INTRODUCTION
In the following I have taken up where Peter Wilkinson left off and I have tried to summarise the debate on homosexuality. The posts and comments are now very extensive and some of the argument has been subtle and nuanced. While I hope I have accurately captured the main lines of argument, I may have inadvertently omitted some relevant comment and I may not have understood all that has been said. However, I thought it was worthwhile to try get an overview of what has been for me a very interesting and lively discussion in which the participants have by and large worked very hard at understanding other points of view and responding to them.
SUMMARY
In the original post, Paul Hartigan imagined two people, Jack and Fred. Jack was in a committed monogamous homosexual relationship of 10 years while Fred owned 10 slaves. According to St Paul in Romans 1, Jack incurs the anger of God and is depraved; but about Fred, St Paul has nothing to say.
The case of Jack and Fred poses a dilemma
- Paul condemns homosexuality but does not condemn slavery.
- But we in the 21st century are strongly inclined to say that in any comparison, the slaver is more morally opprobrious than the homosexual.
- Paul’s moral compass does not therefore appear to have been infallible; and if he could be wrong about slavery, perhaps he could have been wrong about homosexuality.
The dilemma is this: either our strong moral intuition about the relative morality of slavery and homosexuality is wrong or St Paul is wrong
The greater part of the ensuing responses has been to deny the stated form of the major premise
DID PAUL REALLY NOT CONDEMN SLAVERY?
Erlenmeyer suggests that Paul condemned both homosexuality and slavery but only explicitly referred to homosexuality because that conformed with the views of the time whereas there was no similar opposition to slavery and he did not want his message mixed up in politics. Alario says says slavery of those days was not as bad as it was to be in later times. Several people lament Paul’s silence on social issues.
Conclusion
Overall, it seems to be accepted that Paul did not condemn slavery and this implies some moral obtuseness on his part.
DID PAUL REALLY CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY?
Alario questions whether there are any committed monogamous homosexual relationships and asks about a homosexual lifestyle of indiscriminate, unprotected sex that has as many as hundreds of different partners in a year. Paul Hartigan responds that homosexual men may be more promiscuous than heterosexual men but lesbians are not more promiscuous than heterosexual women. The difference, is the institution of marriage which socialises the indiscriminate sexual appetite of the male. If there were no such constraint, would heterosexual men be any less promiscuous than homosexual men?
Ivan Latham says the scriptures are clear that all homosexual relationships are barred and that if the scriptures are not observed on this point then the floodgates will open and any behaviour will be licenced. Erlenmeyer says the preponderance of churches consider the bible to condemn the homosexual lifestyle and there are no positive references in the bible to homosexuality. The onus of proof is on those who would condone homosexuality to explain this silence.
SBryan says the over-riding principal of Christianity is love and if homosexual relationships are loving ones they do not fall under the Pauline condemnation. Asserhead does not disagree about love but says that does not deal with sex…The scriptures make clear that sex may only take place within heterosexual union. Ivan Latham says it is too readily assumed that divine love is unconditional.
Erlenmeyer suggests that celibacy is just as unnatural as homosexuality (if persisted in mankind would die out) but Paul is in favour of it.
Peter Wilkinson refers to NT scholars who suggest that Paul is thinking only about pederasty-there was no other form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world which could come to mind ie he would not have objected to ‘a committed monogamous homosexual relationship’. However Ericboemer notes that just such a relationship’ is described in Plato.
Peter Wilkinson also notes that that sexual identity goes to the root of my sense of who I am. Tell me that I must not be a homosexual, and you may be telling me that I cannot be who I am, the person that I never chose to be in the first place, and over whom I have no power to be anything different. How does the church deal with that?
What do the texts really say?
Andrew says it is important to understand what the texts really say and his general position seems to be
- In Romans 1, Paul says that because people have wilfully decided to worship idols rather than God, God has given them over to all sorts of wickedness and wrongdoing, one such example of wrongdoing being homosexuality.
- This is not just an invention of Paul’s but flows from the creation narrative found in Genesis. God’s reference in Gen 1.26 to human beings being in his image is essentially about men and women being procreative and thus echoing God’s own creative power-obviously only possible for heterosexual union. And Gen 2.24 says that because woman is made of man’s flesh, then when a man leaves his parents, it is to cleave to his wife and become one flesh with her. This suggests that heterosexual union is (at least) the ideal for sexual relationship
Andrew says he is looking for a way to understand homosexuality that recognizes:
i) that it is contrary to creation, as indicated above
ii) that it is (apparently) an unavoidable element of a fallen creation and for many gay people the only way of expressing a long-term intimate commitment to another
iii) that it is not ‘wickedness’, it is not intrinsically harmful to others.
Andrew suggests that while homosexuality will not be found in the new heaven and the new earth, the church is the sign but not the actuality of the new heaven and new earth. As such it contains many who are fallen eg those who abuse their spouses or lie or who get angry or who are unjust, despise the poor- and those who practice homosexuality. The conclusion is that homosexuals should not be denied Christian fellowship. A number of other participants are at one with Andrew on this.
Paul Hartigan questions the cogency of the scriptures quoted by Andrew.
- The argument in Romans 1.18-32 does not seem persuasive. There are all sorts of explanations why people might end up worshipping idols but the suggestion that they have done so deliberately seems one of the least likely. Secondly, Paul’s ascription of the immorality of such people to their worship of idols only makes sense if the behaviour of those who worship the one true God is better. Is there any basis for such a statement- can we say that Christians, Moslems and Jews, all strict monotheists, are morally superior to animists or popular forms of Hinduism?
- Nor do the Genesis arguments seem strong enough to sustain a charge that homosexuality is wrong (or, possibly, even morally superior to homosexuality). Procreative capacity is primarily a capacity of the human race and not of individual human beings- that is, the human race can be very fertile even though much sexual activity of individuals takes place with no chance of procreation. Hence if procreation is an image of God’s creative power it is an image attributable to the human race not to individuals or individual segments (such as heterosexuals) within it. Also if human creative power is an image of God what do we make of an artist like Michaelangelo who was homosexual. As regards the ‘one flesh’ argument, this seems a precarious basis for condemning homosexuality, in particular since it is a metaphor based on a myth.
Conclusion
The suggestion that Paul was not thinking of committed monogamous homosexuals in his Romans 1 and other references to homosexuals did not appear convincing to most participants; nor the idea that the love ethic of the NT over-rides the condemnation of homosexuality (though thisidea has not been explored as fully as it might). Nearly all the participants accept that scripture condemns homosexuality, although they interpret the condemnation differently. Some would say homosexual behaviour is wrong and forbidden; but some are ambiguous about this (Andrew?). A number of participants are at pains to understand the situation of the homosexual and do not believe that homosexuals should be denied church fellowship.
SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY VERSUS MORAL INTUITION
Paul Hartigan is inclined to think that Paul’s condemnation would include homosexuals in a committed monogamous relationship but his attitude to the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality does not necessarily depend on what the scriptures say. In Paul Hartigan’s view, St Paul was wrong about homosexuals and equally, he was, at the very least, morally obtuse about the institution of slavery. For Paul Hartigan, this does not pose the dilemma of either rejecting the NT or rejecting his judgement about homosexuality: in his view reverence for the NT does not require it to be inerrant or morally infallible.
Ivan Latham says that once we go down the route of picking and choosing what we believe as authoritative in the Biblical text, then anyone, from thief to psychopath could justify their behaviour by such an arbitrary analysis of the Bible.
Peter Wilkinson suggests that Paul Hartigan’s approach seems to depend on subjective or vague notions of modern thinking.
Paul Hartigan responds that his reasons are neither subjective nor vague and include considerations such as the following
- that mainstream modern psychiatry finds no psychopathology associated with homosexuality;
- that homosexuality is now recognised as having occurred in every age and culture;
- that homosexuality is widespread among other species;
- that there is no understanding of nature or of natural law that leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong or an evil;
- that modern secular society after thousands of years of proscribing homosexuality has changed its mind.
Conclusion
The original post about Fred and Jack essentially asked this question: how do we deal with a collision between
- a view of the scriptures which hold them as inerrant or moral infallibile
and
- our deepest moral intuitions.
Very little of the discussion has addressed this issue- most of it has focussed on the scriptures and whether there is any understanding of them which in some way acknowledges the position of a homosexuals in a committed monogamous relationship.
Hence I regard the major issue posed in the original post as unanswered. It seems to me that all of us feel the moral force of the proposal that a homosexual in a committed monogamous relationship is more morally opprobrious than a slave-owner. This seems to imply at least moral obtuseness on St Paul’s part because he condemned homosexuals and made no similar remarks about slave owners.
A response to Paul Hartigan's summary
I like summaries, and am grateful to Paul for his, though now, like others, I am feeling that discussions do move on. I feel slightly embarrassed at being quoted as saying something which I almost immediately had to qualify when given further information from Paul. Which raises an interesting point: does anybody change their position in the light of in-put from others on this site?
I did have a number of observations though:
1. I felt that the example of the slave-owner and the man in a committed monogamous homosexual relationship was in itself somewhat flawed, in that it did not take into account the need for historical reconstruction when comparing 21st century attitudes with 1st century practice.
2. I had previously wanted to respond to sBryan’s point about the imbalance between biblical references to men and women over homosexual practice, and this point is uncannily echoed in an article by Walter Wink: http://www.melwhite.org/biblesays.html
3. It has been said that the burden of proof is on the homosexual to prove their case, since the bible gives no positive examples of homosexuality. This may be so, but there are other approaches to the subject besides ‘examples’. The ministry of Jesus was precisely to people in all kinds of categories which had hitherto been regarded as religiously, socially and morally excluded. Eg the woman with the haemmorhaging - which is still taboo today even in some Christian circles, and regarded as a consequence of ‘the curse’. In this respect, an interesting book to read is “The Meaning in the Miracles”, Jeffrey John, Canterbury Press.
4. The issue cannot simply be ‘ring-fenced’ in the bible by an acceptance of biblical fallibility; it cuts across individual authors who might be said to be ‘fallible’ or prejudiced. The wider biblical picture goes back to issues of God’s design in creating man and woman/male and female as an expression of Himself. If the argument of ‘fallibility’ is used, the biblical texts become fallible in a much broader way than just relating to a few isloated statements on the subject.
5. ‘Love’ has been appealed to as a criterion for judging the acceptability or otherwise of homosexual relationships or practice. But whose definition of ‘love’ are we to use? As far as the bible is concerned, we might want to draw on a wide understanding of God’s character and principles as revealed through a diversity of literary references and narratives, before we decide what defines love. (For some today, showing ‘love’ means hopping in and out of bed on a frequent basis with a variety of people. This may not be how the bible tends to define love).
6. I am concerned that there is a leaning towards an understanding of the scriptures on the subject of homosexuality without any attempt to engage with revisionist interpretations. ‘Revisionist’ can be a negative term, eg when applied to recent historical accounts of Hitler, or the Holocaust. But in the case of the bible, revisionism is a serious, constructive attempt to engage with biblical data on the basis of current experience. And our theology needs to be a discussion between the bible and experience. We have an experiential faith, in which we relate to a God who speaks, and manifests Himself through His presence.
7. I am, finally, somewhat concerned that there does not seem to be too much of a conversation with homosexual people who have engaged with the biblical material - though I realise that Paul is doing that to an extent. The discussion has been of a fairly enlightened nature, but still somewhat one-sided, I think.
I have had to throw this together somewhat hastily through pressure of time, and am willing to be corrected if I have misinterpreted or misrepresented anyone or their arguments.
Read the article by Walter Wink
Peter, You have raised a number of interesting issues which I will respond to later. I have read the Walter Wink piece to which you give the link and I think it is extremely interesting and puts a whole new light on this discussion in particular
- selective obedience to the commands relating to sex in the scriptures
- the over-riding importance of love in interpreting scriptural commands about sex
I strongly urge all participants in the discussion to read it ( article by Walter Wink: http://www.melwhite.org/biblesays.html)Selective obedience to scriptural rules about sex
I have summarised below the article by Walter Wink on homosexuality and the bible. I encourage everyone to read it in full- the article is about 13 pages and the scriptural examples are spelled out in detail.
The article poses some important questions for participants in the OST debate.
The summary is as follows
THE BIBLE HAS NO SEXUAL ETHIC
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 that there could be 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 ETHIC
The 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.
Paul on slavery
While it is true Paul made no commentary on the institution of slavery, he did make comments on how individual slave owners should treat their slaves (I Timothy 6:2 is one such example). However, how this will help in our understanding of the homosexual issue eludes me.
I can think of one way it's related
I think it’s fair to say that even if the Bible allows for slavery, still the American form of slavery was not condoned. American slavery was motivated by greed, showed no respect for human life, was cruel, etc.
And — this may be a reach — even if at the end of the day homosexuality is a sin, it gives us no license to treat gays and lesbians as we have treated them.
Re: I can think of one way it's related
I haven’t been a victim of serious homophobia except from other Christians. What I mean is this. I think that most Christians who disagree with me try to love me, but they have a mental image in their head of my sexual behaviours that they find disgusting.
There is no doubt that the Christian Church has parts of it (American fundamentalism, for example) which deliberately stirs up irrational fear of Rainbow People and related issues. This is not a reach. :) It’s common sense, and very gracious.
Shalom in Jesus,
Rob
catalogues of sins vs the law of love
I have been puzzled for a long time now by something in the beginning of Romans 2 that has affected the way in which I read Romans 1. Paul says (2:1-4): “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance? “NIV
The abrupt and emphatic way in which he makes this accusation is puzzling unless Paul has been quoting something that the Romans had said to justify their condemnation of someone. Paul accuses them of being hypoctrites - doing the very same things themselves! The whole point of the passage is that we are not fit to judge others, it is only God who is righteous who can judge (v17-24).
Paul does not dispute the catalogue of sins but his whole point is that we are not fit to judge others, our job is to remove the motes in our own eyes. Then, of course, Paul proceeds to lay the foundation for his themes of justice and righteousness in the light of the law and in the light of God’s saving grace in Christ.
I feel that we do Paul a wrong when we then turn around and make much of the list of sins that he speaks of as illustrative of ungodly behaviour and even more so we are misusing the intent of his letter to the Romans if we are not sensitive to the possibility that he is addressing their attemts at theologizing and their attempts to reflect on what Christian ethics and a Christian lifestyle might entail.
I must admit though that I have not been able to find a single commentator who agreeswith my reading and believe me - a scholar I am not!
Live to serve : Serve to live
Ok, the conversation is old, but I really would like to comment
I know that this conversation is like a year old, but I found it interesting that no one seemed to consider the fact that perhaps homosexuality DOES NOT need to be (or actually isn’t) a part of a persons identity - in other words, as much as an alcoholic has a specific weakness for alcohol, so a homosexual has a weakness for same-sex attraction.
I realise that my comments are probably seen a little dumb in the context of this complex situation, but I don’t understand why homosexuality needs to be linked to a persons identity. I mean, I understand WHY it seems that this is the case (or why a homosexual may feel this way) because it perhaps seems more natural for a homosexual to be attracted to the same sex - but in the light of scripture (and the particular St Paul scriptures that were being discussed) it seems to be what God is saying is that our ORIGINAL DESIGN was man and female, and sin corrupted what was this original design and came up with an alternative nature - a ‘natural’ that is not the original design, but nevertheless instinctive. This is why it is ‘the sinful NATURE’- there’s no argument that sin feels natural, it certainly does!
As an example, I have a particular weakness with pornography that i’ve battled with for many years now and am finally seeing absolute freedom in this area (and, can I say, freedom didn’t come until I finally admitted that perhaps it WAS wrong and that I couldn’t justify it any more.)
Why this is an example is because it is perfectly natural for a man to look at a woman - in fact, it is perfectly natural for a man to go looking for sex and finding pictures of naked people doing all sorts of naughty things quite stimulating and satisfying for this need (in a sense.) Just because it’s natural, it doesn’t mean that the means in which I satisfy my sex drive is correct - and THIS is what the Bible is saying. The Bible does not condemn sexuality, it confirms that there is a natural need and that it may be natural for us to go fulfilling that need in certain ways - and some of those ways are actually both harmful and do not line up with ‘loving the Lord your God with all your heart and loving your neighbour as yourself.’
This is where I think I attempt to answer Andrew’s question over whether homosexual lifestyles should be allowed within the church or not (in light of the church representing the new creation-) and that is to adress Jesus’ commandment of ‘loving your neighbour as yourself.’ Well it may not be particularly loving the way some Christians have treated homosexuals - practising or unpractising - the reaction from homosexuals (in my view) has certainly been just as unloving and judgemental. At least in a lot of cases for sure.
One of my close friend’s Dad left his mom for a man, and is also a pastor at a church. This kind of situation for me brings up a few points :
(1) Was it loving for him to, despite his sexual struggles, to divorce his wife and leave her for another man? Baring in mind that leaving his wife also meant leaving his family.
(2) How loving is it for practising homosexuals to continue with their practise in the light of living in a community? In other words, the problem is causing division in the church - in the light of ‘seeking first his kingdom’ would it not be more loving for homosexuals to sacrifice their sexual orientation rather to ensure peace and unity amongst the church - and in so doing, are practising ‘unconditional love’ in a far greater way than what others may be doing to accept this practise? The same way that in certain situations a man may have to choose to be celibate for love of the greater community - even though celibacy may go against what he feels is ‘natural’ for him. Surely this is really a FAR BETTER expression of love? EVEN IF the interpretations of scripture are wrong, is not the law of love far more important?
I say point 2 above in a lot of seriousness, although I admit some practising homosexuals may be offended or think this is way too simple for a real deep issue. But as I said, I think the issue has nothing to do with identity. In all honesty, my problem with porn (as with most addictions) started off rather ‘innocently’ but gradually developed into an interest for some really illegal sorts of porn that I would rather not explain here. Clearly, I DID have a problem even though it seemed natural to be interested in this sort of thing. I’m not proud of it, but if I at any stage linked my identity into the kind of porn I was starting to have an interest in - would I still be a Christian today? No, because my identity would have stopped being ‘Christian’ and would have been replaced with ‘porn addict’ or ‘peadophile.’ I hope you can see my point in bringing up this (rather shameful) problem that I’ve had to deal with. I am a new creation in Christ - and, like in Romans 8, my problem with sin has NOTHING TO DO with my identity - my identity is now in Christ. My struggles with sin, even though sin does seem ‘natural’ for me to do (it is a part of my nature, because I have fallen short of God’s glory) is a seperate issue to my identity.
I love homosexuals - although I don’t know many - but I’m inclined not to link their identity in with whatever they are struggling with - just like I don’t believe I am a peaodophile in any way, but rather am a Christian struggling with a very high sex drive and very ‘natural’ interest in the sexual experience. These things are part of the way God created me - he may have created me with a very high sex drive, but he certainly didn’t INTEND for that to be misused, even if misuse seems natural. Sin seems very natural to me, the Bible admits this. What it doesn’t admit is that this nature was part of the original design, and it presents the solution in Christ to be restored back to the original design.
natural tendencies
I am not sure that this is in any way an answer but I may point out that you decided to deal with your problem as an individual and that is a very important point. Someone can tell me what they believe the bible to say, or simply say ‘this is right and that is wrong’ but in the light of the scriptures discussed above and particularly Romans, many seem to stop reading at the end of ch1 without following up with Paul’s specific teaching from Rom 2:1 that the condemnation is even worse!
As Paul repeatedly says, we should not misuse our freedom but there is a real struggle that each individual goes through to live righteously. In this specific context, if anything, the sins of heterosexuality are much more prevalent than those of a homosexual nature but little attention is spent on that. In fact, in contravention of Jesus’s very specific teaching, divorce is commonplace and justified by the same Xtians who find homosexuality so horrifyingly condemnable.
Live to serve : Serve to live