a man to be married, nor did he create a woman for a woman to be married; for anatomically, neither could properly become the “one flesh” that is symbolically manifested through sexual intercourse. Since acts of homosexuality are basically distortions of this pre-fall image, I think it should be avoided, whether it is spelled out as sinful or not.
Genesis’ Eden Story presents us a picture of men and women as the final, crowning jewel of creation, ordered by G-d to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ and to ‘subdue the earth’. The key to this is procreation through heterosexual intercourse.
When the Jewish faith and the nation of Israel was coming into being thousands of years ago, people’s lives were high risk. Many babies (and women!) died in childbirth. Many young men died in endless battling and wars. Young nations were under constant attack from neighboring groups who wanted their wealth, resources, land etc.
It was vital that Israelites fulfill the role within society of making more Israelites! Obviously, homosexual sex can have no place in a model of intimacy constructed almost exclusively around procreation.
To this day, there are two major ripples which stem from this which we still see today not only in christian society, but in society at large.
1) Everyone is assumed to want to get married and have children. People who get married are assumed to be trying to have children. Women who do not have children (either by choice or through malady or lack of opportunity) are pitied by women who do have children.
2) Society fears homosexuality as somehow inherently dangerous, as a “distortion” of what is “intended”.
A third ripple felt generally only in christian circles is a vague uneasiness with the notion of sex being fun. Sex is supposed to be for the purpose of procreation. Sexual recreation, even within the context of a marriage, is frowned upon in all but the most progressive congregations.
I think your last sentence quoted above really sums up what I see as the problem for the modern church. The notion that homosexually is “wrong” is so ingrained, we feel a need to condemn and shun it even if we can’t actually find a way to get Scripture to back up this position. Basically, it has become habit, and it is a very old habit, and so it is a habit we do not want to break. Habits that old feel “natural” rather than habitual.
It is natural for my dog to lash out and bite when threatened, but that doesn’t mean I am going to let him bite the landlord or the postman. I have to train the dog to break that ancient habit and to trust me to know when there is danger and when there is not.
I have no idea if G-d abhors homosexual sex or not. But I do know a lot of things that it is quite clear G-d abhors. Suffering, war, injustice, disharmony and abuse.
Why are we so obsessed with homosexuality?
~jhimm — it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.
Re: homosex
“I have no idea if G-d abhors homosexual sex or not. But I do know a lot of things that it is quite clear G-d abhors. Suffering, war, injustice, disharmony and abuse.”
Nice!
narrative and new creation
We certainly, on the basis of Scripture, believe that the Lord abhors war, unjust suffering, and all forms of injustice. Jesus’ ministry was all about planting the Kingdom seed which would be the undoing of all of these.
Nevertheless, if we are going to speak about sexual ethics, we must do it as Christians—that is to say, as heirs to the promise to Abraham, and as the new Israel whose story is told in Scripture.
This entire conversation has raised difficulties with transposing modern speech on ancient texts. Point taken. Now what? Anything goes? Certainly not!
The deconstructive step is the first step. It reminds us that the books of Scripture are foreign texts. But this is not the only step the emerging church is to take. Our reconstructive efforts must be critically engaged with the narrative of the people of God, the narrative of New Creation. I’d be interested to see a discussion of sexual ethics (not just ‘homosexuality’, but also everything else!) within that context.
Re: narrative and new creation
The deconstructive step is the first step. It reminds us that the books of Scripture are foreign texts. But this is not the only step the emerging church is to take. Our reconstructive efforts must be critically engaged with the narrative of the people of God, the narrative of New Creation. I’d be interested to see a discussion of sexual ethics (not just ‘homosexuality’, but also everything else!) within that context.
The #1 question I would like to see answered (not just discussed, but actually answered) in that discussion is this:
So much of our sexual ethics within the (modern, mainstream) church are rooted in verses located in parts of the Bible which are full of verses we no longer consider ‘relevant’ in the (modern, mainstream) church. Notions about the role of women, dietary habits, how to discipline our children and each other. Why are we so willing and able to dismiss some aspects of Torah and Pauline writing as “culturally based” and so unwilling and unable to do the same with the rest, and is it merely coincidence that so many of the parts we cannot dismiss are verses which deal with sex?
The role, purpose and meaning of sexual acts in the ancient world were radically different from our own. How sex was connected to and related to marriage was radically different. The notion of “pre-marital” sex would have meant nothing to a Jewish contemporary of Jesus! The notion of “being gay” did not exist! Sex was something intimately caught up in pagan ritual, foreign military ethics, and traditional notions of marriage and procreation. All completely specific to that time and not our own. And yet we cling to these passages to construct our notion of “sexual morality”. Why?
I 100% agree that sexual morality is relevant and important to post-modern Christians just as it would have been to Jesus and Paul (as you say, “anything goes? certainly not!”). I am just not convinced that the church has done the best job of reconstructing that notion of sexual morality as the meaning of sex, marriage and procreation have changed (not just within secular society, but within the church as well! this is not about the church altering theology simply because society now tolerates pre-marital sex, pre-marital cohabitation and homosexuality) and as concepts such as gender being distinct from sex (identity not plumbing) and “orientation” have emerged.
I do not necessarily believe that G-d does not condemn same sex acts. But I strongly believe that our (the church’s) obsession with condemning homosexuals is completely out of balance to our obsession with condemning anything else, especially in light of the fact that there is very little Biblical support for the notion of a “kind of person” being “wrong” independent of their actual behavior.
Yes, deconstruction is only the first step, but I would suggest that this conversation (and the others like it on this forum) make it clear that enough people have not yet grasped what it is we are deconstructing, that it may yet be too soon to consider attempting reconstruction.
~jhimm — it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.
Re: homosex
“Nevertheless, to argue that there are three texts in Scripture which speak to the question of homosexuality (broadly or narrowly construed) seems quite wrong-headed to me. In fact, coming to Scripture with the question “what of homosexuality?” may not be the best starting point.”
I’m not saying that the three texts speak to “homosexuality.” I’m saying that many conservative evangelicals refer to these three places in the Bible to justify their claims that “homosexuality” is a topic in the Bible.
Re: homosex
Please allow me to interject a few comments. I am a homosexual who happens to be a Christian, or perhaps I should say I am a Christian who happens to be a homosexual? I have enjoyed reading the many comments here and I think they are most thought provoking. I am happy to see some evangelicals / conservatives that are grappling with this issue in an intelligent way. I am a former evangelical, however my partner is a practicing evangelical. I am a graduate of a fundamentalist seminary that is well respected. - so that may give you a perspective from where I am coming from - I am sure anything I say here will be suspect.
Let me finally say that I agree with the remarks initially made about the New Testament writer’s ability to understand the concept of homosexuality. This seems to have gotten lost in some of the discussion, and to put it in words to consider, - Paul could not have conceived of homosexuality as a same psycho-sexual phenomenon; i.e. orientation. I don’t think that he could have conceived of heterosexuality either as being a sexual phenomenon with all of the interests and orientations that heterosexuals have. He did attempt to place sexual behavior in a Christian perspective. I also think that he was uncomfortable with any sexual behavior. In I Corinthians 7 he desires that all men could put aside their sexual desires in such a way that they would not ‘need’ a wife. But if they do, ‘let every man possess his wife.’ We know that he was uncomfortable with women and saw their role as subservient to men and that they should be absolutely silent in church. In the famous Romans 1 passage that is a favorite of fundamentalists, Paul seems to be saying that if you don’t worship God properly, He may confuse your orientation! That certainly is not a position I have heard anyone, anywhere take - but that is the position of Paul. I don’t think there is any heterosexual that I know of who is afraid that they may wake up and be homosexual some day because they may not be worshiping God the way that God would desire for them to. Someone has said here that the church ignores his comments concerning head coverings, silence in church for women, perhaps we should tread carefully on the subject of homosexuality as being a concept clearly defined and discussed in scripture. I agree that it is wrong to use the term homosexual as a translated word from the Greek text when Paul is addressing the issue of same sexual interaction.
Human sexuality is most mysterious. I don’t pretend to believe that the scriptures were positive about same sexual behavior. Perhaps the scriptures have not had EVERYTHING to say about sexual behavior. It seems to me that if the Church today were to simply approach it from the perspective that this is an emerging trend and thought, and that all we ask of people is that they come to Christ and trust in Him and that they live their lives in sacrifice to His leadership and authority, that all of this other ‘stuff’ would fall into line. But, it is interesting to discuss.
Re: Romans 1
I’ve never heard that interpretation for Romans 1 before.
I could see how verse 26 could be interpreted in the way that you mention (G-d confusing people’s orientation) if it is read without the context of verses 24 and 25.
It seems to me that verse 24 makes it clear that the “dishonorable passions” to which G-d gave them up were “the lusts of their hearts to impurity”. G-d did not give them up to foreign passions to which they have never had an inclination before (waking up homosexual, as you put it). G-d gave them up to the impurity already in their own heart.
This kind of interpretation always worries me, because it seems very similar to the lines of thinking that have allowed ultra-conservatives to suggest that Romans 1:27 is proof that HIV/AIDS is G-d’s wrath on homosexuals.
I do 100% agree that Paul is a tricky guy from whom to be taking our advice about sexual morality. He urged christians not to marry, not to have children, not to have sex at all. he had very strict views on gender identity and gender roles . It makes it difficult, in my mind, to separate his views on homosexuality (which it seems he clearly links directly with paganism and general debauchery of Roman culture at the time) from his views on sex in general, most of which we have long since put aside.
Thanks for being open with us.
~jhimm — it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.
Re: Romans 1
However, if you look at vs 23, Paul is really addressing the pagan temple worship in Rome. It also fits well in the theme of the chapter which is the Ungodly are Unrighteous - the Need for Righteousness. I have lots of gay friends and I’ve been a practicing homosexual for many years, and I don’t know anyone that worships four footed animals, etc. !
I have also read somewhere before, that somewhere in these verses we are speaking of, that he uses the Greek word for pedophilia or pedophile - that perhaps Paul was addressing the employment of children in the pagan temples? That would have been Roman culture.
My point is, I don’t think we can take Romans 1 and say that is the definitive word on homosexuality.
I appreciate your comments.
Re: homosex
Henry, I think you’re missing the point of a lot of Paul’s discussion of sex and gender. I don’t think he’s uncomfortable with sex, it’s just that he doesn’t appear to believe that our sexuality is the most important thing about us- what is most important is growing into the image of Christ, and our sexual desires should be subordinate to that aim.
Your statement on Paul’s attitude to women is also rather sweeping. Paul says that women should be silent in church in 1 Corinthians 14, but in chapter 11 he is discussing how they are to be dressed when praying and prophesying- don’t know about you, but I’d have thought both of those might involve speaking aloud. It’s far more likely that he is asking the women not to talk amongst themselves during parts of the service which they might not understand (women often only spoke local languages/dialects, when sermons were usually delivered in Koine Greek) and thus disturb those trying to listen. By telling them to ask their husbands about what was said later Paul is being quite remarkable for the era in implicitly saying that women should learn about their religion for themselves, rather than just following their husband’s beliefs. As for ‘subservience’, I would refer you to Yoder’s ‘The Politics of Jesus’ (my new favourite book) for a fuller discussion of what exactly is implied in this common NT motif, but the injunction for women to submit to their husbands is always accompanied by the command for men to love their wives as Christ loved the church- a love which is humble, subservient and sacrificial. Submission cuts both ways.
I agree with you in thinking that the standard interpretations of Paul on homosexual behaviour require serious revision, but it’s not on to say that we can simply dismiss what he says because of our assumptions about what he is saying elsewhere.
Re: paul vs. sex, paul vs. women
I think you’re missing the point of a lot of Paul’s discussion of sex and gender. I don’t think he’s uncomfortable with sex, it’s just that he doesn’t appear to believe that our sexuality is the most important thing about us- what is most important is growing into the image of Christ, and our sexual desires should be subordinate to that aim.
It seems quite clear from all of Paul’s writing that he expected Christ to return within his lifetime, or shortly thereafter. He felt that time was desperately short to grow the churches and bring as many into the flock as could be before that day arrived. Personal relationships, marriages, raising families, getting involved in more recreational sexual activities, all these things wasted valuable time!
But 2000 years have gone by and Christ has not yet returned (in a literal sense), and if we were to continue to live in a strict sense of avoidance of these things, the church would have gone the way of the Shakers a long, long time ago. So how do we interpret this today? Time is still valuable, still precious, and the hour is near at hand in both a literal and figurative sense. But are we all called to a strict asceticism? Probably not? I don’t know. If so, this runs pretty strongly counter to the church’s traditional interpretation of Genesis’ call to multiply and subdue the earth.
I got the impression that Henry was suggesting that the church’s traditional interpretation that Paul was identifying specific forbidden practices was problematic, rather that he was warning us against the distractions that intimacy (and marriage and families) can present to our call to carry out the work of the church, as you also seem to believe. Maybe I misunderstood you both.
Your statement on Paul’s attitude to women is also rather sweeping. Paul says that women should be silent in church in 1 Corinthians 14, but in chapter 11 he is discussing how they are to be dressed when praying and prophesying- don’t know about you, but I’d have thought both of those might involve speaking aloud. It’s far more likely that he is asking the women not to talk amongst themselves during parts of the service
Why is that “far more likely”? If the issue was that women were unlikely to understand the sermon, why not simply suggest they stay home and ask their husband about it when he got back? Much simpler, no?
Could we not interpret Paul’s combined statements to women about their behavior in church to mean that it would be best if they simply remained silent, but if they are in fact called to prophesy that they should protect their modesty while doing so?
but the injunction for women to submit to their husbands is always accompanied by the command for men to love their wives as Christ loved the church- a love which is humble, subservient and sacrificial. Submission cuts both ways.
I’ve never been a big fan of this defense for Paul’s statements here about husbands and wives. It seems like a way for modern christians who are uncomfortable in a post-lib feminist world with the notion of women submitting to their husbands to avoid the clear implications of Paul’s words. If he really meant it to cut both ways as a truly equal two way street, why did he so deliberately use very different words to describe the behavior he expected? Submitting and loving are very different things. If the intent of these verses was simply to demand mutual respect and submission to the best interests of the couple rather than the self, I think he’d have just said that. Paul isn’t exactly known for beating around the bush.
Boy we’re way off topic now :)
~jhimm — it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.
Re: homosex
I’d like to add that the reason Paul was so concerned with keeping his Church pure, by advising them to avoid both sex and marriage, is because he rightly believed he was on the fringe of an eschatological crisis and expected the parousia to happen very soon. He realized men do not marry after resurrection and did not want his Church pursuing the fruitless: he wanted them to remain as pure as possible as a precursor for New Creation. Since we have no idea when Jesus will appear one last time to raise the rest of the dead, I don’t think we need to be as strict as Paul, at least not with marriage; that is, if we feel the need to marry, there is no reason not to. What I am trying to say is, Paul did not view marriage and sex negatively, but as fruitless for his times. He probably thought, “Why marry and have sex if you won’t be doing either after resurrection? After all, resurrection is very soon.” I think his views about same sex intercourses, however you interpret those views, were much more negative and not even comparable with his views about marriage and sex within marriage.
Re: homosex
I think his views about same sex intercourses, however you interpret those views, were much more negative and not even comparable with his views about marriage and sex within marriage.
How did you come to this conclusion?
~jhimm — it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.
Re: homosex
You wrote “don’t know about you, but I’d have thought both of those might involve speaking aloud.”
Check this out from 1 Timothy 2 -
11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Paul makes the argument from the order of creation, it was not a cultural thing in his mind - women were to be silent.
My point is, we should take some of Paul’s writings carefully. There are very few groups that practice with head coverings and demand that women be silent. I don’t think he has the final word on homosexuality for reasons already discussed, other than he has a final word on the role of women in the church or at home for that matter.
Re: homosex
Henry, you are of course welcome to the conversation. You say "I am sure anything I say here will be suspect", but surely this is true for everyone here! We all have an ‘agenda’ as it were (namely, getting people to agree with us—or at least, that’s mine), consciously or subconsciously. Which means that your contributions are just as valuable as anyone else’s.
This having been said, I should state that those of us who don’t share your picture of Paul (a rather negative one it seems) will have trouble disregarding what he says about human sexuality. NT Wright has famously argued (along with scores of other NT scholars) that painting Paul as a mysogynist really does no justice to his arguments (and I am compelled to agree).
Also, I would add that perhaps the emerging church, insofar as it seeks to be ‘biblical’, would do well to take Paul’s suggestion to singleness seriously. Just because our culture views intentional abstinent singleness strangely doesn’t mean it’s any less of a good idea for those of us called to manifest the Reign of God…
And now to catch up on the rest of this conversation.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: "Homosexuality":
The venereal act engaged in merely for lustful pleasure is sin. Thus, all humans who engage in the venereal act stand before God as sinners.
The venereal act engaged in for procreation is, however, in accordance with reason. Acts engaged in that are in accordance with reason are either not sin, sin of a lesser order or sin that does not expand on original sin. Perhaps such sins, that is, in accordance to reason, are automatically forgiven. Augustine and Aquinas are a little fuzzy on this point.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals engaging in sex acts for any purpose other than procreation are, therefore, equal before God as sinners. Homosexual sex acts can never be for procreation and, therefore, can never be reasonable and, therefore, are always for lustful pleasure and so are sins.
The homosexual and the heterosexual are never sinners merely by virtue of there status as such. Lusting after one another, however, whether homo- or heterosexual is sin.
Given, therefore, that homosexual acts are sins [but not the only sexual sins], what should we as Christians do about that? If the gospels have a message, and I believe they do, it is that we are to exercise compassion and charity in our feelings and acts towards our fellow human beings. Further, we are to follow the Way that Jesus taught.
Unless I am perfect, I may not judge the hearts of my fellow human beings. I am pretty sure there is a NT verse on this point.
Can there be any doubt that Jesus would have feasted with homosexuals? After all, he feasted with Pharisees, tax collectors and prostitutes.
Therefore, I may express that homosexual thoughts and acts are a sin but I may not exclude homosexuals from my society. I must feel with deep compassion the anguish and the delight of being homosexual and finding love and an intimate relationship in these times of despair and isolation. I must forgive the homosexual his sins as he or she must forgive mine. After all, I am a sinner.
Re: "Homosexuality":
Where does that idea come from? That’s pretty frightening. What about engaged in for love or intimacy or playfulness?
Re: "Homosexuality":
See, Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, Question 153. Article 3 [Public Domain]
Re: "Homosexuality":
So, not Scripture, then. Hmmm…
~jhimm — it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.
Re: "Homosexuality":
Ok, so perhaps this conversation needs a reframe.
Question 1: If we want to answer the question "how are we to think of homosexuality?" (or something like that), then first, we need to define the ‘we’. The Church? The world? U.S. citizens? English citizens? Post-conservatives? Post-liberals?
Question 2: Once we’ve got the ‘we’ sorted out, perhaps we’ll be closer to figuring out where ‘we’ stand in relation to Scripture. If ‘we’ is (e.g.) post-evangelical Christians, then perhaps ‘we’ can adopt a ‘critical yet committed’ stance (though this doesn’t answer every question we might have about Scripture). Surely Scripture (and perhaps not Thomism) is authoritative?
Question 3: If Scripture is authoritative (in what way?), then how is Paul authoritative? How is the OT authoritative? How are the Creation stories authoritative? Was Paul a mysogynist? Were Paul and Jesus wrong about ‘the end of the age’? Did they really stay celibate because they thought the world would end at any minute?
The way we answer these questions will shape our take on the question ‘what of homosexuality?’ So perhaps the various participants in this conversation could give brief responses to each question-section… If we’re seeking common ground on the homosexuality question, we should know we’re not going to get much of anywhere unless (we get really lucky or) we generally agree on the appropriate way to answer questions 1-3…
My two cents.
-Daniel-
Re: "Homosexuality":
I just wrote, and in the preview process lost, a lengthy explanation of what I was trying to do with my previous post. To add humor to the situation, I might suggest that in the process, God was looking out for all those reading these posts.
Thank you for your constructive post, Mr. Farmer. I am responding to you because I think you picked up on what I was trying to accomplish. But others did as well. It was not my intent to have a chilling effect on an interesting an important conversation and I sincerely apologize if I offended anyone.
In response to your Question 1 — Forget labels. Beyond that I am not sure if the "we" refers to those using this website, members of the "emerging church," assuming there is such a thing, the royal we or, … ? I tend to think of "we" as me and my fellow human beings but suggest that the meaning is contextual. Let me state, however, that if your point is to locate contributors to the conversation or encourage contributors to locate themselves, I support the notion.
In response to your Question 2 — Scripture is and must be the primary source for what human beings know about the nature of God and of Jesus Christ. This is not to say that other writings do not have probative value. My view is that the post-modern trend is to receive all information available, leaving to the user the decision about what should or should not be excluded.
In response to Question 3 — If Scripture is the ground of reason in theological discourse, whose scripture is true? My meaning, your meaning, Aquinas’? Certainly, I assert, there must be rules about how one goes about coaxing the meaning out of scripture when that meaning is not otherwise plain on its face. Rules such as these are not just procedural, but clearly doctrinal. See, generally, Augustine, On Christian Doctrine . Without resort to some standard external to oneself, meaning becomes merely a private meaning. This may be OK, but then there would be several hundred million private meanings, private religions, private "My God" s, emphasis on my.
humbly submitted
Re: "Homosexuality":
It seems reasonably obvious from the commentary so far that we very much do not agree on the answers to those questions.
Isn’t one of the challenges facing the emerging community to learn how to remain cohesive and to form a unified body without having a general consensus on particular doctrinal questions and without either demanding monolithic adherence or schism in the face of dissension?
Are we not on this thread trying to conclude if it is possible to formulate a doctrine regarding homosexuals, homosexuality and homosexual sex (along with, now, apparently, feminism and non-procreational sexual morality in general) without the precondition that we all agree on those kinds of founding principles?
What I am curious about is, if the answer to that question is “no”, what are the consequences of that answer? If we require consensus in order to form a unified body, must we be content with a church that has a very thin (lowest common denominator) theology or (even worse) is schism the only viable option?
~jhimm — it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.
emerging cohesion
Conversations can afford to have fuzzy boundaries on many issues. Communities can’t. For a community to be cohesive, there has to be (it seems to be) substantial agreement on the center of the faith (something like answers to my 3 questions)—in the NT, the boundary of Church was quite clear (baptism and allegiance to the risen Christ).
For example, in the Mennonite community I recently joined, there is disagreement on this particular question ("what of homosexuality?"), but the fuzziness there exists only because there is strong agreement about more central issues (nonviolence, simplicity, truth-telling, etc.). Conversations can continue without a center. Communities dissolve without the same. (All that to say the definition of ‘emerging church’—as a community or as a conversation—will shape how we answer the boundaries question.)
In parting, I’ll answer my own 3 questions: 1. Since the homosexuality question is best addressed in individual communities, that is who the ‘we’ should pick out. 2. NT Wright’s suggestion for understanding the narrative of Scripture as authoritative (his famous 5 act model) seems to me to be in line with taking Scripture seriously (without foregoing critical assessment). 3. Dismissing Paul as a homophobic mysogynist is far too easy (and unfair to his arguments). Based on my answer to 2. above, ‘we’ should also view the Creation stories as (in an important sense) normative (though this does not settle the question this thread centers around).
So, as far as I’m concerned, something like progress in this discussion can only be made if we’re roughly on the same page regarding 1, 2 and 3a (which doesn’t appear to be the case). Otherwise, the most we’ll get out of this is a peek into the minds of others who don’t agree with us (this is not a bad thing, I should add, but it does limit us).
My two cents. Cheers.
-Daniel-
Re: emerging cohesion
“Conversations can afford to have fuzzy boundaries on many issues. Communities can’t. For a community to be cohesive, there has to be (it seems to be) substantial agreement on the center of the faith (something like answers to my 3 questions”
You presume here that communities and conversations are distinctly different enterprises. Maybe not. Maybe communities are kinds of conversations, or dialogs, between people. Defining the boundaries of any community is an ongoing matter of conversation—unless, of course, we want some person to step in and authoritatively define the boundaries of our community for us and for all time, which doesn’t seem likely. The point, I think, is that instead of clearly defined boundaries we need to keep talking and working and praying and community will congeal out of that action.
Re: emerging cohesion
This seems to imply something troubling, maybe because I cannot see the alternative possibility.
Because it is beyond unlikely that all believers will ever come to a consensus on all but the most basic tenants of faith, a global community of the church is therefore only possible in the most watered down sense, not entirely unlike the global community of the church today. We cannot say much for it beyond that we kind of sort of hate each other less than we hate everyone else.
Not only is it beyond unlikely that all believers will ever come to a consensus on more than the basics, one could argue that we only came to agree on the basics because group A actively, physically, politically and militarily eliminated group B to create de facto orthodoxy and de facto, normative hegemony (I am so sorry I just used a phrase like that, I feel like I should do penance or something).
Even issues as core as the personhood and divinity of Jesus were concluded not through committee and community but through tactics of oppression and suppression and even alteration of the text of the Scriptures themselves could ensure that the doctrine of Jesus as fully man and fully G-d could emerge as orthodox.
If this is the state in which we find our discourse, and community with one another is impossible without greater consensus, then community is impossible without either schism or injustice.
What’s the alternative? Because that strikes me as an unacceptable fate for the church of the gospel.
~jhimm — it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.
Re: emerging cohesion
Just to be clear, I don’t mean “community” in an overarching sense. I’m talking about the concrete communities that one builds around them. Small and alive with conversation and debate, mission work and fellowship. I agree, generally though, that a community in the meta-sense of a Community of Christians would indeed produce far more suffering than good because it would probably progress as it has done in the past—via violence.
Re: emerging cohesion
Hmm. Did I accidentally reply to the wrong person? I intended to respond to Daniel’s notion that For a community to be cohesive, there has to be (it seems to be) substantial agreement on the center of the faith, rather than your notion that instead of clearly defined boundaries we need to keep talking and working and praying and community will congeal out of that action.
Sorry!
~jhimm — it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.
Re: emerging cohesion
Both you and Jacob responded to my post, so your replies appear side by side. No worries. :-)
To Jacob, I would say that you can converse with people and never do anything together. But if we take seriously the idea that Christian community is necessarily missional… then it seems obvious to me that you need some kind of consensus, some kind of center, in order to 1. define the mission, and 2. act to fulfill the mission. Otherwise you’ll just have a conversation about what the mission should be, but never go anywhere from there. And so I stand by my distinction (a fairly clear line distinguishes mere conversation from community—these have necessarily different foundations).
To jhimm, I would say that your observations are correct. "Community is impossible without either schism or injustice." On the broadest level, this is true. To add a posi