Homosexuality

[Scott Peterson]

What are your thoughts on how a church community seeking to live out God's shalom should handle the issue of homosexuality?

[Nate Myers]

Good question Scott,

Before I add my own thoughts, I'd recommend a book to any and all following this conversation entitled Reasoning Together: a Conversation on Homosexuality." One of the authors, Mark Thiessen Nation, has been deeply influential in the development of my understanding discipleship, and I think his position on the issue of homosexuality is without a doubt the best I've heard.

First of all, I want to acknowledge that the foundation of your question is how a church community seeking to live out God's shalom should handle the issue of homosexuality. My follow-up question to that is; what is the most reliable source for God's church to focus on to know what God cares about? And following from that, how can we be wise interpreters from that source of what is really Shalom and what is destructiveness posing as shalom?

As the church community we confess the Bible to be that reliable source that leads us into wisdom.

In a society as relativistic and emotional as ours, we confess as Christians that God has spoken from beyond us, from a transcendent position outside our ideas of good and bad, has spoken into our existence and given us order out of disorder and chaos. So the truth comes to us as something alien, something foreign. And that should be a central confession and proclamation of the church community.

Mark's basic position (that I think it deeply Biblical) is "welcoming but not affirming." Christians must ruthlessly work to expunge all truly homophobic vocabulary, jokes, and thoughts that dehumanize LGBT persons. They must be valued as human beings made in the image of God that I would rather die for than dehumanize. If two gay men walked into our worship gathering holding hands, they should be welcomed and cared for irregardless of where they're at.

Where the shift comes from our cultural temptations and Mark's position is when those two gay men decide they want to submit their lives to the lordship of Jesus. The church, since we love truth more than we love everyone feeling warm and fuzzy, reminds these men that they will need to strike at the root of their homosexuality and confess a rejection of the temptations and the lifestyle that follows of homosexuality.

I'll leave it at that for right now if others want to discuss. I was a bit surprised to see what most of the following posts stated, but that's neither here nor there.

[Andrew Cornelius]

I've moved from welcoming but not affirming to inclusive, accepting, and affirming. I do, nonetheless, still appreciate evangelicals like Tony Campolo and Richard Foster. Mel White-- his books and personal experience-- was influential in changing my personal views. Equally important was my own experience and what I've learned from friendships with people who aren't "straight". I, furthermore, believe the risen Christ and God's spirit will lead us into truth. Just as Jesus' teachings and values either went beyond or literally undermined certain OT notions, so too is the NT a fallible human witness to historical revelation. It is a mixture of history, history interpretted, and human projections and prejudices. The collection of writings found in the Bible does not simply answer all current social issues for us, in my opinion. Even the canon itself reflects human discernment and, more negatively, accomodation with empire. Anyhow, I know my take isn't the norm here. Here are a couple clips featuring Mel White, nonetheless, for anyone who might be interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDRpTsdKQS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3CKJTWvVZw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ju6IgkK7Wg&feature=related

[Jon Miller]

i like to thank everyone for the thoughts....but has anyone really taken a stand, either way? this is a topic a real interest to me, because if i take biblical text as i understand it......in a communal study, the act of homosexuality is morally wrong. and to say that one is born with these thoughts and urges i may agree, but it is still a choice. some children are aggressive from a really young age, but they must learn to control the urge to become angry,aggressive,or violent, just and example. i do believe we should love homosexuals, treat them with the up most respect. but at which point do we decide address sin as sin.
there are several homosexuals that visit the church service i attend, and this is fantastic, i hope they know they're loved. just got a bunch of thoughts on this, please everyone continue to converse on this matter, love hearing yout thoughts

[Andrew Cornelius]

The only choice is whether such people will deny themselves companions/partners in life or try to either "cure" themselves, remain celibate, or live a lie (i.e., straight monogamous marriage). Why is it sinful to be gay and to live in a committed relationship? Such a thing is rooted in love, not aggression. Your example does not address the point of why something is sinful. To cite a Levitical law, for instance, doesn't work unless you think all of the others should be binding on staight folks, but from your avatar, Jon, I see that you don't sport an untamed beard. Paul's opinion, like the anti-feminine stance of 1 Timothy, could reflect cultural prejudices and assumptions about what is natural (they didn't know about genes and DNA back then however) more than the mind of God.

[Nate Myers]

Jon,

"Welcoming but not affirming" is a clear stand against homosexual practice and as I would live into that, I would add that homosexual attraction should be viewed as a temptation to be expunged from our thoughts. I agree, Jon, that in a communal study of the Bible, there is absolutely no wiggle room on the issue of homosexuality. I'm glad that several homosexuals feel like they can be a part of your church family's worship; this is maybe the best indicator of whether a church is really loving people and meeting them where they're at.

Andrew,

It is interesting to me to hear you say your belief that "the risen Christ and God's spirit will lead us into truth. Just as Jesus' teachings and values either went beyond or literally undermined certain OT notions, so too is the NT a fallible human witness to historical revelation." I think this is an extremely flawed way to interpret the Scriptures and the meaning of the very Jesus you trust leads us into truth. I'm with you that Jesus' teachings and values went beyond and/or undermined certain OT notions, and I would even go to the point of confessing that some parts of the NT are a reflection of changing cultural circumstances that God has a hand in, but one of the central confessions of the church is that the Incarnation is the hinge upon which all of history turns. The early disciples saw the life, death, and resurrection as such a powerful influence on their lives that they refused to join their Jewish brothers in the violent rebellion against the Romans just thirty years after Jesus; even in the face of persuasive patriotic and "faithful" calls to action.

As I interpret Jesus as the hinge or the blazing fullness of truth in the darkness, this is a direct confrontation to the world's assumption that we're marching on as time passes into greater and greater enlightenment; that ancient witnesses were a hopelessly parochial people who had no real understanding of the world; at least one nowhere near as enlightened as us. And like all vain stereotypes, there's some truth to that. In some ways we have moved culturally in a more healthy way. The Bible even reflects cultural change as God keeps meeting his people where they're at and moving them a bit further, raising the bar higher. But there is no revelation above that of Jesus, and ancient witnesses in some ways are much, much wiser on certain issues than we are today, and God in some powerful ways has spoken clearly about a healthy way of life many thousands of years ago in a way that will stand for all time.

When I combine these thoughts with the Biblical reminder that our sexuality (and its healthy expression) is something that affects our very core of humanity, I almost audibly hear God's counsel, "Tread lightly in your sexualized, overly emotionalized, individualized society and seek my wisdom above certain 'common sense' arguments surrounding you."

This conversation could go any number of ways, but I will reject out of hand your comment, Andrew, that absolutely made a rhetorical play when you said "The only choice is whether such people will deny themselves companions/partners in life or try to either "cure" themselves, remain celibate, or live a lie (i.e., straight monogamous marriage)." Now, granted, you're coming from a certain position, and passion has its role in helping us think clearly and wisely, but you're stacking the deck. There are plenty of Christians throughout history who have denied themselves sexual partners in life, and we don't look at that commitment as sad or even heroic. It's just viewed as a gift of the Spirit or an extraordinary commitment to complete obedience to God. And to suggest that straight monogamous marriage would be "living a lie" disregards the example of many who have left a practicing homosexual lifestyle and committed themselves fully to straight monogamous marriage.

To address the question of "why" homosexual practice would be sinful, we can talk about social and psychological dynamics (something I'm entirely open to), but one of the glaring physically destructive results is that the rectum is never intended to be a holding place for a penis; it's "made" to hold and expel things from the inside, not open to things from the outside-in. The use of the anus and rectum for sexual pleasure is destructive to the body; with resulting anal fissures, damage to the sphincter muscle, higher percentage of fecal incontinence than heterosexual men, and other physical results. These are just basic testable things that have resulted from homosexual practice that should give us pause when we're making comments about whether we are living a lie or living a joyful, obedient life to the One who made us.

[Barry Mast]

Like Andrew, I have recently moved from "welcoming but not affirming to inclusive, accepting, and affirming." The affirmation is certainly nuanced since I do not believe anything goes and that love, intimacy and fidelity are best expressed in a monogamous relationship. Then again, my affirmation of anyone is nuanced since we all have issues that are listed as biblically immoral (the one without sin may cast the first stone).

The glaring irony of Nate's last statement is that the "physically destructive results" do not address a lesbian relationship at all - Does this then provide an exception for homosexual female intimacy?.

A couple of assumptions that I start with (in an effort to be transparent). There is something deeply contextual about loving God and loving neighbor (the primary command given by Jesus). There is also something deeply cultural about morality (sexual included).

According to the text, we are to refrain from evil thoughts, murder, adultery, theft, false testimony, slander, food sacrificed to idols, blood, the meat of strangled animals, carousing, drunkenness, sexual immorality, debauchery, dissension, jealousy, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, discord, fits of rage, selfish ambition, factions, envy, orgies, any kind of impurity, obscenity, foolish talk, coarse joking, lust, evil desires, greed, anger, malice, slander, filthy language and lies.

This is my struggle esp. when it comes to our use of the Christian scripture for moral decision making. Is this issue more important than greed, anger, malice, lust, slander, envy, etc.? Do we set up the prerequisite of give up all the things on "the list" before accepting someone as a disciple of Jesus as Nate seems to suggest? Jesus even specifically mentioned giving up all of our money and possessions and then following. I imagine very few people would comply with that. I also think there is a strong bible precedent for giving up all violence as a means to an end (and its reciprocal mandate of being active peacemakers and reconcilers) but Christianity has notoriously included violence as acceptable in a variety of circumstances.

Using the bible as the only baseline for morality presents its own set of divisive issues. Who's interpretation rules? Which text overrides another? Where do we start? I recently re-read Richard Hays' "The Moral Vision of the New Testament". I believe the book provides a good pattern for reading the text with respect to moral questions. I also find his section on "Homosexuality" biblical and balanced. While he asserts that there is no place in scripture where homosexuality is viewed favorably, I think he cautions against making it such a issue that it causes us to exclude rather than embrace.

As strongly as I am committed to the biblical text, I do not think it wise (or even possible) to apply every phrase to every situation. With everything (esp. biblical interpretation), community discernment is needed to decide whether it is the spirit of the age or the Spirit of God in Jesus that we are putting forward.

I still have one over-riding question that I am wrestling with. Since I believe that the bible is divinely inspired AND wrapped in cultural clothing, is there any textual evidence that anyone writing the Scriptures had in mind the prohibition of a faith, monogamous, same-sex relationship? Was that even on their radar or were they solely concerned with pagan temple sexual practices (included same-sex) and promiscuity (same-sex as a way of satisfying an addiction with the associated commitment of cultural marriage)?

[Andrew Cornelius]

Nate,

I was agreeing with Jon insofar that there is a genetic component to human sexuality. He himself, like Tony Campolo, essentially says the choice is whether to commit particular behaviors, not the sexual orientation itself. So, yes, I accept innate orientation (at least for most folks) as a factual premise. I believe science supports it as do the lives of my gay friends. Mel White, as aforementioned, didn't want to be gay. He tried all the "therapies", but he ultimately slit his wrists in despair before accepting who he is.

Marriage isn't just about procreation. My wife and I may not even have kids. And being in a gay relationship does not necessitate anal sex just like being in a heterosexual relationship does not necessitate oral sex (or anal sex). Anyhow, the design argument loses some traction to an extent given our evolutionary heritage and the fact that certain other animal species exhibit homosexual behaviors too.

No, I didn't stack the deck. Anyone who accepts the premise I have laid out, that human sexuality has a strong genetic component (and this is becoming harder to deny with modern scientific research), would have to say certain lifestyle arrangements are dishonest.

Plenty of homosexuals lead joyful, obedient lives, by the way, and receive the same Holy Spirit that visits you and me.

Good questions, Barry. No, I don't believe that would have been on their radar. Remember, for Paul any kind of same-sex acts were "unnatural." But ask a reputable biologist about this.
http://dfwbi.net/blogs/entry/-Every-Biologist-Knows-that-Gay-is-Not...

And what is inherently natural about monogamy? I am not advocating any other alternative, but it wasn't even the norm in ancient Israel.

[Barry Mast]

Andrew, I wouldn't argue for monogamy (or against polygamy) from a "natural" perspective. Admittedly, I am not in a polygamous culture so I am inherently biased against it. It does, however, strike me more as an issue of power and property. I do not know of any culture that practices polygamy as egalitarian (a woman can have multiple husbands in the same way a man can have multiple wives). The typical pattern seems to be a polygamous patriarchal system that puts the husband at the helm and treats women more as property than companions (caricature maybe but, I think, generally applicable as a model).

I also don't think that people are genetically disposed to having multiple intimate committed relationships in the same way a person may be gay or lesbian. Which brings me to a further point. I regularly shy away from a "natural" argument on any moral issue. Someone may actually be predisposed to violence but that does not make it ok. Our knowledge of good and evil allows for quite a bit of our overriding instinct. We can still choose (although the choice may be more difficult for some than it is for others based on one's "internal wiring").

What if polygamy was a norm only because ancient Israel had bigger fish to fry when it came to loving God and their neighbor? What if the issues of today are really greed, violence and infidelity? What if homosexuality, more than anything, provides us a self-righteous way to ignore greed, violence and infidelity because it is pretty clear that I am innocent of this particular moral "failure"? What if homosexuality is not nearly as destructive as our fear of it presupposes?

[Andrew Cornelius]

I wouldn't argue for monogamy along those lines either. But what I was saying is that Paul argued against same-sex acts (as he would companionship) based on the premise that it is unnatural. For him, God created the world basically as he saw it. Animals had been created in their present forms and so forth, so I doubt he would have been aware that homosexual activity is actually quite prevalent in nature.

I don't presuppose that it is destructive. I do believe there are far more important issues on the table. At the same time, I feel that it is important to advocate on behalf of this minority within the church and greater society. I was not happy about Prop 8 in California and the role evangelical Christianity played in its passage. In reponse, Keith Olbermann said some really good things that can be heard here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE

[Barry Mast]

Andrew, I didn't mean to imply you thought this or that was destructive or that you have misplaced priorities. Everything past the first paragraph was rhetorical rather than personal.

I agree that Paul uses a "natural" argument but to be fair, his rhetoric seems more against idolatry and lust than homosexuality in particular. While this is the example he uses, in this context would he not be talking about pagan temple promiscuity related to idolatry rather than some general prohibition against homosexuality?

Of course, Paul's view of the natural world leads into a rather intense discussion of creation, evolution, Adam & Eve etc etc. So while I believe Paul's message to be intensely important, I think his imagery is better suited for his age rather than ours.

[Nate Myers]

Barry,

I heartily confess along with you that our affirmation of everyone should be nuanced since "we all have issues that are listed as Biblically immoral." I'd actually like to use that affirmation as a launching pad for a deeper Biblical consideration of our "issues" and how the Bible addresses the problem, especially since you immediately followed the "issues" comment with the "casting stones" comment, because our approaches diverge right after we confess our "issues."

I believe the center of the Bible's message is obedience. The story starts with God making us and giving us a way of life, which we decided to forsake for our own pathway (because we obviously know better), which led to a world plunged into darkness and despair, which led to God constantly pursuing us and meeting us where we were at to draw us back to obedience, which led to Jesus' appearance and testimony, which led to people hating and murdering him because we prefer rebellion, which led to his resurrection as God laughed at our attempt to get Him to leave us alone, which led to the early church's fearlessness, which led to the next two thousand years as we've haltingly desired to obey God. Overly simple? Probably. But does it illustrate the basic point that we were made for obedience and that the call to obedience is the center of God's message to humanity in the Bible and therefore in life? I believe so.

So yes, we all have "issues," but Biblically there's a huge difference in what we do with that. Do we wallow in our issues and never bring judgment on them, using common misinterpretations of the Bible as proverbs like "let those without sin cast the first stone"? Or do we confess our "issues" as sin God does not intend to exist and courageously choose to pursue an ever-growing complete obedience? I suggest God commands the second. Which leads to this "stones" thing and "judging" one another.

Our present-day common usage of the "casting stones" Scripture is what I would call "Lucadoized." And what I mean by that is; the overspiritualization of each passage of Scripture to make it immediately relevant in all situations at all times, especially in our present life. So when we read this "stones" passage, we immediately spiritualize the passage and ask, "How do we cast stones at one another? Well, through 'judging' others, which makes them feel bad." In the original context of the Scripture, though, Jesus is literally telling a group of persons about to engage in capital punishment that they can't condemn this woman through bringing her life to an end because of her sin. Now this is certainly revolutionary itself since her death was commanded by the law (along with the man she sinned with), but we dare not make this something it isn't. It isn't about bringing another's sin into judgment to lead them to transformation; it's about final, permanent judgment of bringing life to an end; which Jesus states cannot be done by God's people any longer. Why do I take this tack? Because the same Jesus who is full of grace and unconditional love teaches those listening to develop wise conditions and boundaries for life. John 7 is a good example of this (right before the execution attempt of the woman) when Jesus tells the confused crowd, "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" and in Matthew 23 he excoriates the Pharisees for "hypocrisy," which is literally telling people to obey the law while ignoring the law yourself. He's calling people to consistency and humility as they "judge," not forbidding them to judge.

The Apostle Paul made the same move in Romans 2, saying "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." It's hypocritical to condemn while practicing the same things. And the next stage of his teaching is to fully obey from verse 17 on

"Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?"

Paul is calling his hearers not to forsake judging altogether and celebrate the God of grace alone, but instead to judge rightly and celebrate the God of grace and God who commands obedience. This allows us to be free to graciously bring one another into judgment and help each other gain freedom in obedience together; provided that we have the same goal of expunging that sin from our life as well.

So yes, Barry. You listed a bunch of vices that we are to avoid. Yes, those are all deeply important and we should seek total obedience to God in all of these areas. Following your vice list, you ask good questions;

"Is this issue more important than greed, anger, malice, lust, slander, envy, etc.? Do we set up the prerequisite of give up all the things on "the list" before accepting someone as a disciple of Jesus as Nate seems to suggest?"

On the first question, I would answer "Yes and no." All issues of sexuality should be lumped in together as vitally important; homosexual practice, extramarital heterosexual practice, lust, etc and in some ways elevated above others because, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6, "All other sins people commit are outside their bodies, but those who sin sexually sin against their own bodies." I say "No" because though sexuality is such a core thing and therefore held out in sharp relief in some ways in the Bible, it doesn't relativize other sins as secondary. All sin is to be confronted, struggled against, and expunged from our lives. This doesn't happen right away, and will be a lifestyle of discovery, confrontation, confession, commitment, and recommitment. So you're right, Barry, in one sense; if homosexuality is extracted from other issues as THE sin of note, we're missing the deeper point. But you're wrong in another; we can't ignore the issue of homosexuality as secondary because the Bible pleads with us not to.

And as far as your second question, I addressed it in just above here, but I'll make it explicit; I'm not making total obedience in commitment and action the prerequisite for accepting someone as a disciple of Jesus. I'm making our posture toward all sin the prerequisite for accepting someone as a disciple of Jesus; we desire to abandon it all and seek true life and joy.

And Barry, was my comment on the destructiveness of the penis in the rectum one of "glaring irony" because I didn't mention females along with it? Do you honestly think I should have presented the whole case from my perspective from the very beginning, or would that have discouraged conversation on an important issue? If you value conversation, I would encourage you to "make a right judgment" and be a bit more receptive to understanding that as a smaller component of the larger discussion.

As far as the question of Biblical interpretation goes, I agree that interpretation is often messy. We can simplify it with the issue of homosexuality very cleanly though, since the Bible gives no wiggle room. Homosexual practice is inherently sinful. That's the position of the entire Jewish and early Christian community for thousands of years. Period. On the issue of females in leadership and slavery, there's a significant amount of wiggle room in how we interpret. But let's not complexify one of the most straight-forward teachings of God's people on sexuality. So to provide my attempt at an answer to your question; "Is there any textual evidence that anyone writing the Scriptures had in mind the prohibition of a faith, monogamous, same-sex relationship?" I would answer "Yes, because the Scriptures address the very practice of homosexuality period. There's no room even to develop a monogamous, covenantal interpretation that departs from it."

[Nate Myers]

And Andrew,

I also agree that there is a genetic component to human sexuality, but with twist that points toward new genetic science. It doesn't make any sense to me to suggest, as Tony Campolo does, that "the choice is whether to commit particular behaviors, not the sexual orientation itself." Whereas one cannot "decide" or "affect" their being born intersexual, when we use the term "orientation," there's an embedded sense of "oriented toward" whatever that thing is we're talking about. And not to oversimplify the issue, but Biblically-speaking, humans are "naturally oriented" toward rebellion, not because we were intended to be, but because we've gotten good at it through millenia of plugging our ears and pretending like God isn't speaking.

So I simultaneously accept genetic predisposition toward certain sexual behaviors without being as fatalistic as genetic suggestions of early genetic science. Geneticists today are making strong statements that our genetic code, while relatively stable, is deeply affected by the environment (physical and social) surrounding us. Deeply enough, in fact, that not only does this affect the expression of certain aspects of our genetic code differently, but also shifts the very building blocks of our genetic code over time. Now, this may not apply to individual lives specifically being able to change from one predisposition to another, but it certainly applies in a generational sense over time. I'm suggesting that in all issues of sin, homosexuality included, my individual sense of satisfaction and "feeling normal" in God's obedient pathway is less important than actually "being normal" as God sees it. So I play a role in shaping my life and others in a way that slows genetic drift and/or redirects it in healthy pathways for the sake of future generations. Mel White's story is sad, but not unique to sexual identity; persons with deep addictions to alcohol, pornography, nymphomania, impulsiveness, gossip, depression, and other "issues" carry similar struggles. And so I would reject your comment "Anyone who accepts the premise I have laid out, that human sexuality has a strong genetic component (and this is becoming harder to deny with modern scientific research), would have to say certain lifestyle arrangements are dishonest" on genetic grounds.

Because of the Bible's call to total obedience, I would vehemently disagree with your suggestion that "Plenty of homosexuals lead joyful, obedient lives, by the way, and receive the same Holy Spirit that visits you and me." There are any number of ways that I feel like the way I'm living is joyful and obedient until I grow further and find that I'm blissfully joyful because I was blissfully unaware or refusing to listen to certain commands of God; at which point my life is pitched into what seems like horrendous blackness and confusion until I commit to this new way and find how to take steps toward what it more faithful.

In regard to a couple of your other thoughts, I didn't content that marriage was just about procreation. I don't know where you saw that in my thoughts. And I'm not sure that I suggested a gay relationship is always about anal sex, though I find it a bit laughable and/or naive that you would suggest that's not a vital component of a vast majority of homosexual couples' sex life. Heterosexual oral sex/anal sex is a generally more secondary sexual element while male homosexual anal sex is a much more primary sexual element of relationship. Would you agree?

And your question and comment; "And what is inherently natural about monogamy? I am not advocating any other alternative, but it wasn't even the norm in ancient Israel" is one of Biblical interpretation and clear shifts over time in the Biblical narrative that Jesus brought to a monogamous, covenantal head in his ministry. I'll stop here to encourage response on your part and we'll keep sorting through this discussion together.