I’ve recently read the thread about sex before marriage and I’m interested in pursuing a slightly different question. The relationship of romantic and sexual relationships to covenant is, it seems to me, a key understanding; one can even make a strong point for “the Divine Romance” as part of the Scriptures. I’m also working my way through ost material on the nature and use of Scripture in the emerging Church. Again, commitment to the mission and person of Jesus should drive and inform our commitment to the story told through Jewish and Christian sacred writings using a ‘critical-realist’ hermeneutic.
In light of these two factors, how does the emerging church propose to welcome/deal with/evangelize gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, or sexually questioning people? What issues of biblical interpretation, sin, holiness, covenant, healing, and justice are involved?
1. Biblical interpretation. Is “homogenitality” (Daniel Helminiak, 2004) condemned by Scripture in all contexts? What are the cultural contexts of the “homosexuality texts”? Is the conclusion of the text to be simply applied cross-temporally and culturally?
2. Holiness. Is it proper to use the sacred text to condemn covenant or even legal relationships between same-gender persons? What does holiness mean in terms of the OT holiness code? How do glbtq Christians and truth seekers live holy sexual lives?
3. Covenant. How do we define covenant? Marriage? Should homosexual relationships be blessed by the Church? For what reasons would/would not same-gender relationships embody covenant?
4. Healing. Do glbtq people need healing? of wounds from prejudice? from their sexual orientation? In what ways can the Church support these persons in their journey to be more like Jesus and their Kingdom-living? How does the emerging church plan to present and live the gospel for glbtq people?
5. Justice. What are the social implications of the first four aspects? Does the emerging church need to repent of homophobia, not being committed to the “gospel of healing” (which I understand NT Wright believes was programmatic for Jesus), or something else? How should the emergent church work politically to address civil rights, etc. for glbtq individuals? How do we grow our position into a Kingdom-justice perspective, rather than simply being a soap-box or political point of orthodoxy?
Hopefully I’ll be able to post my own perspective and questions soon, but of course this is ost: have at it, comments would be helpful!
An example of why this question needs to be asked
Thank you, Spiritboi, for posing a question many are afraid to ask (maybe I’m even a little chicken on this one). This question is made particularly difficult by our cultural environment. In the midst off all our assumptions about sexuality, the material world, tolerance, evolution – it becomes very hard to see clearly.
I would like defend your question. It may need no defense on OST (though I question why I am the first to comment some six weeks after your first post), but it would need a defense in the phobic and schismatic atmosphere of larger Christendom.
My defense of your question is this: we once owned other humans, and justified it by the scriptures. There are plenty of proof texts to justify slavery. In fact, during the Colonial Era, almost all justifications were Biblical, since it was the accepted moral standard of the day. Slavery was approved by God. Or else, why was it in the Bible? It was even doctrine that God had made the dark races, descended from Noah’s cursed son Ham, to serve the light races, descended from Shem and Japheth.
This justification was not overcome until Enlightenment thinking changed culture to see certain human rights as intrinsic. This cultural change allowed many to see the Biblical texts in a new light. The OT texts were seen as not promoting slavery, but rather controlling it ethically to make it more humane. The NT texts went beyond humane ethics as they combined slave and master in the same spiritual family as brothers and suggested that freedom was better if achieved through peaceable means that would not discredit the community.
Then why did God allow slavery and even use it? Some have endeavored to form an answer around the idea of God’s revelation. God did not oppose slavery because to do so would place an unnecessary obstacle in the way of his revelation. It seems the Bible and much of human history would universally uphold the idea that one can respond to the revelation of God regardless of conditions of oppression imposed by others. In fact, suffering and persecution, although antithetical, seem to promote human perception of revelation and deep commitment to God. But a counter-cultural and economical devastating position against slavery could have severely discredited the Gospel and led to huge, but unnecessary implausibility structures.
However, when human culture evolved to the point were slavery could be abolished, it was the will of God to do so. Almost everyone today would agree that freedom for all humans is the will of God, and now even the Bible is used to justify such a position.
(A similar construct has also been used to deal with restrictive passages about women’s vocal participation in the Christian assembly.)
So this poses the question: “Is our culture changing so we can see the revelation of God in the acceptance of homosexuality?” Or, “Is the acceptance of homosexuality another broken expression of our culture like rampant individuality, gross materialism, animalistic sexuality, etc.?”
We should be humble enough to admit the need to entertain the question, but careful enough not to look for easy answers and quick changes.
My hunch is the best answers about this issue and the questions it raises come for consideration of the revelation of God. We are worshipers of the Word. The Word became flesh, but before that the Word made the universe itself and spoke through the law-givers and prophets. The Christian faith is based on a fundamental value of God: he wants to reveal himself.
So could homosexuality be part of the revelation, like freedom to the captives? Romans 1 seems to suggest that it is a by product of ignoring revelation. Biological laws of “form following function” would raise serious doubts about homosexuality as part of the revelation of design.
But there are many other questions that must be answered and summary judgments won’t due. Through all our theoretical explorations, we must not forget flesh and blood applications: this effects real people whom God loves. We must get to know those involved and not make disconnected judgments. My friend – once a male prostitute, but now married to a woman – spent hours with me verbally digging through his wounded sexuality. For him, homosexuality was an oppressive addiction based on childhood sexual abuse, and it was evil, regardless of what it is for anyone else. But he struggled greatly as a seeker in the Christian community. Christian after Christian put him on the inquisitional stand and demanded to know if he still lusted for men. When he admitted it, they judged him and cast him aside as disgusting. Finally, he pinned one of his Christian accusers down in a conversation. The person blurted out that they wouldn’t accept him as a real Christian until he lusted after a woman. Amazing! One type of lust can bring a person closer to God, while another drives a person away. We must, in all our theology, not build walls around Christ, and yet we have a duty to continue the daunting war against the fleshly monsters in us all.
Defending the Question
I’m pleased I have a taker! (Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply.)
I’ve argued briefly in my comments about Walter Bruggermann elsewhere on the site that the kind of hermeneutic that releases us from approval of slavery can be applied legitimately to women’s issues in the Church and Bible, and to the Rainbow Community.
If you wish, we could engage in a dialogue about individual biblical texts; I also have a hunch that your emphasis on the Word made flesh provides a key to the issue. Anglicans (the tradition I currently practice within) and some other Christians call this “incarnational theology.”
I could try to maintain neutrality, but as NT Wright acknowledges, this is a scholarly fiction that causes far more problems than it solves. So let me be candid, and tell a little bit of my own story.
I met Jesus decisively when I was five years old. I knew my sin forgiven and there was an instantaneous release from a crippling spirit/attitude/influence of fear. I still love him deeply to this day, and through various experiences know that I have a call to religious ministry.
I also have Cerebral Palsy. This caused a great deal of tension with my peer group, and I located my feeling of difference in the disability and the social alienation that often engendered. I couldn’t be the athlete, the macho guy. I didn’t really like painting or playing the piano either, since it required too much co-ordination. But I could write, and tell stories; emotionally I was always softer, very empathic.
Around puberty, I found that I was jealous of most guys, wondering why girls weren’t attracted to me, and once again locating the fault in my CP. I was SHOCKED when, one day after gym class, something seemed to explode in my brain and I realised that the pull I often felt to other guys was sexual too. I definitely didn’t experience it as a good thing! Growing up evangelical, I learned all the “homosexuality texts” and the traditional (and somewhat compassionate) interpretations of them.
All through my teens I was in torment, mostly because I thought I was a sinner in the hands of an angry God—it didn’t help that I sometimes enjoyed experimenting with a young guy around my age. That ended around age eighteen, when I went to Bible College. That time was the best time of my life, and for awhile I forgot my concern about other guys—or at least it was much less. It was here, though, through a Christian friend of mine, that I was first exposed to “pro-gay theology”. My reaction was violent, “Abuse of Scripture!” But I admitted to trusted friends that I was afraid the “rainbow folks” were right—and the conflict would end. Things built up and eventually I had to leave school because of issues surrounding my sexuality.
I entered healing counselling (per Leanne Payne and the School of Pastoral Care) yet it didn’t help much; most people in the healing stream attribute lack of success to an unredeemed will, and therefore all discussion of alternative points of view is squelched. I was taught that homosexuality was a sexual addiction that was always a sin. I agonised further, somehow unable to fully commit to the counselling, especially after reading further in mainstream psychology and methodological critiques of “healing stream” practices. January 2002 I couldn’t take it anymore—the fear, the longing to love God and serve the church, the social pressure I felt to be “healed” and straight. “Lord, I can’t do it,” I said, “You’re gonna have to deal with me, because I’m gay.”
It’s taken me awhile to unlearn a lot of destructive stuff, not least of which is, “Because you experience same-gender attractions, you are on some level sexually addicted.” Pain is sometimes a conduit for revelation—and I learned, Biblically and experientially, that I can be myself in the house of God. May of my brothers and sisters don’t agree with me—witness the furor in the Anglican Communion right now—but I have to live with integrity before God.
The whole process—emotionally, spiritually, philosophically, exegetically—has been very messy indeed, but through it all, I am seeking to hear the Word and what the Spirit says to the Churches. I would like “my people” to be welcome in the Church, able to serve with our own unique gifts and perspectives.
Having said that, I make a point never to argue with another’s story. I am relieved that your friend has found (or perhaps is finding) freedom from the wounds of the past. We all have our own journeys to walk, even as we are surrounding by the People of God and God’s Kingdom.
I hope this can be a start, and I hope that dialogue will become a little less “loaded” (at least on my end) as we seek the Word together.
The Blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be with you always.
Form following function
After coming back to the site after several busy weeks, I love how even handed your “defense of the question” is.
I am involved, it seems, in endless dialogue with both evangelicals and gay Christians (who usually are explicitly non-evangelical or liberal in my view), and it always pains me how much misunderstanding holds sway. Sitting at a recent book club meeting for my Church’s chapter of Integrity, I was shocked to realise that my brothers and sisters in the more evangelical movements are misunderstood as HATING glbtq people! I almost felt hated myself!
I wanted to say that before engaging, gently, with one of your points. This may not be the best way in, but at the very least it will provide a place to start discussing the flow of Romans 1.
Quote: Romans 1 seems to suggest that it [homosexuality - homosexual practice?] is a by product of ignoring revelation. Biological laws of “form following function” would raise serious doubts about homosexuality as part of the revelation of design.
I am slightly confused by “laws of form following function”. Although there are “obvious” uses of parts of the body, does this preclude flexibility or creativity in the use of the body? We all know that the mouth is used to eat, speak, and sometimes evacuate bodily fluids when ill. But in an evangelical counselling text called _Healing the Wounded Spirit_ (John/Paula Sandford) they suggest that oral sex is not normally an appropriate activity for Christians because “the mouth was not designed for fellatio, but eating.” The argument doesn’t follow.
Does it follow, then, that homoerotic anal sex is wrong because one is being “creative”—though respectful and careful—with the anal opening? Would one oppose it across the board, or because it is homoerotic?
“Laws of form following function” seem to be culturally bound…which would lead straight into placing Romans 1 into its 1st C. CE context. But I’ll do that next time ‘round.
Peace of Christ to you, Rob
Re: The Rainbow Community and the Emerging Church
This is obviously a tough topic with a lot of hard questions, but some of them are pretty straight forward, so the ones I feel confident about, I’ll answer. Maybe someone else can get the harder ones.
"2. Holiness. Is it proper to use the sacred text to condemn covenant or even legal relationships between same-gender persons? What does holiness mean in terms of the OT holiness code? How do glbtq Christians and truth seekers live holy sexual lives?"
My Answer: Yes, it is proper to use the Bible (God’s Word) to condemn covenant or legal relationships between same-gender persons. Just because the same-gender relationship may now be legal, does not mean that God has changed His mind on the topic. To be Holy means to be "set-apart." This means to be set apart for God and for His purposes, which could not include being a glbtq Christian because God condemns such acts all throughout Scripture. Because of this, glbtq Christians cannot live holy sexual lives because they are living in sin, apart from God’s will. God is a three times Holy God and He calls us to imitate Him! How can one be pure as the Lord is pure when they are living a life that is in direct contradiction to God’s plan for sexuality? It seems that God is clear on the things that He wants us to understand. If this is true, and if God thinks that glbtq Christians are OK as long as it is a legal relationship or within a covenant, why did He not say so in Scripture?
I really want to respond to a few other of those questions, but due to it being finals week, I do not have the time. I will answer them in a week or so.
Legality and Christianity
Reformed Arminian… What an interesting name. How does an Arminian go about being reformed? All of my friends who see themselves as ‘reformed’ align themselves with very strict calvinism. So I’m curious… but that’s definitely a digression.
As to your response to spiritboi, I would like to say two things.
First, I think the original question might have been a political one which could be rephrased ‘should Christians legislate morality based on their understanding of Scripture?’ — the point being that Christians who think homosexual behavior is sinful may not feel the need to impose their understanding of homosexuality on the rest of the culture by passing laws condemning it. In fact, many Christians who do not think homosexuality a viable option for believers consider themselves gay rights activists. Similarly, though I don’t think smoking cigarettes is particularly healthy, and though I think disciples of Christ owe to themselves and to God to look after their body, I have no intention of making smoking (or eating donuts) illegal. So that’s a first point that could be made here.
Secondly, I think spiritboi’s larger point is that the supposed Scriptural evidence that supports your claim that homosexuality "is in direct contradiction to God’s plan" is rather weak. But rather than rehash the eternal debate here (and there has already been a lot of conversation on this point, both on this site and on others), I would recommend you read up on it (gaychristian.net is a good resource here, for both sides of the issue).
I think the emerging church has an opportunity to be an important voice in this heated debate. Those of us who see homosexuality as deviating from God’s plan, and those of us who don’t, can be rallied around God’s call to love all people, and to reconcile the glbt community to the Church. Of course, each congregation will have to decide what it can and can’t accept as ‘holy’ and acceptable behavior from active members/leaders, but the key here is that because of our metaphysic of absence, our unwillingness to claim finished knowledge (viz. our humility), we can bridge the gap between the two views on homosexuality and model how true Christian dialogue is done (for a good example of this, see Tony and Peggy Campolo’s discussion of the issue). A more ‘modern’ Christianity may not have room for such a discussion (a metaphysic of presence cannot be added to).
Cheers to all,
-Daniel-
Re: Legality and Christianity
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: Legality and Christianity
I don’t know why I didn’t read PastorPete’s response first. Your usage of 1 Cor. 6:12 is huge in your defense. Thanks brother!
Re: Legality and Christianity
First off, let me explain the name "reformed arminian." It is a joke. I get tired of the whole calvinism vs. arminianism debate, and seem to find myself more in the middle, simply not knowing what the final answer is. So, reformed arminian (coined by Jason Lawrenz) is my way of saying, I am neither!
On to the matter at hand. Let me first give some scriptural evidence that homosexuality is indeed in direct contradiction to God’s plan for sex.
Genesis 1:26-28 - Man is created in God’s image and instructed to "be fruitful and multiply" already demonstrating that God intended for sex between male and female because male and male are unable to multiply. Also, it seems obvious, but if God had intended for homosexuality to be a part of His plan, then why did He not create them, male and male in His image? He created the two for sexual union, to be able to have children. This evidence alone should make this whole argument an open and shut case. But let us continue on.
Genesis 19:4-7 - Lot calls the requests from the men of the city (to have sex with the angels staying with him) wicked.
Leviticus 18:22 - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Pretty strong and clear language don’t you think?
How about some New Testament:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - The apostle Paul condemns homosexuality, placing those who practice it on the same level as udulterers, thieves and idolaters. Those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God.
We have seen that anyone who practices homosexuality does so apart from the will of God and is called "sexually immoral." Therefore, it makes sense that Paul would say in: 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, that the will of God is our sanctification, which includes abstaining from sexual immorality and learning how to control our bodies (which by the way, is a part of holiness). Verse 8 says that if you disregard this instruction, you are not disregarding man, but God.
1 Timothy 1:8-11 - The law is "for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murders, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavlers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine…" How does Paul view those who practice homosexuality? The same as he views murderers. It can also be implied that, since Paul is under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in this writing, we can say that God views it the same way.
Is this enough Scriptural support for now? I could go on if you like, but I hope you get the point.
What I am trying to say is that homosexuality is clearly condemned in God’s Word. Therefore, if we, as the church do not condemn this act, we are also living apart from God’s will. Should we love those who practice homosexuality and all other forms of sexual immorality? Certainly! We must be reaching out to them. But at the same time, if there are those in our congregations who are living in this sin, we must come up alongside them and encourage them to live lives that are pleasing to God. As long as they are living in that sin, I believe that Scripture tells us that they are not pleasing God. And if we are not pleasing God, then what good are we to Him? It is the most loving thing we can do for these people to tell them the hard truth of what God’s Word says about this impure and unholy act.
Re: Legality and Christianity
Reformed Arminian, coming from an evangelical school where I spent most of my first two years in debate over the whole predestination thing, I can appreciate where you’re coming from with your name. It is a fascinating debate, to be sure, but one that sucks up far more energy than it should.
To the matter at hand. My claim is that Scripture (properly understood) does not say much that is directly relevant to homosexuals today. The first reason being that our social construct of ‘orientation’ is quite new, and therefore presents rather unique moral dilemmas foreign to the Bible (much like the entire field of bioethics).
On the Genesis accounts: I find it ironic that well-meaning conservative evangelicals latch on to the supposed normativity of heterosexuality, while blatantly disregarding what is intended to be normative in Genesis. The entire structure of Genesis 1 is a potent argument for keeping the Sabbath (God Godself keeps it!)—plenty of Protestants I know feel they have lots and lots of elbow room as far as how they take the Sabbath. I feel this is in direct contradiction to Genesis 1. Additionally, you are correct in pointing out that God’s only command in Creation is ‘be fruitful and multiply’. How ironic then, that Protestants should be so comfortable with birth control! Some couples choose not to have any children at all, in obvious disregard for the Genesis Creation accounts. And as for the whole heterosexual thing… even though I will easily grant that there is a heterosexual trajectory in Genesis, that does not make homosexuality wrong. Unless the ONLY purpose of copulation is procreation… However, most of my Protestant friends would agree with me that there is more to sex than making babies (which is why we have no qualms with infertile couples having sex).
My point is simply this… If we feel there is wriggle room with the Sabbath and with birth control… it is only consistent to allow a little wriggle room with heterosexuality. It need not be seen as normative.
As for the reference to Sodom… The men of Sodom can no more be compared to homosexuals than can our modern day gang-rapists in jail. It’s not about love, or even attraction, but rather about power (note: Ezekiel identifies the sins of Sodom in a way that should make many Westerners uncomfortable—prosperous ease, too much food, lack of concern for the poor…).
Quickly though, on the Pauline passages (I have to go to work!), let me simply make an analogy with tax collecting. We today don’t think there’s anything wrong with collecting taxes for the government. This is because our governments are fairly honest and it’s just a job. In Jesus’ time, tax collectors were sinners because the name implied allegiance to Rome, betrayal of the Jewish people, and a tendency to steal. There is not much positive said about tax collectors in Scripture.
Similarly the terms ‘malakoi’ and ‘arsenokoitai’ which Paul uses (often translated ‘homosexual offenders’) are, at the time at which he uses them, associated with unloving behaviors (most often of course, these are promiscuous heterosexual men using homosexuality as a kinky thrill). More importantly, the Romans 1 passage identifies specifically what was so offensive to Paul: idol worship. They worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. Homosexual temple prostitution was associated with the forsaking of Yahweh. I’m not surprised Paul had such a negative assessment of homosexuality given what it was associated with (and the same is true of tax collectors).
However given our modern day situation, when gay Christians don’t worship idols and come together in monogamous covenant… it becomes more and more difficult to draw a direct comparison between ‘homosexuality’ in Scripture and homosexuality today. The exact same thing could be said of tax collectors. Nobody (at least not Christ-followers, I hope) pickets IRS agents telling them they’re going to hell…
Those are just a few thoughts… I could have said more, but I don’t have enough time. My point is simply this: historical context makes it difficult to apply the ‘gay passages’ in Scripture directly to gays today. In such an ambiguous context, it is hasty to say that Scripture ‘clearly condemns’ any kind of homosexuality. Even if one is ultimately unconvinced, I think it’s fair to say that one should hold such a view carefully (and the same can be said of the opposing view).
Cheers, greetings, and blessings,
-Daniel-
Re: Legality and Christianity
Daniel, it seems as though your argument is coming strictly from the historical context of the passages. But let me ask, is there any passage in Scripture (no matter what form of homosexuality is being spoken of), where homosexuality is not seen in a negative light? I have searched the Word and cannot find one example of a reference to homosexuality being OK in any context.
Now, one may say that that is because the context of every passage is different then that of today’s context. I have to answer that response by simply saying, "are you serious?" Do you really not think that there were men who had the same sort of relationships back then that they do today? And never does any author of Scripture ever give any form of approval of the act. The nomativeness of heterosexuality is implied all throughout God’s Word (ex. "honor your father and mother" not "honor your father and other father"). Because of this nomativeness and because of its instruction about homosexuality, we should be teaching these same things in our church.
I also wanted to know which lexicon you are using for your Greek.
Until next time,
Reformed Arminian
Re: Legality and Christianity
Seth, thank you for pointing us to Campbell for insights on this matter. I’m about three fourths of the way through the Quest for Paul’s Gospel, and have enjoyed it (and been convinced) every step of the way. His thoughts on gay ordination are positively challenging.
Reformed Arminian, I do not use a greek lexicon because I do not read greek. I do however, read papers written by people who read greek. One of the best cases I’ve heard for a traditional view of homosexuality was given by a theology professor at the college I went to who argued that the term ‘arsenokoitai’ ("homosexual offenders") finds its etymological origin in Leviticus 18, where the Law says not to lay with a man as with a woman (so he translates arsenokoitai as ‘with-men-layers’ and builds his anti-homosexuality argument on that). What credibility does that give me? Very little, I realize. Thankfully, the broader concepts are all that is needed to make the points I would like to make. Namely that the biblical witness isn’t nearly as unambiguous as some people would paint it and that we should therefore be hesitant to apply it vigorously.
As for your point about the normativity of heterosexuality being assumed throughout Scripture… well, I do think heterosexuality is assumed (descriptively)—but that does not make it normative (in the strong, divinely-imposed sense). I will however grant that none of the biblical authors had any concept of God-approved homosexuality, which is why there is no hint of positive feeling towards homosexuality in Scripture. I am not bothered by that. As I have said before, I think the social construct of sexual orientation is, if not new, then unique to our modern situation. This new construct raises interesting questions about what kind of sex is appropriate. I think the ‘day-after’ pill is another example of a new ethical situation which the church must come to terms with.
I would not argue that homosexuality is a sexual variance prescribed by God—I will concede that it is in some senses ‘against nature’… but I am not convinced that makes it wrong (I think contortionists move their bodies in ways that are ‘against nature’, but that doesn’t keep me from going to the circus)—at worst I would say that marriage-like covenants between homosexuals are creative adaptations to a complex world. Much like adoption or in-vitro fertilization for infertile couples, lifelong covenants may be, for people who have never been attracted to the opposite sex and who don’t have the gift of celibacy, simply the best option out there. I might add that God seems to bless creativity (adoption is a case in point).
I have no illusion of convincing you. Ultimately however, I am less worried by the traditional stance on homosexuality than I am by the behavior of certain heterosexuals towards homosexuals. As long as we can both agree that our job as disciples is to ascribe unsurpassable worth to gays and lesbians, and that we are never to disrespect or mistreat them (I say them as though they were an ‘outside’ group, though this is a falsehood), I’m sure we’ll have gotten the most important thing down.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: Legality and Christianity
I’m broadly in agreement with Daniel’s comment. Some time ago (April 2005) a discussion was taking place on this site on a similar theme, and Paul’s coining of the word “arsenokoites” was linked, by Andrew, to a compounding of two words in the Septuagint version of Leviticus 20:13. He said:
“With regard to your point 3: this translation is taken from my post on the other thread: ‘whoever sleeps with a man (arsenos) the marriage-bed / sexual intercourse (koitē) of a woman has done an abomination’ (cf. ESV: ‘If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination’). The ESV phrase ‘lies with a male’ is more complicated in the Greek: koimēthēi meta arsenos koitēn = ‘sleeps with a male the marriage bed’. You virtually have Paul’s word there: arsenokoitēs.”
This can be found on the two posts “Homosexuality and the New creation” and “Summary, and a surprising conclusion”.
Of course, the subject is in the news again here, with the first of the civil contracts between same-gender people being brought into law and enacted in the UK (in England, in particular, today, with the civil ceremony involving Elton John and his partner). The debate (which has been very muted) is whether this amounts to gay marriage. The political stance was that these ceremonies are not gay marriages, but gay people are treating them as such, though they do not meet what they would have liked (there is no verbal ceremony of vows and exchanging rings etc).
What people do in churches and town halls is one thing; from another point of view it is valid to ask whether solemnisations of marriages or civil contracts equate to a biblical understanding of marriage. Here we are thrown back on Genesis 2:23-24, and the various NT reaffirmations of the covenant given by God between two people. Today’s legal frameworks within which two people link their lives together are a way of bringing social stability and conferring legal rights - for heterosexual and gay people. In the UK, until quite recently marriage has been a means of legalising property rights, and the issue of inheritance. A woman legally had few rights within marriage. Today’s ceremonies and legal frameworks may or may not amount to biblical marriage - according to whether the biblical criteria are fulfilled (and qualified, eg by Paul in Ephesians 5:21-33). A mutually committed cohabiting couple are arguably more ‘married’ in this sense, than a couple who simply go through the motions of a marriage ceremony. And gay people?
My main point was not to open up, indirectly, a new discussion, but to draw attention to a possible derivation of “arsenokoites” as Paul uses it. Depending on your view of things, this could make Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality more absolute, or the opposite: more culturally relative - by limiting the condemnation to particular circumstances that may have been in view in Leviticus 20 (ritual temple prostitution, for example), and which may or may not have been reflected in the cultural expression of homosexuality in the world of Paul’s time.
There is a further perspective on Romans 1:18ff: that Paul is echoing standard Jewish polemic (eg in Wisdom), but that he is also springing a trap: the very people who are making the kind of strictures Paul echoes are themselves guilty of the things of which they accuse others. This becomes clearest if the chapter division between Romans 1 & 2 is removed. Some would then go further, and say that Paul’s perspective does not completely coincide with the apparently straightforward denunciations being made in Romans 1:18ff. (This was also discussed in the aforementioned threads).
My own observation is that those who are loudest in their condemnations of homosexuality are often those who have had least dialogue with gay people - either Christian or non-Christian. Even dialogue is seen by some Christians as compromise. It is regrettable that the division that has opened up in the Anglican communion has done so in blatant rejection of Archbishop Rowan Williams’ plea for different sections of the church to listen to each other.
I also mentioned, in the previous threads, the existence of a group based in the US called “Evangelicals Concerned” - run by Dr Ralph Blair. His approach is basically affirming of the gay orientation, and non-condemnatory of gay relationships. His website www.ecwr.com runs a commentary on the basic biblical passages which tend to be cited in the debate over homosexuality. There are also testimonies of gay people on the site - and some high-profile names, which are worth pursuing. It is worth visiting - if only to be enlightened about a particular perspective.
We had to open a discussion in our church community on the subject, as one of our members runs a ministry for gay people which adopted Blair’s thinking. The church did not go along with this new view - but we managed to square the circle of staying in relationship with the ministry (through the guy who runs it), whilst not endorsing its philosophy. But it did become apparent that the reactions of some church members were visceral rather than considered, although the quality of the discussion was very temperate.
Re: Legality and Christianity
I’m sorry - the website referred to in the preceding post should have read: www.ecwr.org. To begin navigation, go to the resources menu and ‘homosexuality and the bible’. My recommendation to visit this site does not imply endorsement of all its views.
Re: Legality and Christianity
I realize the original post that I am replying to was posted over a year ago. Just found the site and am still perusing the contents, but “reformed arminian” made a comment I want to respond to. A little “fly by” while I check out the site.
RA says “is there any passage in Scripture (no matter what form of homosexuality is being spoken of), where homosexuality is not seen in a negative light? I have searched the Word and cannot find one example of a reference to homosexuality being OK in any context.”
What I want to say - in brief, because I have a lot of catch up reading to do - is that the only way you can see no positive references to homosexuality in scripture is by coming to scripture with a heterosexist and homophobic lense. First, there are lots and lots of negative examples of heterosexuality. We all have to agree on that point. But to completely dismiss positive examples - David and Jonathon, Naomi and Ruth, the Ethiopian eunuch, the disciple whom Jesus loved, etc., etc - may betray a bias against homosexuality that comes from somewhere other than scripture.
I am not saying here that David and Jonathon were “gay” in the contemporary sense. But scripture does not shy away from this same sex relationship. There is even physical intimacy. A naked embrace. A kiss. As a gay man, I am comforted by - and find a lot of familiar ground (conflict with the family, a need for secrecy, love unrequited, deep grief at the loss of the “one who got away”) in this story.
As noted previously, “objectivity” is suspect. I make no pretense of coming to scripture objectively. I read it as a gay man. And I see no condemnation of my attraction or the healthy expression of it and I see a great deal of support for my relationships. I suspect that those who only see condemnation are coming to scripture with a culturally bound (principally medieval, not ancient), jaundiced view of homosexuality and then calling their interpretation “inspired.”
Doesn’t sound “emergent” to me. Sounds like “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”. :)
J
Re: Legality and Christianity
Many comments focus on homosexuality to the exclusion of other sins. When other sins surface, they usually do so in contrast of or in comparison to homosexual acts. I would like to single out another, possibly less emotive, sin to offer a different perspective.
Much of the justification for homosexual practices seems to be that we just know more now about things and persons which either predispose or, in some instances, compel them (and us) to certain actions.
I would like to pick on one possibility which is not so often discussed as far as I am aware-adultery of the married heterosexual kind. As the story goes, our earliest male primate ancestors, in order to be fruitful and multiply, needed to deposit their seed in as many wombs as possible to insure progeny. That in a nutshell is the overview. One might say it’s in the genes. (sorry, I could not resist those) It’s all about evolutionary genetics and millions of years of behavioral imprint. We know this now. How now can we support, with conscience, any biblical texts which offer even a smidgen of criticism or condemnation of adultery and, according to Jesus, its twin, heterosexual lust?
For an exercise, using the sixth chapter of St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church as a context, make a list of sins, include St. Paul’s list or not, make up your own, intolerence, homophobia, fundementalist, biblical literalist, glutton, lazy, liar, hater and murderer in your heart, whatever… somewhere, according to the apostle, we all find ourselves on the list. …”such were some of you.” How is it that some of them were no longer on the list? If we’re honest we will agree that we, like them, have all have sinned and failed to measure up to God’s standards. We were once like that, but now we, like those before us, have had God’s power made available to us to be changed from what we once were to what God intends us to become. To as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God.
I think Christians waste way too much time on justification and extenuation of questionable conduct rather than accepting a biblical critique of and remedy for it. Perhaps the whys and wherefores of this human tendency to justify and extenuate could be a profitable avenue of discussion.
I am not willing to commit adultery (or any biblically proscribed conduct) with the hopes of presenting at the bar a defense of evolutionary genetics. As for me, “Just one plea, that thy blood was shed for me.” is my only defense and hope.
God, be merciful to me, a sinner.
Cordially,
Alario
Walter Wink on homosexuality
Alario
In the previous extended debate on homosexuality on OST I quoted an article by Walter Wink, which I have summarised below. It seems to me that it renders your position difficult if not indefensible.
The Bible has no sexual ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history.
Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. Old Testament prescriptions about sexuality
For example, virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting: incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, exogamy (marriage with non-Jews), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation (some Christians still condemn this), birth control (some Christians still forbid this). And the Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not.
Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13). And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it.
In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!
So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture. Yet no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.
ST PAUL’S UNAMBIGUOUS CONDEMNATION OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR
But what do we say about Paul’s unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27
“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”
Walter Wink makes three comments about this passage Sexual orientation versus sexual behavior
No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up,” or “exchanging” their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up” or “exchanging” their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them. In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were “straight,” and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was straight. There are people that are genuinely homosexual by nature and for such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex. Paul does not understand committed homosexual relationships
Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Paul does not understand that homosexual behaviour is widespread in nature. And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is “natural” is therefore relevant
SEXUALITY IS GOVERNED BY THE LOVE ETHICThe Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period. The very notion of a “sex ethic” reflects the materialism and splitness of modern life, in which we increasingly define our identity sexually. Sexuality cannot be separated off from the rest of life. No sex act is “ethical” in and of itself, without reference to the rest of a person’s life, the patterns of the culture, the special circumstances faced, and the will of God. What we have are simply sexual mores, which change, sometimes with startling rapidity, creating bewildering dilemmas. Just within one lifetime we have witnessed the shift from the ideal of preserving one’s virginity until marriage, to couples living together for several years before getting married. The response of many Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.
Rules and norms are necessary; that is what sexual mores are. But rules and norms also tend to be impressed into the service of the Domination System, and to serve as a form of crowd control rather than to enhance the fullness of human potential. So we must critique the sexual mores of any given time and clime by the love ethic exemplified by Jesus. Defining such a love ethic is not complicated. It is non-exploitative (hence no sexual exploitation of children, no using of another to their loss), it does not dominate (hence no patriarchal treatment of women as chattel), it is responsible, mutual, caring, and loving. Augustine already dealt with this in his inspired phrase, “Love God, and do as you please.”
Our moral task, then, is to apply Jesus’ love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn’t mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus’ love commandment. We might address younger teens, not with laws and commandments whose violation is a sin, but rather with the sad experiences of so many of our own children who find too much early sexual intimacy overwhelming, and who react by voluntary celibacy and even the refusal to date. We can offer reasons, not empty and unenforceable orders.
We can challenge both gays and straights to question their behaviors in the light of love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility, and genuine concern for the best interests of the other and of society as a whole. Christian morality, after all, is not a iron chastity belt for repressing urges, but a way of expressing the integrity of our relationship with God. It is the attempt to discover a manner of living that is consistent with who God created us to be.
For those of same-sex orientation, as for heterosexuals, being moral means rejecting sexual mores that violate their own integrity and that of others, and attempting to discover what it would mean to live by the love ethic of Jesus. Morton Kelsey goes so far as to argue that homosexual orientation has nothing to do with morality, any more than left-handedness. It is simply the way some people’s sexuality is configured. Morality enters the picture when that predisposition is enacted. If we saw it as a God-given gift to those for whom it is normal, we could get beyond the acrimony and brutality that have so often characterized the unchristian behavior of Christians toward gays. Approached from the point of view of love rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. Now the question is not “What is permitted?” but rather “What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor?”
Approached from the point of view of faith rather than works, the question ceases to be “What constitutes a breach of divine law in the sexual realm?” and becomes instead “What constitutes integrity before the God revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?” Approached from the point of view of the Spirit rather than the letter, the question ceases to be “What does Scripture command?” and becomes “What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, and, yes, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?” We can’t continue to build ethics on the basis of bad science.
Re: The Rainbow Community and the Emerging Church
I encourage anyone interested in this debate to read Douglas Campbell’s bold and original contribution to it in The Quest for Paul’s Gospel (review). In chapter 6, he offers a case study of gay (or, glbt) ordination that is grounded in his understanding of Paul’s soteriology. In short, he believes Paul’s theology centers on the realization that Christ’s work was and is transformative, transcendent, and liberative with respect to the "old age" and its categories. Examples include 2 cor 5:17 (those who are in Christ are a "new creation"), Galatians 3:28 (neither Jew nor Greek … male nor female) and Romans 5-8. Campbell acknowledges that Paul sometimes makes remarks that are not consistent with his soteriological center, but Campbell says "we should simply overrule those inconsistencies in the name of his central convictions" (127). Bold advice, to say the least! One might even call it dangerous, but Campbell’s argument is much more nuanced than I have presented it here, so please take the time to read his book before making your final judgment. Whether one ultimately agrees with Campbell or not (and it is admittedly a challenge to do so in the face of the united front presented by Richard Hays and N. T. Wright—among many others—on this issue), I don’t think anyone interested in these debates can afford to ignore him.
By the way, he also effectively dismantles the traditional reading of Romans 1:18ff in chapter 11, perhaps the most frequent Pauline passage referenced in the debates.
Seth
Re: The Rainbow Community and the Emerging Church
I was thinking about what the role(s) of churches should be over the past couple of weeks and the post seemed as good a place as any to add my comments. You brought up the question of holiness, healing and even judgement. What I can’t get my self to continue to back is the notion that the church should beable to pass judgement on anyone.
People should be free to pray as they see fit, believe as they see fit, live their lives as they wish as long they do no one else any harm.
The fact that anyone would be arrogant enough to still be debating same sex relationships bothers me. My wife and I are about to celebrate our child’s first birthday and I’m scared that our child is not going to have a more progressive and understanding world to live in.
I watched Presidential candidate Mitt Romney remind us that it took his Mormon church until 1978 to fully accept blacks. It took until 2000 for the Catholic church to make a formal apology for anti-semitism.
The emerging church must make freedom and equality key and judgement should apply to the leaders for a change.
My 3 cents…