Jesus on Homosexuality
Nowhere in the New Testament do I find any reference to Jesus and homosexuality. Why I ask? I suspect it has to do with he being concieved, by divine plan, in the lowliest of stations in ancient Jewish culture that he was accepting of all persons, without exception.
As Our Creator accepts all of divine creation without exceptions, Jesus was conceived in this lowliest of states as Our Creator's living example of unconditional love for all, no matter their station in life. Moreover I believe Jesus could see into the hearts of all who came before him, and saw the love in their hearts. He understood that sexual orientation is a condition of birth, not a choice and thus accepted everyone where they were. Hence he did not, and could not, condemn anyone for being who they were by the nature of their birth.
- anElder's blog
- Login or register to post comments
NIV version from 1
NIV version from 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
This comes from Paul's teaching whom was called to serve by our Saviour, Jesus Christ. We are talk to hate the sin but love the sinner. This does not say anything about accepting a sinful nature as a new truth. It does show that you can be saved from this by accepting Christ as your Saviour and become washed (cleansed), sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
The King James Version only speaks of this in the following way within the same scriptures:
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
You must know that effeminate means: (of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.
To see the true translations you have to study from the Greek meaning and Jewish meaning and it still comes out to the same truth as listed above. Jesus did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it. Through His eternal sacrifice we are now under a new covenant and many of the rituals of the past (old testament) are put away. We can not continue to cling to things of the flesh which leads to death. When we seek and receive salvation we still have to battle against the principalities of this world because satan is a great deceiver. So, please, do not be deceived by your own desires but rely on everything that flows from the Holy Spirit.
God does not hate the homosexual. God hates the praticed sin. Those who are given over to sin can not inherit the kingdom of Heaven. You can not change your ways over night but through prayer and suffering many things can and will be conquered.
The bibile also says in the book of (KJV) Leviticus 18:
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 " 'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
You can argue the scripture and its intent all you desire. You can cling to your desires of the flesh as well. Because Paul told you in 1 Cor 6:
12"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[b] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
So, in closing, if you choose to sin, cling to the flesh, or create your own truths it is permissable but these things lead to death of the spirit. When your heart becomes hardened and reject the words of our Father and you cling to your own ways low is your fate.
May God be with you all.
The Authoritative Homosexual Interpretation?
Ugh... What am I doing here?? I promised myself, like others I would STOP writing in these forums because this issue usually divide, not build up. It also really affects my soul, being that I am a gay man.
But still, here I am!
Anyway, over the years I have been influenced by both sides of the issue. And both have things true, and some things false in my mind. So mind YOU, these are the conclusions that I have come to.
For the traditional side (the side that I grew up in, the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church): I agree with them that the Bible understands marriage as between a man and a woman. It affirms it. It says it. Trying to say something other than that is at least incorrect, if not deceiving one's self. It was not healthy for me to ignore this fact either because God knew my heart and knew I was trying to convince myself of something other than what the Bible says.
So is that the end of the matter? Well, no. The Bible affirms MANY types of marriages. When one person says the Bibles says this and that about marriage, one has to ask faithfully "which book says what?" The "one man one woman is the only blessing" fails when the great kings and leaders of the Jewish Bible had multiple wives. God blessed Abraham and his wives. Even Jesus' retort to the divorce argument does not leave out polygamy. Literally, he just says a woman leaves her home to be with her man. But, he doesn't say that can't happen with multiple women. In fact, where Jesus lived polygamy for certain people may not have been uncommon, but he doesn't condemn it. What about the Samaritan at the well? How many husbands did she have? Was the man she lived with her husband? Did Jesus spend his time reading her scripture about it and how terrible the choice she made was? Instead, he talks about how all these groups of people from all over will worship the one God. Presumably, including this woman. I am not arguing FOR living with a man or woman without a covenant here, but just stating the biblical facts. Yes Jesus does condemn the sin of adultery for the other woman caught in the act, but who wouldn't here? No one on either side of the debate is arguing for someone cheating on their spouse.
Well, then, the authortative argument comes from Paul then. But what is Paul's reasoning for getting married? To control our passions in a world out of control sex wise. While one can safely assume he knew children were the outcome of many marriages, his reasoning for marriage was for people to avoid prostitutes and other types of lustful passions that would not bring order to the Christian community. He even says in 1 Corinthians that he doesn't do this to put more burdens on them, but to create better order.
The "recreationist" side: The way this works is proving the 6 or 7 passages don't say anything about homosexuality. Its genes, or something out of our control, so it must be good and therefore blessed by God.
Major problems here! For one, even if the 6-7 passages don't say anything about homosexuality (which I don't think they do) does NOT mean God affirms it. IT means nothing then. We need to look elsewhere in Scripture for affirmation, and we don't find much of anything for homosexuals. There are arguments about the eunuchs, the centurion, etcetera, but those are HIGHLY debatable - and not looking very good for us gay people anyway. The bible says man and women (as I have said above how many for each, well, who knows....). I do believe the texts talk about same sex ACTS, not sexual orientation. And I agree with recreationists that the acts themselves are full of lust, rape, or harm and not discussing the issue at hand, but this still doesn't leave them with much solid ground to build their arguments for same-sex marriage.
The genes argument or any psychological argument for or against it is somewhat pointless in the sense that even if there were a gene for homosexuality, doesn't make homosexual sex moral. There are psychological disorders of other natures that cause people to do some horrible stuff. We know God doesn't bless such actions (being a psychopath is one such condition that comes to mind). While a homosexual may not choose their orientation, and trying to “change” it can be harmful and impossible, does not mean anything goes.
So where does this leave me? Well, confused in a way but determined to do what I believe God wills for me with what is given for me. I believe that God did intend for man and woman. I believe he meant that such unions are for life since by his nature he does not break his covenants with us we are to honor our commitments.
But, then what about divorce? Even with Jesus’ clear cut commands against it, with the exception of certain sexual situations only, we have discerned the heart of his teaching: that we are not perfect and try our best to live in God’s will with what we have. So even though some people break their commitments to their spouse, we try again. However, many people “try again” with a whole new spouse, which the bible gives no approval whatsoever. And before someone says, “it’s not that we are celebrating divorce here, but the new commitment between the two persons” I beg to differ. By the fact that you openly acknowledge the person(s) are divorced, and the two people being married are NOT the same two from the previous marriage, you are by default celebrating something the Bible never allows.
The reason why many churches do allow for divorce and remarriage is because of the understanding of grace and mercy. They understand how terrible divorce is. They understand that although we try to do our best, we fail. Sometimes we fail so bad that the original marriage can never be reconciled. The grace and mercy churches show to these people is giving them another chance to find that commitment and love with someone – even though the Bible is against such actions. A larger, more grace-filled understanding of the idea of marriage came out of our reading of scripture.
This is the grace and mercy that I hope and pray churches can give people like me who are in a committed relationship. I know that I would be worse off if I was celibate or living alone. God hasn’t given me that gift. And while I know my relationship is no “biblical marriage”, it IS something that is being blessed by God. I know it because daily I walk with Him, and he brings wonderful joys in my life for my partner and I that could only happen if both of them were in my life. Because both of us are men, it may or may not be what God intended for us, but he also knows I am trying my best. God probably did not intend for us to be born deaf, blind, missing limbs, having both sexual organs, retarded, or whatever else you can think of. But, we can and should all agree that what God looks for out of all these people is for them to do their best and to love God and our neighbor as ourselves.
So let’s learn to use this issue not as a way to separate from one another but to love one another even more fully.
God bless you ALL
Eric
Justin Martyr (mid-2nd c.)
As we look at the issue of marriage and sexuality in the Christian Testament, something to consider is how those coming right after the writing of the text. Justin Martyr was the "first Christian apologist," the first one to try to explain what Christianity was all about to outsiders. When writing about same-gender sex (I believe it was him btw), he mentioned that Christians do not do that. God had given human beings the power of sexuality for the purposes of procreation. To engage in a sex act that fulfilled personal desires rather than to fulfill the divinely appointed purpose of the act was to abuse the power (sin). Indeed, that is why Christians also did not engage in sex within the context of a marriage outside of the attempt to have children--to do so would be sinful.
Of course, later Augustine (4-5th c) would question this understanding. (I don't believe he was the first, btw.) He noticed that the purpose of procreation was to populate the earth. After looking around, it seemed pretty populated to him. If sex was for the purpose of procreation, which was for the purpose of population, and the population command had been fulfilled, then maybe it was now okay to have sex for fun, which perhaps made happy time no longer (or less?) sinful.
Just some thoughts about the "sinfulness" of sex and relationships from an historical perspective.
The stamp of Augustine
Bo,
Augustine has left perhaps the most lasting imprint on western Christianity. Born of Berber parents, his mother a Christain and his father a pagan, raised Catholic early on in his life he converted Manichaeism, which taught that life in this world is unbearably painful and radically evil.
As a youth he lead a life of extreme self-indulgnece. For 15 years, he lived with a concubine, Floria Aemlia, by whom he sired a son, Adeoatus. Living in Milan he was heavily influenced by the bishop of Milan, Ambrose. He moved away from his earlier beliefs, and at his mother's urging, converted to Christianity, at which point he abandoned Floria, sent her away but kept his son. After reading an account of the life of Saint Anthony of the Desert he underwent a profound personal crisis.
He gave up his teaching position in Milan, abandoned any thoughts about marriage and devoted himself entirely to serving God. Bishop Ambrose baptized him in 387, and while returning the next year to Africa his mother died and his son soon after. Thus he completely changed his original thinking and became a fierce advocate of his revised world view, became in essence a recovering addict to sex.
Essentially he taught that there is but one story; creation, fall and redemption, that man can not alone redeem himself and needs divine grace, as guided by the church, to come back to God.
His influence has direct application to the issue at hand. Besides teaching the concept of original sin, that Adams fall condemned all humankind, he taught that mankind is essentially controlled by rampant desires and that the only purpose of marriage is to bear children, that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. Thus homosexual relations, because they do not produce offspring, and occurs outside the bonds of matrimony, is sinful and thus to be condemned. I hope this helps.
Rich
Salvation is Key
I want to start by saying that I am open to the possibility that people are born homosexual. The Christian doctrine in general says that we are all born sinners. Certainly there are no levels of sin - homosexuality is as much of a sin as fornication which is as much of a sin as murder. So IF they are born with it, the sin they've been born with is no worse than any other.
But the key here is salvation. Once you accept Christ as your savior and allow Him to fully guide your life, there shouldn't be much need for speculation over the fact that He never said anything against it in any part of the New Testament. Many gay and transgendered people have become straight/non-transgendered because they put their complete trust in Christ and allowed Him to do the work. No gay person could force themselves to stop being gay out of their own attempt. They need to let God take control.
So does that make sense? There were many sins in my own life that I couldn't have forced myself to stop doing by myself. Christ did that for me and changed them as need be. That goes the same for anything else in life, including the debate over homosexuality. Bottom line is, no, He doesn't hate homosexuals. He loves them and wants them to come to Him. But people have to allow Him to do the work in their lives, and trust Him for the answers.
taking all posts into consideration
Well, now that sounds more linear, more complete and organized than what really happened. What really happened was I read and thought on and studied on all the posts thus far, then scrambled them up and dumped them all in a pile for me to pick and choose from. But since I don't seem to be picking and choosing very well, I guess it doesn't matter all that much.
And as it turns out, my thoughts here were way too long for a reply, so I dropped it in as a blog post and would really love y'all going to see it and tell me if my theology is messed up or what. This has never seemed like that hard a question to me, so obviously I'm doing something wrong somewhere.
One thing I do want to share is this profile of Bishop Gene Robinson done by GQ. Bishop Robinson is one of the most godly men I think I've ever met. Also one of the most fun. For those who don't know, Robinson isn't just a homosexual, he is THE homosexual. The one that set off the divisions in the Anglican Church, although the split has been there since women's ordination more than 20 years ago. (That's my opinion anyway.)
I think we would have denied a powerful voice for God if we had pushed Gene Robinson away because of his sexual orientation.
A good pick from the pile
Janet,
I'm so glad you've joined in the discussion. The wisdom of your good mind and great heart shines thru everything you offer.
I agree that Bishop Robinson is a living example of how Our Creator continues to show how one person can still, under the greatest of duress, demonstrate Our Creators unconditional love for all humanity.
Bless him on his path, may he continue to be a wayshower in this modern age.
Rich
Further from the Truth
I agree that God's love reaches beyond our earthly scopes of understanding. After all, look how many times he forgave David for his sinfulness and how he both punished and blessed him. David, just like Robinson, sinned against the desires of God but Davis repented of his ways and glorified in the presence of God.
It is a complex issue but one that must be confirmed. Homosexuals are all loved by the Father but homosexuality remains a sin. If you are a practicing homosexual (in which Robinson is) you have no place in the pulpit. But if you repent and obtain and let the Holy Spirit cleanse you through you acceptance of Christ as your Saviour all of this will be a mute point.
I beg that you all do not give into sinfulness and these things of the flesh. I beg most of all that you do not give over to your own understanding but rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance.
In the name of our Lord and Saviour
wacky position
In today's day and age this is frankly a wacky position, not to mention the fact it judges the people here as if we're somehow not paying attention to the Holy Spirit on this issue. Who are you to tell me I'm not relying on the Holy Spirit when I support the full equality of gay and lesbian brothers and sisters? We have multiple sound theological and political arguments that have been offered to support full equality.
We've heard a few comments within this discussion that suggest that if people just turn themselves over to God, they will somehow "ungay" themselves or rather that God will "ungay" them. This is ridiculous given what we know about the nature of homosexuality. This isn't a choice that people make, this is something that they are. Most gay Christians I know have already turned themselves over to God and have made their peace with the Lord and their sexual orientation.
Since you brought up David, you might want to go back and read your Bible. It should be noted that nowhere does God condemn his multiple wives and concubines, but rather only condemns David's treachery of ensuring Uria was killed after David slept with his wife Bathsheba. Lest we think the spurn of such evil was condemned by his parents actions...their child: the Great King Solomon.
Reading the Bible
Steve wrote, "Since you brought up David, you might want to go back and read your Bible. It should be noted that nowhere does God condemn his multiple wives and concubines, but rather only condemns David's treachery of ensuring Uria was killed after David slept with his wife Bathsheba. Lest we think the spurn of such evil was condemned by his parents actions...their child: the Great King Solomon."
I hate to be a stickler with scriptures, but the Law of Moses established in Deuteronomy 17: 17 regarding kings and multiple wives, "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray."
I've often wondered how David and Bathsheba escaped the full consequences of the law regarding adultery...capital punishment...since even the king was not above the Law of Moses. Finally, the child conceived in their adulterous affair died shortly after birth...Solomon came along later.
familiar with Deuteronomy
Gary,
Couple of points:
I'm familiar with the Deuteronomy passage. I think you need to read the verse before and after to get the whole point of the passage. Its about the King not being excessive.
Deuteronomy 17:16 "The king, moreover must not acquire multiple horses for himself, or make the people return to Egypt for more of them."
The next line in Deuteronomy 17:17 "He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold."
This isn't saying a king couldn't have more than one wife, as many of the early wealthy Hebrews did, its telling them not to be excessive in taking many wives, just as its saying not to be excessive with monetary wealth. Furthermore, if it was actually a law, we should hear about it in Leviticus, in particular Leviticus 18 which describes sexual sin. There is silence on the issue.
Furthermore, there are plenty of opportunities in 2 Samuel in which if God was condemning multiple wives and concubines of David (which I believe ultimately that he does), it didn't make its way into the pages of the Bible. Its important to note he only condemns the unjust killing of Uria. Indeed, David gets more wives as a plunder of war and we hear nothing.
All this to say, it important to note that cultural and social mores have changed over time and norms that we would find repugnant today, are actually not adequately addressed in the Bible for modern standards of moral conduct. Thankfully our moral standards have changed, which has changed our interpretation of the Bible.
This was in response to the comments that there is one Bible interpretation and that is the truth. Old testament law allowed for multiple wives but called for the stoning of homosexuals. Does God's truth change? No, but our interpretation of that truth does and often our understanding changes as a result of extra-Biblical information such as science and philosopy.
LOL
>>I beg that you all do not give into sinfulness and these things of the flesh.<<
Whatever...
Distilled
Very good points have been made throughout this discussion, but at last resort I have to distill this down to the critical points (For me)
"Love God with all of your heart, soul, mind and understanding...Love your neighbor as yourself"
and
"...let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God."
I was very much against homesexuality for most of my life. That all began to change when I somehow developed a close friendship with a gay man; one of the most spiritual and dedicated men I had ever met. His love of God was irrefutable. His devotion to his partner was admirable. His willingness to give of himself to those less fortunate was exemplary.
I finally worked up the courage to ask him some (as I introduced them) "stupid straight guy questions".
As we talked, some questions began to grow in my own mind. "Who am I to refute the love that he feels for his partner and for his God? If love is truly of God, could it be that God has ordained this? Who am I to limit God or God's love to the words in a musty old book? Is God not bigger than than a 2000 year-old understanding of Him?"
I must admit that I do not know the full mind of God on the issue of homosexuality. And I may be wrong to defend the rights of my SGL brothers and sisters. IF I am to be wrong, however; I would rather err on the side of love without condition than intolerance born of either ignorance, predjudice or literalism.
God Loves Everyone
Rev. Roger wrote, "Who am I to refute the love that he feels for his partner and for his God? If love is truly of God, could it be that God has ordained this? Who am I to limit God or God's love to the words in a musty old book? Is God not bigger than than a 2000 year-old understanding of Him?"
Rev. Roger, in my opinion, you are offering a stronger theological position to argue gay rights from than the proposals we have been entertaining. However, I wonder, why should anyone feel the need to refute someone else's love? I also wonder, would the book in question be so musty if it were opened and had its pages turned more often? Of course God is bigger than all traditional and contemporary views of Him. So, where are the authorities?
Rev. Roger wrote, "If I am to be wrong, however; I would rather err on the side of love without condition than intolerance born of either ignorance, prejudice or literalism.
Gosh, is love without condition or intolerance our only two choices here? Do you think that advocating exclusively for the Biblical and traditional view of marriage is ignorant, prejudiced, or solely conformed to literalism?
If I understand
Gary,
I hope I did understand your comments.
If you are in the frame of mind I think you are then I am in agreement. If I err I would prefer to err in the word of the Lord. In other words I know that I can still love the sinner but I refuse to accept or embrace the sin. The sun shines on the righteous and unrighteous. Does not the wicked love their own? So, for a homosexual to love a homosexual partner in the way a man loves his wife does not make the relationship right or sanction under the Holy Spirit.
It is unfortunate that a Rev, Bishop, Priest, or whoever would give into their liberal (modernalizational) views and find that any sin is acceptable. Love your neighbor as you love yourself but do not get this confused with loving sin.
More solid theological grounds
Gary,
As we seem to have a real difference of opinion re: Jesus' position on homesexuality, I return to my original thought, that He was, by divine intent, born under the lowliest of conditions in order to show the world Our Creators unconditioal love for humanity, all of humanity, no exceptions. Jesus was then sent here to be, and continues to be now, the living example of Our Creators complete unrestricted love for us all.
What I read from the other comments, I think we have agreement there.
I'll ask you this straight forwardly, does Our Creator/God continue to speak to us today? If so, can it be that all that we have been learning about the nature of human sexuality, beyond that which we read in the Bible, is simply the details of the Divine Plan now being revealed at at time when the minds of humanity are only now capable of hearing, understanding and accepting these more complicated details? Is this not Our Creator/God simply continuing the dialogue with we, His creation?
Peace,
Rich
An expanation
Perhaps I should explain myself a bit here.
In writing my response, I was somewhat pressed for time so I fell back on one of my favorite methods of making a point; that of hyperbole. I actually logged back in tonight to finish it, or explain it because it was a bit extreme
I do not presume that all who have a differing opinion on this subject (or any other, for that matter) are bound by intolerance, prdjudice or literalism. I used that blanket "black and white" comparison to make a point.
I know that many good, loving, honest and Godly people come down on the other side of the fence than I. I know that because I myself lived on the other side of this particular fence for many years. I know the struggle that I went through, so I will not discount the honesty and sincerity of those who struggle with the issue, from either side of the fence.
As far as the "musty old book" comment, there again was hyperbole. The thought that I sought to express in that, was that we often seek to limit the living God to the knowledge contained in the words of a series of books written 1900 years ago, and made canon 1500 years ago.
Gary asked "Where are the authorities?" My cynical (and tired) side says "I wish I knew". What we have is the knowledge of God as handed down to us by our forebears. We have the whole body of scripture to draw from, not the odd verse here or there, but the whole body of scripture. We have the writings and commentaries of those who came before. We also have this community, and others like it that, wrestle with it all; that seek to understand God's revelations of Godself to us in community. It's not easy. Far from it. I wish it were so simple as picking a verse to defend on any given subject. Truthfully, I wish there were writing on the wall. (although I realize that I would often doubt that too). Instead, though, we are called to honestly and earnestly seek God's face. It is our responsibility to work it out "with fear and trembling". Perhaps it is often our responsibility to pray (as I have to remind myself to pray) "If I am wrong, set me aright".
Gary wrote "Gosh, is love without condition or intolerance our only two choices here?"
No Gary, they are not. They are just a couple of the extreme ones. As long as people (like us, I hope) are willing to explore, to seek, and to learn from one another, even from those much different from ourselves, we will not be reduced to living the extreme, but can marvel together at the majesty of God and the wonders of God's diverse creation.
Slippery and Dangerous Slope?
Steve wrote, "In defense of where I think Rich was going with this, for those of us that are not in a fundamentalist or literalist worldview, suggesting that Jesus affirms committed, loving gay relationships is not a bad starting point for the discussion."
Firstly, I believe in the fundamentals of Christianity, but I am not a fundamentalist, nor do I hold a literalist world view. Secondly, if your starting point is non-negotiable, then there is no debate on this matter. However, I think the greater burden of proof is still upon the proponents of change rather than those who take the status quo position.
Steve wrote, "I know your arguments have the very best intentions, but they lead us down a very slippery, dangerous slope." And, "I guess I am troubled about where your counsel leads us in terms of both the individual and for our public policy."
Steve, it would never be my intention to lead anyone down a slippery or dangerous slope. I have simply tried to amplify that Jesus was on record regarding the definition of marriage and we have no basis for thinking He thought otherwise.
You ask,"... for the individual who is gay...what is your spiritual advice to them?"
Steve, I have counseled with gays on several occasions. I tell them the same thing I tell everyone...come to Jesus. He accepts you as you are. Then, do whatever He tells you to do. I have a pretty simple theology actually. Of course there's more to it than that, but actual counsel is case specific and confidential. We have never denied communion, membership or fellowship to any gays that have attended our church.
You ask, "And what´s your advice in terms of public policy?"
My feeling is every state should continue deciding legislatively what constitutes marriage...as always. This should be based on whatever criteria they so determine.
How does my counsel to individuals and my endorsement of longstanding policy of states rights add up to danger? Some states have already adopted civil union laws that offer a legal and equitable arrangement for gay partners. I believe this is an acceptable approach and answers every concern about legal rights related to property ownership, custody matters, and of course visitation of the sick,insurance, etc.
We now have two states performing gay marriages. Churches still have the right to decide for themselves if they want to perform gay marriages. Meanwhile, we have had churches for decades that are predominantly gay and have performed marriages and continue to do so in states that don't sanction it. I'm good with all that.
Whoops...it looks like I didn't get my reply under Steve's. I don't know how to delete and replace this post. Sorry.
theological starting point
I guess i'm fine if we land in the same place in terms of public polcy prescriptions and how we treat others, even if the theology is quite different. That being said, there are some important differences.
You had said that the better theological starting point on this issue was Jesus's concern for the oppressed as that may trump what you view to be the "Biblical" stance on homosexuality. I actually think there's still quite a bit of judgment though with your theological stance. You are saying that you think its between the person and God, but that you still think the person is living in sin. Try as you might, there's still judgment based on your view of homosexuality, which seems to be quite literalist in this respect.
I think Rich's and Janet's starting point is actually much more affirming. Its saying God loves you as God made you. If you are willing to commit your life to someone you love before God, God honors that commitment. Its probably impossible to be a literalist or fundamentalist and hold this theological point of view. In that case your fallback option would be what you propose. However, if you are not a literalist or fundamentalist on homosexuality, it really opens the door to Jesus's radical love and inclusiveness. If you allow the science to enter into the equation, it opens the possibility that God did in fact make people who are gay and affirms committed gay relationships of love just as God does of heterosexual relationships.
I would also say though Gary, that much of what you have proposed in terms of choosing to highlight sociological over the biological roots of homosexuality and in fact even the claim that homosexuality is a sin are points that we have heard from the Religious Right for decades. I know you don't say them in the same spirit, but I wonder why they even need to be brought up. For example, by arguing the sociological view, you affirm the view that gay people can somehow be turned away from their feelings if they only accept Jesus. The biological basis for homosexual orientation is pretty solid. For some folks there may be some sociological factors at work, but its a biological phenomenon. We've seen these kind of insidious programs grow over the last decade over compassion, but really at the end of the day only offering judgment and encouraging folks to deny who they really are. If you are offering counsel to someone who is gay and you say come to Jesus there's a presumption that he or she isn't already there, already saved or however you want to say it.
I would say a lot of gay folk I know have already come to Jesus and made their peace with their faith and their sexual orientation. As Janet says, God don't make mistakes. He has created us in his image whether we be gay or straight, black or white, man or woman, Asian or Latino, and whatever else that represents the fullness of human diversity. The true root of Jesus's message embodies this radically inclusive love. God affirms his love for all his children, no matter how we are made. That's the theology with which I think is our starting point.
Sad fact
I only will point in the conclusion or your final statement:
"you are offering counsel to someone who is gay and you say come to Jesus there's a presumption that he or she isn't already there, already saved or however you want to say it.
I would say a lot of gay folk I know have already come to Jesus and made their peace with their faith and their sexual orientation. As Janet says, God don't make mistakes. He has created us in his image whether we be gay or straight, black or white, man or woman, Asian or Latino, and whatever else that represents the fullness of human diversity. The true root of Jesus's message embodies this radically inclusive love. God affirms his love for all his children, no matter how we are made. That's the theology with which I think is our starting point."
Be that it may, people hearts get so hardened against the truth that they deny God's word and try to create their own truths. It is easier to come to grips what you believe is an accepted practice than it is to hunger and thirst after righteousness. No sin outweighs another in my opinion. God's love never ceases as well. We just fail because we try to find truth in lies when their is no justification or truth to be found instead of praying, suffering and relying of the Holy Spirit we rely upon our own selfish thoughts and desires.
the only hardened heart seems to be your own
The only hardened heart here seems to be you own. Your willingness to condemn a loving homosexual couple as sinning seems to be fairly heartless. You may think that's what is correct theologically, but when it comes down to dealing with real people, such a stance doesn't work at all. Saying God loves you, but oh by the way you sinning and selfish for being how God made you is just heartless to me.
There's nothing selfish about homosexuals wanting the equal rights that heterosexuals have.
Does God Make Some Folks Homosexual?
Steve, you persist in making statements like, "Saying God loves you, but oh by the way you are sinning and selfish for being how God made you is just heartless to me."
Do you literally believe God makes some people homosexual? Do you believe God makes some people to be born blind, or to be exceptionally intelligent, or to be male or female, or black, or blue eyed, or without legs, or Siamese twins, or autistic, or left handed, or pre-disposed to have MS etc.?
Do you literally believe God is hand crafting every baby in the womb or is it just homosexuals? I have clearly stated my opinion regarding human reproduction and God's non-role in it...what is yours?
Given that most gays folks will tell you that they would have never chosen to be gay, why do you think it is not heartless to tell them that God made them this way?
Steve wrote, "There's nothing selfish about homosexuals wanting the equal rights that heterosexuals have."
Terminology and definitions are often arena specific. I think of sports in this way. For instance, scoring a touchdown in football is one way to score...hitting a home run in baseball is one way of scoring there. You would never use either term out of the context of the appropriately related sport. A biblical marriage is an exclusively heterosexual arrangement with a few variations in numbers of wives, but still always heterosexual.
Gay couples can be lovingly committed emotionally while entering civil unions that provide the same basic contractual rights enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Heterosexual couples can likewise enter into civil contracts without calling it marriage and there is also common law marriage. Why is it so important for gay marriage to be on the books when a civil union or other contracts can provide the same basic benefits?
Marriage is the standard
First yes, I believe homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon and I think the science backs that position completely. Furthermore, just talking to a few gay people leaves us with an understanding that this has always been within them and its the natural way for them as its natural for you and I to fall in love and be attracted to women. Its not clear to me why you seem to be denying and not recognizing this fact.
I'm not smart enough to say how God is involved in breathing a soul into people and what the interchange with the biology. I just know that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon. But I do believe God is absolutely fine with his creation and we are all part of that.
As for the issue of gay marriage vs. civil unions. I have wavered on this in the past, but i now would call for full equality. If the state is going to use marriage as the standard for couples, than homosexuals should not be forced to fall short of that standard. The civil union argument only works if all of us, heterosexual and homosexual are subject to civil unions from the state and marriage from the church. Furthermore, if marriage is an institution of both state and church, the state should not tell churches that they can not marry homosexual couples.
I Second Steve
Why not marriage? If any organized faith refuses to sanctify a marriage that should not automatically translate into secular government doing the same.
And yes, I do believe that God creates certain folks gay.
Sad fact
I only will point in the conclusion or your final statement:
"you are offering counsel to someone who is gay and you say come to Jesus there's a presumption that he or she isn't already there, already saved or however you want to say it.
I would say a lot of gay folk I know have already come to Jesus and made their peace with their faith and their sexual orientation. As Janet says, God don't make mistakes. He has created us in his image whether we be gay or straight, black or white, man or woman, Asian or Latino, and whatever else that represents the fullness of human diversity. The true root of Jesus's message embodies this radically inclusive love. God affirms his love for all his children, no matter how we are made. That's the theology with which I think is our starting point."
Be that it may, people hearts get so hardened against the truth that they deny God's word and try to create their own truths. It is easier to come to grips what you believe is an accepted practice than it is to hunger and thirst after righteousness. No sin outweighs another in my opinion. God's love never ceases as well. We just fail because we try to find truth in lies when their is no justification or truth to be found instead of praying, suffering and relying of the Holy Spirit we rely upon our own selfish thoughts and desires.
Vance Summation
Whew! How in the world did I fall into this? I wasn't going to respond at all to Rich's post. He started his piece strongly by aligning Jesus with the lowly through His birth. He clearly presented the biblical idea that Jesus loved and received everyone. I felt that he lost traction theologically and scientifically when he said, "He understood that sexual orientation is a condition of birth, not a choice..."
Then I simply tried to tweak his thinking when I said, "Of course Jesus would never condemn someone because of anything related to their birth. This is a wonderful and Biblical truth. The strength of your conclusion is weakened by the fact that there is no way to substantiate your presumption that Jesus shared your view on human sexuality and love." And I said, "I feel your theological support of homosexuality is weakened by taking this particular tact."
I still stand by these points. I puzzle over how my good post modernists friends arrive at the same position as pro-life fundamentalists on the issue of God's role in the formation of humans. I differ with the fundamentalists whom you have aligned yourself with when you and they contend that whatever we are at birth is how God made us in the womb and intended us to be. Kind of messes with the common notion that a fetus is just so much impersonal tissue.
My theological perspective is that God does not personally hand craft people. I think He created living things with the ability to reproduce. It is my understanding, based on observation and experience, that men and women having sex are generally what creates people and so endows them with particular genetic traits and pre-dispositions. The Biblical design for this is generally within a marriage.
Babies are created with certain quirks, qualities, talents, imperfections, bents and sometimes diseased or malformed bodies. I don't think it is a theologically sound, scientifically based, or remotely compassionate idea that says "This is how God made me." I believe it would be more factual to say, "I am a product of my parent's sex life" (hard to picture, huh?). Then we could go on and talk about environmental dynamics that factor into us in so many overlapping ways, woven into the complex fabric comprising our personal identity and yes even our sexual identity.
Who actually holds the most informed position here? It is odd to me that we disagree on this one. You would think that I would be the proponent for the fundamentalist view point instead of you. Why would a post modernist even use expressions like, "This is how God made me?" It just seems to be inconsistent. I would no more tell a gay person that than I would the new parents of a Down Syndrome baby. Where is the consistency in your reasoning?
I have suggested that there are stronger positions for you to take in gay advocacy than trying to divine what Jesus may or may not have thought on this or any subject where there is no record of Him speaking. Taking the tact of Jesus showing mercy to the outcast or arguing from the universalist position of Love being the ultimate measure are both stronger positions for you to take.
From my vantage point, the issue is essentially about what constitutes sexual purity in the judgment of God and this is another point where we differ. You seem to be saying that marriage is not necessary for the covering and sanctification of sexual expression...just love and commitment. Why should anyone bother with the encumbrance of a legal marriage?
I have also argued that human sexuality is complex and has not been fully figured out or explained by our conflicted social scientists. Rich used a wikipedia citation to affirm this perspective.
I have duly pointed out that the Bible makes all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage a sin regardless of one's orientation. How is that prejudicial? The Bible doesn't say that being homosexual is a sin any more than being a heterosexual is a sin. It informs us that all "sexual activity" outside of heterosexual marriage is a sin. You can call that judgmental, but it is even handed. Again, I tell gays and straights the same thing. The Bible offers three choices on this...heterosexual married sex, celibacy, or sin. Sexual purity is a hard line to follow for us all.
I also teach that God's mercy endures forever and that there is no way for anyone to become a Christian apart from God's mercy and grace and faith in Jesus. I would be remiss as a minister of the Gospel to teach anything else.
Do I believe in the radical inclusion of love? Absolutely...I have already said that...come to Jesus, He accepts you as you are and do whatever He says. That is not to imply that Jesus will change anyone's sexual orientation or that He won't. I do not try to consign anyone into hell because of their sexual propensity...I don't spend much time wondering who is what or doing what with whom...I do wonder why people feel the need to say "I'm gay or straight or bi or tri or whatever." I don't think preachers are supposed to be the sex police. I see sexual expression as a very private and personal dimension of life.
Are we done?
couple of sticking points
Gary,
I guess we're done...I think its been a very good conversation. I think we see though that there are very real theological differences, even if we end up at the same place.
There's one particular issue though in the last statements that irked me. I don't think Janet, Rich or myself is any way holds the fundamentalist point of view by saying that homosexuality is largely a biological phenomenon, well within the natural order of things, demonstrated throughout the animal kingdom and throughout human history. Please don't equate us with pro-life fundamentalists. We're not saying that people don't make choices or have free will, we are just stating what science and our experience affirms, being gay is not some kind of social disorder, its largely a biological phenomenon. Acceptance of differences is not fundamentalist, its progressive.
The fundamentalist or literalist worldview is to hold on to a couple of passages of scripture without contextualizing those passages within the historical and cultural mores of their day. Holding onto those passages, the claim is made that homosexuality is sin. The pushing of a sociological root for homosexuality to the exclusion of the biology we know to be at work, supports the fundamentalist view because it implies that gay people have chosen their lot and can un-choose to be with God.
This is wrong! It ostracizes gay people and in no way supports Jesus's inclusive love about which we are all in agreement. Its very difficult for me to see how your counsel of three choices: "heterosexual marriage, celibacy, or sin" in any way affirms the fact that the person was born gay....this is more than a disposition in most cases Gary. You are essentially saying if you want to walk with God and you are gay, you will need to choose celibacy. So again, your theological worldview is quite different and is in fact literalist, if not fundamentalist on the gay issue. To me, there's little that is radically inclusive about such counsel. With all due respect because I love my brother Gary and there are few I know that have a closer relationship with the Lord, I do think you have a real blindspot here.
What is radically inclusive is a more progressive theology that starts with God acceptance of differences, including the fact that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. If we start at Rich's point that Jesus's love implies his understanding of homosexuality and its roots, we can see how the believer can walk hand in hand with Jesus, and be at peace with her faith and her sexual orientation. This theological view would allow for acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters and allow us to honor their commitments through supporting not only their legal right to marriage, but also their spiritual convenant before God, just as we would honor hetersexual marriage.
While you are right to point out Gary that this progress has been slow, there has been progress within the church and the state on this issue. It may one step forward and two steps back for awhile but as King said the long arc of history bends towards justice. Slowly but surely acceptance of gays is happening and largely because a more progressive theology has opened up the space to allow Jesus's love to come in and work. Indeed, even folks who are more fundamentalist have started to come around as a younger generation of evangelicals seem much more tolerant and accepting. There's still a lot of work to be done, but I'm glad things are moving toward a more progressive theological understanding on the gay issue, because as we seen during this conversation the fundamentalist view does not allow for true acceptance and affirmation of homosexuals.
Using the F Word
Steve wrote, "I don't think Janet, Rich or myself in any way holds the fundamentalist point of view by saying that homosexuality is largely a biological phenomenon, well within the natural order of things, demonstrated throughout the animal kingdom and throughout human history. Please don't equate us with pro-life fundamentalists."
Steve says, "I'm a fundamentalist? No way! You're a fundamentalist!" Gary says, "Me? No way...You're the fundamentalist!" What is gained in our conversation by throwing around the F word and all the negative connotations that go with it? Can't we just respectfully accept one another as Christians and allow for the fact that sometimes all of us find some aspect of our views falling into a literalist or more fundamentalist category? Is that a blind spot?
Take for instance, the idea that God loves everyone...that is a fundamentalist position based on a literalist reading. The idea that Jesus accepts people as they are is a fundamental position based on a literal reading. It is the fundamental and literal reading of the Bible that produces our common understanding and prizing of the Greatest Commandments of love. Walking in humility, mercy and justice are fundamental ideas supported by literalism. The Golden Rule is taken literally by us all. The idea of marriage being a heterosexual institution is a fundamental idea gleaned from a literal reading of the Bible. So we disagree on that one. We still hold way more in common in the realm of accepting fundamental ideas based on literally reading and believing the Bible than we disagree on. What does that make us? Christians!
Steve, it stings a little when one considers themselves to be exclusively progressive and then someone points out that they hold a fundamentalist view on some "negative" point. The fact is, when you guys keep putting forth the idea that God is handcrafting people in the womb, you are perfectly aligned with fundamentalist pro-lifers on one of their key points. You certainly take it in a different direction than they do, but your foundational starting point is the same. If you want to disassociate yourselves from the fundamentalist on this part of your image, then quit advocating the idea that God makes individual people gay, straight, black, white, or any other biological constitution. Just simply leave it with the idea that these are natural biological developments and then argue for gay rights from that perceived scientific perspective.
Steve wrote, "The pushing of a sociological root for homosexuality to the exclusion of the biology we know to be at work, supports the fundamentalist view because it implies that gay people have chosen their lot and can un-choose to be with God."
Steve, I am sorry that you seem to have missed the point that I have repeatedly tried to make regarding the varied contributing factors in the determination of sexual orientation. I have not intended to imply that gays choose or can un-choose their attractions. I acknowledge that science is studying the biological connection and indicators do point to that field of study as showing promise for greater understanding. I am carefully wording these statements to be reflective of where science is currently at rather than trying to conform to what might be viewed as politically correct. I am not disputing current findings nor am I running ahead and saying it is already established with the concrete conclusions that many of you advocate. As Rich and David have pointed out, the scientific jury is still out on this one.
Theologically, in my opinion, you guys don't offer a well supported position by putting words in Jesus mouth where He has not spoken and it gets weaker if you put words in His mouth that are contrary to what He has spoken. You have more supportable biblical and theological angles to choose from. I have suggested some for your consideration as you seek to make a stronger case for gay rights.
Peace through Jesus!
you have the last word
Gary...last word is yours...i think we can agree to disagree on the stronger theological arguments for inclusion of gays in our society and within our Christian communities and churches.
Last Word? Forgiveness
It has been a lively discussion all the way around. Fear and trepidation generally keep me from entering conversations on this issue. It is a sensitive issue for us all because of our living and deceased gay friends and family.
Actually, I regret responding to Rich's post as I feel like some feelings have been hurt and I would like to take this opportunity to do something that Rich has been advocating...To ask your forgiveness...all of you.
I argued once with my dearest pastor about some issue that we differed on. I'll never forget that when we got through, he prayed, "Lord, please don't let me be so bull-dogmatic that You can't change me."
That is my prayer today.
Forgiveness or just acceptence? And a membership poll.
Gary my brother,
I see no need for you to ask for forgiveness. You have made your points quite well and with an open heart and open mind. Let us simply accept where the others may be and go forth in a spirit of Christain love and acceptance.
I knew well the pot I was stirring when I raised the whole issue. In light of the same-sex marriage initiatives being forwarded on the state level all over our nation, I wanted to how this progressive Christian organization would respond to the issue.
Thankfully my friend we are able to discuss such an emotionally hot topic in a spirit of grace. We have all amply demonstrated that we can agree to disagree agreeably. I honor your well taken positions, you have advanced my knowledge, for which I thank you, of what I acknowledge to be, for me, a third person perspective. To me this is an issue of civil rights.
A request of the community as a whole.
I could continue the dialogue with more thoughts but have come to a place where I think we need a time out. I now ask the community as a whole; where do we go with this issue, if anywhere and what do we do, if anything? The issue of same-sex marriages has been placed front and center by two state courts and is now being addressed in state level initiatives, all of them IMO are restrictive in nature. The outfall of the public debate could have serious repercusions on the overall electoral process, some of it to the detriment of the progressive agenda I see advanced here on many topics.
As a Christian organization, advancing a progressive agenda, I ask should we weight in on the matter, and if so, how?
Our options are many, including a white paper, a press release, or simply presenting facts here that our members can use individually however they are guided. Do you see others?
This is a formal personal request from me, a member of the CL leadership team, to our community as a whole. I personally strongly feel the need to take an action. I speak for myself here, not for the Board. It is an issue of such import to me that I decided to take a leadership role here and prompt an open discussion. I take full responsibility for the consequences of the pot stirring actions I have taken. If we lose anyone due to these actions then it should be me who asks for forgiveness.
In the spirit of peace,
Rich
Thank you Gary, Rich and all for discussion
Thank you Gary, Rich, Stephen and all for the discussion. I, for one, enjoyed reading the many different views on the subject. Gary, I appreciate the efforts you made to present your views and be civil. You're right that there is often fear and trepidation when discussing homosexuality. I'm only speaking for myself, but it seemed to me at least that the discussions I've read on this particular post were kept on an intellectual plane.
Theological founding stones
Steve,
Well said. Truly Our Creator/God created us to be who we are, and thus accepts us as we are, as Janet said He don't make no junk.
So can we begin by saying that;
it was Our Creator/God's divine plan that Jesus be born the lowliest of the low, not be able to look down on any other human, and thus have perfect compassion for all others,
Jesus was then created to be, and is, the living example of Our Creator/God's benevolent unconditional love for all of creation,
as such Jesus then would welcome the homosexual and bless them, along with all others,
if we sin i.e. make an error in judgment, then we have in Jesus the perfect redeemer.
Are these good foundation stones?
What sayth all thou ya'll?
Rich
A Resource
This is an excellent book on the topic:
Kathy Rudy, Sex and the Church: Gender, Homosexuality, and the Transformation of Christian Ethics
Thank you, indeed an excellent resource
Bo,
Thank you. I just read the editorial reviews. I'll now order a copy.
As I am coming from a third person perspective, I am thus limited in my personal experience with and thus understanding of the views of the gay and lesbian community. I've interracted with many gay men thru my work in the international mens movement. I find I still have much to learn. I do, though have a profound basic respect for their very human views, needs and aspirations.
I only raise the issue here as I see it as being a hugely important ethical question, one of vast human tragic proportions, for this community of progressive Christians to address. How shall we, if at all, address the issue and it's many ramifications?
Rich
a couple of questions
Gary and Rich,
1. Let's imagine that a "gay gene" is discovered. Would such a discovery necessitate that homosexuality is part of God's plan and that it would be acceptable in his eyes?
What if homosexual tendencies involve a combination of factors, some genetic and some psychological in nature?
I believe this is probably more likely, and I also believe that even if homosexuality was shown conclusively to be strictly genetic in nature that God could have set a different standard.
It seems to me that there are other psychological/genetic conditions that motivate people toward behaviors that lie outside of God's perfect plan according to the Bible. I'm thinking of obesity, kleptomania, alcoholism, and other conditions that influence people to act in ways that the Bible seems to me to suggest are in opposition to God's perfect will.
We may one day discover that there is a genetic component to a person's inability to remain monogamous. That doesn't mean that God does not intend for us to remain faithful to one person in a marriage.
2. I believe that I can hold this belief about the nature of homosexual relationships in God's eyes and still be a proponent of GLBT rights just as I can be a proponent of the rights of adherents to other faiths, no faith and those who identify themselves as Christians but believe differently than I do.
What do you all think?
David
Theories of about the origins of homosexuality
David,
Good obervations. I have been doing some on-line research. There is a 23 page article on Homosexuality on Wikipedia.
Re: your 1st point. In the section titled Theories of casuality, we read that in 1993 a researcher named Dean Hamer discovered the genetic marker Xq28 on the X chromosome, from which he made the claim that he had found a link between the Xq28 and male homosexuality, however the results have been disputed. If this is substantiated then we may have a biological link. Does this put this outside God's perfect plan? IMO, no way. As I believe that Our Creator continues to speak to us, that the Bible reflects only what we knew of the divine plan in the early days of the developing church. Now we are hearing more of the plan. Why? Because, IMO, we are being told the more advanced details as only now are the minds of humanity sufficiently capable of comprehending what is being revealed.
The article goes on to say that there may be several factors in the development of homosexuality in humans. The author cites: Biology, prenatal hormonomes, prenatal maternal stress, physiological differences in gay men and lesbians, cognitive differences in gay and lesbians, fraternal birth order plus non-biological factors such as environment, innate bisexuality, malleability of sexual orientations, and pathological model of homosexuality. So the answer to your question is yes, there may indeed be many factors.
However you believe the nature of homosexuality to be, IMO, you can honor these children of God as being just that - God's children to whom He would never deny His love, and as, I assume you believe Jesus to be God's son, He would abide by his fathers instruction to love one another, unconditionally, just as He, the son, asked us to do. Make sense?
Thank you for adding your wisdom to this very important discussion. Your heart and mind add greatly.
Rich
Genetic Violence
I agree that the genetic argument has significant flaws. For example, I believe they have discovered that there are genetic elements that lead toward aggression. Just because some guy’s genetic thingy is longer than another guy’s doesn’t necessarily mean that spousal abuse is sanctified by God. If we are to say “no” to genetically-informed violence and “yes” to genetically-informed sexual orientation, the standard for measure needs to be something other than genetics themselves.
Presuming
Rich...I am sure Jesus understood the full nature of human sexuality...obviously, humans (preachers, politicians, scientists, etc.) have not figured it all out. My point in writing is to simply note that your approach on this is based on sheer speculation regarding something that was not written rather than on something that was. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and speculations, but I must challenge you from a theological perspective to examine your conclusions through the Biblical lens before suggesting that Jesus was an endorser of homosexual relations.
Rich wrote, "As we are created in the image of the Father and homosexuality exists then it must be a part of the Father. Does this follow?"
No...it does not follow...not for me. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with being created in God's image. I don't think God has a sexual orientation. Please bear in mind that the same Bible that tells us we are created in God's image makes only one allowance for acceptable sexual practices...heterosexual marriage. Jesus spoke very clearly regarding marriage as being a union reserved for a man and a woman. There is nothing in the scriptures, that I am aware of, that would suggest otherwise.
Now, we are free to disregard any and all scriptures that don't suit us, but I question the wisdom of portraying Jesus as condoning any actions that was considered immoral. Hence my point regarding not going beyond your statement, "Nowhere in the New Testament do I find any reference to Jesus and homosexuality." That statement is true, however, the truest statement would be, "No where does the Bible record Jesus speaking about homosexuality." That is not the same as saying Jesus was silent on the matter...it is simply not recorded that He ever addressed it.
Rich wrote,"I agree that homosexuality may have been so prevalent as to be accepted as a norm. The same thing could, and has been said, about reincarnation."
Whaaaat? You misunderstood my comment and I see why. I said, "Maybe Jesus never brought it up because some things were simply established as givens...things like the open practice of homosexuality."
That was a poorly worded sentence on my part...lol...I should have said something like, "Maybe Jesus never brought it up because some things were simply established as givens...things like the unacceptable practice of homosexuality." It is amazing what the omission of one word can do to the meaning of a sentence.
Rich, the Law of Moses made every sexual act outside of heterosexual marriage an offense punishable by death. Seems awfully harsh, huh? Jesus is recorded endorsing the Law and He clearly defines marriage in scripture as being a heterosexual union. This is not a subject the Bible is vague on. You might want to consider what constitutes a marriage? The Bible seems to indicate that it is much more than two people who are simply committed in a relationship. The formal ceremony of commitment and the celebration of this holy union was a religious and community affair that had God's endorsement with the acknowledgment of the family and friends.
Again, we can certainly pick and choose what scriptures we want to embrace. I do not intend to debate anyone about the validity of their love or how they express it. What business is it of mine? I will try to be consistent in pointing out what the Bible says and what it doesn't. You are free to pick and choose whatever suits you. However, I don't view the exegetical approach you are taking as viable and it leaves your premise in a less than solid position.
Nature or choice, love or lust and a human tragedy
Gary and Bo,
As I find nothing definitive in the New Testament that Jesus defined marriage as being between a man and a woman nor His views on homosexuality I conclude that the Bible is inconclusive in these regards, leaving these topics, as the Bible often does, open to further interpretation, to more discussion.
This leaves us with the need for further insights. As we are all aware, we humans are often "slow on the uptake." It takes us a while to find our way along life's paths. However, we do get there. It is now appears that the consensus in the scientific community that homosexuality is a condition at birth, a matter of genetics, of chromosomes and the like, that homosexuals are born. It is not, therefore a matter of choice. No matter how much counseling may be applied, changing them fundamentally does not seem to work. It's like trying to convince a man he is a woman. If this is, in fact, the case then Jesus would have known this and thus understood their true nature and accepted this. True I am speculating about what was in Jesus' mind, but as our understanding of the true nature of homosexuality is emerging it may just be that we are now just beginning to understand what Jesus knew 2,000 years ago.
I'll add two more important points here. First, is the underlying notion, in the minds of many, that homosexual attraction is based primarily on sex, that homosexuals can never form lasting long term relationships. This is contrary to what I know. Just read the many interviews of "newly married couples" in Massachusettes and California, many of them who have been together for decades. They simply seek the recognition of their basic humaness, to see their relationships as being just a firmly base in love as that of heterosexual couples. In deed, they desire more than just the protection of civil liberties, they seek recognition of their basic humanity, that their relationships are love based, not simply lust based. With the number of state level initiatives directed at same-sex marriage it is a matter of basic human sanctity that we address and clarify the true nature of homosexuality.
Second, this human tragedy has taken on grotesque proportions in the relevations of the large number of Roman Catholic priests, not only in the US but many countries, found having engaged in acts of child abuse. Rather than confront the issue straight forwardly, the attitude of church has been to dismiss the issue as being the actions of a few homosexual priests, thus making it seem that homosexuality is somehow synomymous with pedophilia. One of the 1st actions of Pope Benedict XVI was to issue an edict purging homosexuals from the preisthood, as though this would solve the problem. This does not solve, but in fact, IMO, compounds the issue.
Unless the modern world comes to a full understanding of the true nature of human beings, of what underlies the basic conditions of what we call hetero- and homo- sexuality we shall never freely express our full divinely human nature.
Jesus Defined Marriage As Exclusively Heterosexual
Rich wrote, "As I find nothing definitive in the New Testament that Jesus defined marriage as being between a man and a woman..."
Rich, actually Jesus spoke very directly to this matter in Matthew 19:3-6 when he was tested by the Pharisees on the subject of divorce.
They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
This seems to fly in the face of your assertion that Jesus held a different view than his contemporaries on this subject. This would have been an idyllic time for him to expand the definition of marriage if He were so inclined.
My layman's study of human sexuality leads me to believe that social scientists seem to agree more with David's assertion that multiple factors are often determinant in sexual orientation.
I advocate for the sanctity of marriage from the Biblical position and I also affirm the thousands of years of tradition that the Church has offered in support of this holy and sanctified state.
i disagree
Gary,
I just want to note that two people can look at this the same passage and interpret differently. I don´t think that this necessarily says that Jesus defined marriage as only betwee a man and woman. Jesus is talking about divorce here and not offering a definitive view on marriage. I can understand how a fundamentalist reading might interpret as Jesus is saying only man and woman because Paul later says so, but just wanted to say, that´s not my intepretation.
The fact that the church advocated for something for thousands of years doesn´t mean its right. Science has often won over arguments that have relied on such statements..the earth as center of the universe, the earth is 6,000-20,000 years old, the subservience and implied inferiority of women are examples of church fundamentals that have fallen with introduction of more knowledge.
I think David´s questions are interesting because we know homosexuality to be a natural phenomenon, exisiting in some 400 species including some of those with most of our same genetic material. We know that there are often physiological differences between homosexuals and hetersexuals. Anyone who has grown up with a gay member of the family that unless there is serious repression, knows there´s just something different going on.
I rebuke the fundamentalists who still hold to this view about homosexuality (and who apparently don´t have someone gay in their own family like many of us do.) and who want impose their worldview on the rest of us. These anti homosexual agenda is hateful and lacks any compassion. Indeed it creates a dispossed class of people, and we clearly know that Jesus was first and foremost concerned with the dispossessed.
I like David´s solution for the fundamentalist worldview is best alternative in that it allows for a theological point of view (i.e. i won´t support and we won´t marry gays in my church...free country that´s your choice) but can still advocate for the political and religious freedom of others (ie. those who may hold different religious views that we should honor the commitments that folks in gay relationships want to make with each other).
Agreeing to Disagree
Steve wrote, "I just want to note that two people can look at this the same passage and interpret differently."
Steve, of course folks can interpret any text any way they choose...they can also disregard, avoid, leave out, and overlook any text they find troubling or in conflict with their particular world view. I think most of us take this approach to varying degrees, sometimes intentionally but seldom admitted.
You and I agree when you note that the question posed to Jesus was related to divorce...which makes marriage itself the specific underlying issue in question...at least Jesus seemed to think so. Jesus answered by clearly defining marriage according to what was already established in scripture...he took it back to the Creator's intent...male and female and the two becoming one. This has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with His view of marriage and heterosexual sex. I have heard fundamentalists warn that gay rights would undermine marriage somehow. I don't think Jesus thought that...He seemed to believe that divorce was the real enemy of marriage.
Steve wrote, "The fact that the church advocated for something for thousands of years doesn´t mean its right."
Again, you and I agree that the Church has historically gotten it wrong on a few points. However, the biblical view of marriage pre-dated Christ for thousands of years, He resoundingly affirmed the Creator's intent of it clearly being a heterosexual union and then the Church has subsequently continued to affirm this most basic notion. Now, in twenty first century America and a few European nations we find a fraction of the population challenging this view. That's fine, but falls shy of being a conclusive trend globally and is certainly not finding much traction within the universal Church.
Steve, this thread has more to do with what Jesus might have thought about homosexuality and then it expanded to include the subject of marriage. Rich thinks Jesus would agree with the social scientists who believe homosexuality is a natural born condition and therefore would be accepting of that particular lifestyle. I find nothing in the scripture that might lend credence to this premise. I am not opposed to the basic human rights of anyone. I simply affirm and stand with the traditional definition of marriage. I also think it is a shaky form of exegesis that wants to put words in Jesus mouth that would conflict with words recorded as spoken by Him.
Steve wrote, "These anti homosexual agenda is hateful and lacks any compassion. Indeed it creates a dispossessed class of people, and we clearly know that Jesus was first and foremost concerned with the dispossessed."
Opposing hate and speaking up for the dispossessed is, in my opinion, a more theologically solid approach to this issue and will probably prove more fruitful for those of us who advocate for gay rights.
theological starting point
Gary,
In defense of where I think Rich was going with this, for those of us that are not in a fundamentalist or literalist worldview, suggesting that Jesus affirms committed, loving gay relationships is not a bad starting point for the discussion. For example, in the passage in which you refer, a non literalist like myself might saying you are missing the forest for the trees. What Jesus is affirming is the importance of committed loving relationships. Divorce is a detriment to that and as Bo was saying Jesus affirms the concept of marriage for his time...not all time, his time. The early Hebrews fathers often had multiple wives, this is not something that the Bible so much as frowns upon in the Old Testament.
I prefer to take the long view of history with the church in regards to homosexuality. At the dawn of Christianity, the Greeks had already demonstrated that the earth wasn´t the center of the universe. Some 1500 years later, Galileo was imprisoned by the church for proving the same. The church is often very, very slow to adopt new scientific evidence into the theology and understandably so. When the science undermines the theological precepts of the religion, resistance to change is certain