Paul and I are now in “phase two” of this dialog/debate/discussion/disagreement. We are still friends and doing our best to aim our statements not so much at each other but to those who may read these responses and are standing of both sides of the homosexual debate. I do think that whenever possible a peaceful, loving dialog is important. It shows others that we don’t have to fight over theological issues. If Paul and I can dialog with love and respect, that may be a greater witness for Jesus than anything we say.
With all that said, please read over Paul’s latest response to me and I’ll respond after that. Please also feel free to let us all know where you stand on this issue. While homosexuality and the Bible certainly isn’t the most important theological issue people need to be discussing, it is continually being forced to the forefront of our nation and churches. So, it’s important that we have a good Biblical understanding of this issue.
I have excellent books in my office that clarify each Biblical passage and how they are to be interpreted in light of when they were written, in light of the OT, the NT as well as the whole Bible and God’s over all intent for human sexual relations.
Paul's response to my response last week: Evan, I'm sure it's no surprise but I think your response had a lot of problems that I'll cover briefly. But first, I gotta say this.
Discussions like these are usually pointless and end up just entrenching people in their own positions if they don't have "skin in the game" - something on the line. The reason that Janece and I have ended up where we are at on this issue is not just because of some intellectual exercise. It's because we had real people, real friends whose situations we had to grapple with. One of my favorite authors, Frederich Buechner, said "All doctrine was first an experience". The early Christians, St. Paul included, had transformative encounters with Christ that profoundly changed them into going in directions that they thought were were ungodly, even heretical. Doctrine starts with, and is profoundly contextualized by, relationship.
So, to prevent this discussion from being theoretical, I have to ask: Which relationship, what person, do you have on the line in this discussion? For me, it's Brad and Enrique, Sue and Debbie, Pat and Ladonna, Anita, Sue - people that I know love God, live exemplary lives and even lead churches but who have suffered at the hands of society and other Christians.
Tony Campolo and his wife Peggy come down on opposite side of this issue theologically, but they both have rich roots of love and commitment in the gay community, so they both speak out of compassion and deep understanding and actually have something to say worth listening to. Point being: If you don't have a real relationship on the line, theological discussions aren't really ultimately going to mean anything to you and it's gonna be a pointless exercise in hot air and defending "positions", not people.
Down to it...
About lifestyle: No, it's not a "lifestyle". If you're black, you could live a lot of different kinds of lifestyles, from ghetto bling to middle class to incredibly wealthy jet-setting, but it doesn't change the color of your skin. My hetero brother was involved in the sado-maschism lifestyle for a while. It's a destructive lifestyle, but it's very seperate thing from his sexual orientation. Same with being gay. Leather queens aren't living a healthy or godly lifestyle, but it doesn't necessarily change their sexual orientation. Many Christians confuse the two, and it's an incredibly important distinction.
About the "ick factor": The "ick factor" is increased by Christians overlaying their own ideas of what is proper behavior in a sexual relationship on gay sex, but strangely, not on other heterosexual sex. Every Christian hetero couple has their own form of bedroom behavior, some of which would shock other Christian couples if it were known. So, leaving aside gay sex for the moment, who is going to legislate all THOSE Christian's behaviors -- become the bedroom police? If that sounds ridiculous in a hetero context, why do most Christians feel that it doesn't sound ridiculous in a non-hetero context, where fundamentalist publications luridly post all kinds of disgusting "exposes" of gay sexual encounters? In my mind, the perverts in that situation are the fundamentalists, not the gay people they're "exposing".
About dangerous sexual behavior: Like I alluded to earlier, I'm not in favor of every back alley gay massage parlor kind of lifestyle choice. I believe that God-fearing and self-respecting gay people should be monogamous, court and marry in a non-promiscuous and Godly way, just like any hetero. Those relational rules of sexual purity don't change no matter what orientation you are. Just like my brother eventually found the S&M lifestyle to be soul-corroding and dangerous, so I believe that promiscuous behavior demeans and diminishes gay people and makes them less than God intended.
About being "normal": This is where Christians get into double-speak. You quoted St. Paul who used the term "natural relations". Did he mean that homosexual sexual encounters are "against nature" - that is, you can't find them in the natural world and so gays are perverting the natural order? Obviously not, given what we can clearly observe in nature. Like I pointed out, same sex behavior is rampant throughout the natural world at all levels with all species. Then, what did he mean? This is a complex topic, and you could (and should!) research this for more background.
Here's my take: I think what Paul is talking about here needs to be cast in the larger context of the chapter -- idolatry. The key to the whole section is the phrase "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts." Paul was writing to Gentiles, non-Jews with no context as to how their pagan background with it's male and female temple prostitutes and the cultural dedication to self-pleasure and hedonism was supposed to fit in with this new Christian faith. He had to distinguish for them that their new faith was different than the pagan worship. So, he points here to how paganism worships and glorifies self-desire and the human body as an idol, not as something that points to the Creator. St. Paul goes on to highlight same-sex encounters even though it's clear from his setup that his point extends to hetero sexual relations as well.
Again, research this and come to your own conclusions. It's important to do this, not only because of this topic but also because of the discipline of learning how to deal more intelligently with Scripture. Here's a good starter debate between Tony and Peggy Campolo on this:
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/campolo.htm
Briefly on your other points, Evan:
1) Being gay is a result of an unhealty parental relationship or a "thin veil for deep-seated frustration": Sorry, man - completely untrue. I would take the point if this were provable for every gay person everywhere, but it's just not. Completely hetero, middle America parents (like mine) have gay kids (like my brother). Gay people are no more or less mal-adjusted than heteros. That's not to say it can't happen, but it's much more rare than Christian ex-gay organizations and literature would have you believe. The vast majority of gays have been that way from birth and live as normal of lives as society will permit. The facts just simply don't bear out the premise.
2) Homosexuality is bad because it's not oriented towards procreation: Bleh. Do you and Kelley always have sex to procreate? Then why in the world would you apply that "law" to gays? Sex is obviously as much about pleasure and expression of love as it is about procreation. Historically, the "God commands us to procreate" argument is a pretty fringe one in mainstream Christian theology. Besides, given that the gay community is a substantial minority of human beings, I doubt the human race is in danger of dying out anytime soon. This is a straw man argument.
3) You dismiss Mel White and all of the research out there by saying that you'll leave it up to God to change our hearts when you obviously haven't read the references I posted. I know you didn't mean anything by it, but your response is what frustrates me on this issue. Christians (like Janece's dad) just *won't* grapple with it in a meaningful way, struggle through the Scriptural meanings, let themselves be affected by the personal tragedies that gays suffer. They just close their eyes and stick to their untested beliefs. It comes as across as "I don't care and I don't want to know". Did you know that closeted gay kids growing up in churches have a very high rate of suicide because they can't find a way to reconcile who they are with how they're told God sees them? Did you know that my gay friends have been evicted from their apartments because they were gay? Did you know that if one of a gay couple dies, even if they've been together 50 years, the other partner has no legal rights to even bury or see their partner's body if the family won't allow it? People are dying and hurting because of injustice and the willful ignorance of Christians. We are repeating history, just like the church did for decades using the words of St. Paul to justify slavery, and people are getting hurt in the process.
4) The "homosexual agenda": Paulla, the REAL "homosexual agenda" is the same one as Martin Luther King's agenda was for blacks in America - equal treatment under the law, equal understanding that being gay is as normal as having another skin color. If that's a problem for you, I'm sorry, but I'm more concerned about teaching kids about reality and preventing social injustices. And you also point to another widespread fallacy Christians have - that teaching kids that gays are normal will make impressionable children "turn gay". The facts simply point out that's untrue. Research the topic. Janece and I have gay pastor friends whose daughter is as hetero as they come. There again, if it's not 100% true, then it's not true. Period.
5) The "abomination" argument: I'll close with this because it's a good topic. You're exhibiting the same behavior that I pointed out in my first post. You are saying you get to pick and choose what's important in Biblical passages. You said, "To me, eating pork...is in another whole category than human sexuality". Oh yeah? How did you get to pick which abominations were more important than other abominations - which Scriptures are more important than others? Isn't the Bible equally authoritative in every passage? No? If it is, then you have to live by EVERY passage equally in order to not be hypocritical. If it's not, then the door is open to change of the type I'm advocating because change of views is a constant in church history, even on major issues.
Evan, you pointed out St. Peter and the vision he had about the unclean animals. I want to stress how important that story is to this discussion. Peter was a devout, born-and-raised, dyed-in-the-wool Jew. I can't emphasize enough how much revulsion, disgust, and horror he must have felt to hear God tell him "Get up, Peter; kill and eat these animals." God was asking Peter to do something that ran completely counter to centuries of the holiest Jewish tradition. You weren't Jewish if you didn't eat kosher. You were no longer one of God's chosen. You were an abomination. Peter defended his religion vehemently by talking back to God: "No, Lord - I have NEVER eaten anything that our Jewish laws have declared impure and unclean!" He didn't want to be on the wrong side of God's law! But God came back with this reply - not once, not twice, but THREE times: "Do not call something unclean if God has made it clean."
God changed the rules because he wanted to expand the Kingdom. He knew that Peter wouldn't have anything to do with the centurion and his men that came seeking help. He knew that Paul was an ultra-devout zealot that wouldn't have anything to do with the Gentiles. But He also wanted to expand His Kingdom so that everyone could know and experience the Good News, the Gospel. So he had to change Peter and Paul from being Jews to Christians, to change their ideas of what was gross, filthy, and ungodly in order to save and change the hearts of all people. It's a scandalous message, a politically charged and emotional message, but I feel like it's what God is wanting today and 100% in line with the message of Christ - to move Christians beyond their culture and theological and religious tradition of exclusion into the Kingdom.
My response to Paul:
(Paul said)
Evan, I'm sure it's no surprise but I think your response had a lot of problems that I'll cover briefly. But first, I gotta say this.
Discussions like these are usually pointless and end up just entrenching people in their own positions if they don't have "skin in the game" - something on the line. The reason that Janece and I have ended up where we are at on this issue is not just because of some intellectual exercise. It's because we had real people, real friends whose situations we had to grapple with. One of my favorite authors, Frederich Buechner, said "All doctrine was first an experience". The early Christians, St. Paul included, had transformative encounters with Christ that profoundly changed them into going in directions that they thought were were ungodly, even heretical. Doctrine starts with, and is profoundly contextualized by, relationship.
I agree with Paul. I do know people very well who have struggled with this issue. With respect for their privacy, I won’t mention any names. I am different than some pastors in that I have personal issues at stake here with people I know. This isn’t just a theoretical issue for me. It’s close and personal. Hence, my stance on the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality is about the people I love and know and not just a bunch of laws for “those people.”
With every behavior in the Christian life, it’s important not to let our human emotions tell us what we should or shouldn’t do. Just because we deeply love and care for someone and genuinely can understand their struggles and where they are coming from doesn’t mean we should justify a sinful lifestyle.
Honestly, the issue of couples living together outside of marriage and having sex is just as much as a problem in the Christian church as the homosexual one. Both are wrong and both need to be repented of. Both issues have all kinds of emotional and seemingly logical reasons as to why Christians do them. Setting emotions aside, we need to look at the Bible and the sanctity of marriage, relationships and sex in God’s eyes.
Let’s not beat a dead horse on the “lifestyle” label. Homosexuals live that lifestyle just as much as I live a heterosexual lifestyle. Even if they feel they have no choice in the matter, it is still the life they are living.
The “ick” factor is real. I know not everyone is repulsed by gay sex among men (which obviously uses the anus for something it was never designed for) but if you are not, then maybe you need to re-study human anatomy and basic sixth grade sex education. I know that lesbian couples are forced to be creative with sex also. Right from the start God made sex between a man and a woman a natural, easy fit. Obviously we can’t legislate sex in the bedroom between anyone, let alone Christians.
I would go so far as to say that even heterosexual (Christian) couples may want to re-think some of their more bizarre practices in the bedroom and do their best to practice sex in the way God intended it. I also know that it’s not all about sex and I don’t want to over-emphasize that.
I know most homosexual couples are really most concerned with the same thing heterosexual couples are and that is intimacy, friendship, companionship, connection and a life-long partner. So, to emphasize weird sexual practices on either side of the issue as norm would be wrong. Sex is only the “icing on the cake” of a healthy relationship. It was never meant to be the one big thing that sustains a relationship over the years. The “cake” is all the hard work of living together, getting along, raising kids, etc. etc.
Relational rules of purity are important, but I’m only going to apply those to heterosexual relationships because I can’t find a Biblical justification for applying those rules to a homosexual relationship.
RE: the “normal” issue. Again, I’m not going to beat a dead horse here. Yes, St. Paul is talking about normal sexual relations between HUMAN BEINGS. If that happens in the animal world then that’s a whole ‘nother thing. Do we compare our behavior (sexual or not) to the animal world and take our cues from them?
(Paul said)
Here's my take: I think what Paul is talking about here needs to be cast in the larger context of the chapter -- idolatry. The key to the whole section is the phrase "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen.
I’m always amazed out how two Christians can look at the exact same passage and see two completely different interpretations. Any time we “exchange the truth of God for a lie” we are wrong. Right before that, vs. 24 “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another,” that applies to anyone who is involved with sexual impurity.
The “therefore” refers back to vs. 18-23, all about godlessness, wickedness, suppressing the truth, not glorifying God, foolish hearts that were darkened, claiming to be wise and idol worship. St. Paul is busting everyone here who is outside of God’s best. Homosexuality just happens to be one of the many sins and sexual impurities on that list.
Everything included in Romans 1:18-32 is wrong in God’s eyes. We have to equate wickedness, suppressing the truth, sexual impurity, “men abandoning natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another…committing indecent acts with other men”, greed, envy, murder, gossips, arrogant, boastful, disobeying their parents etc. God is disappointed with all of it and thus revealing his wrath.
I re-read the document from Tony and Peggy Campolo (http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/campolo.htm) and I think the best point they make is that most Christians and the Christian church today does a horrible job of loving those who struggle with the homosexual issue. We can all do better there.
I did say that “Being gay is a result of an unhealthy parental relationship or a "thin veil for deep-seated frustration" and that is partly true. For some homosexuals, that’s part of what got them where they are today. Many others have struggled with homosexual feelings their whole life.
I did say, “Homosexuality is bad because it's not oriented towards procreation” and that is only one thing that does need to be considered. Procreation is one part of sex. When God told us to be fruitful and multiply, you can only do that in a heterosexual relationship. If a loving, monogamous, homosexual couple decides to never have kids, that’s one thing. However, if they adopt or borrow sperm or eggs then they are going to raise that child or children in a home missing the important influence of a mom and a dad. I know there are plenty of kids who are raised without a mom or dad for other reasons, (and turn out “ok”) or may be raised in an abusive home with a mom and a dad, but we want to look at God’s ideal, what should ideally happen. And that is a man and woman lovingly raising their kids.
(Paul said)
3) You dismiss Mel White and all of the research out there by saying that you'll leave it up to God to change our hearts when you obviously haven't read the references I posted.
I did read all the other references plus other pro-gay/Christian websites and am still convinced that nothing I say will change your heart, Peggy Campolo’s or Mel Whites. It’s not up to me, it’s up to God. Until God moves on the hearts of those who misinterpret the Bible on this issue, then there is nothing I can say.
I’m realizing as I finish here that Paul and I can both come up with mountains of research, websites, documents, personal testimonies etc. that support our sides. So I’ll stop for now. (I could list lots of links to websites that give clear Biblical guidance on this issue.)
I do want to recommend two great books I have that irrefutably give a correct Biblical interpretation of all the key passages:
1. The Bible and Homosexual Practice, texts and hermeneutics. Robert A.J. Gagnon
2. The Same Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible’s message about homosexuality. James R. White and Jeffery D. Niell.
I actually think it would be pointless for Paul and I to go round and round on this issue. I’m encouraging all people out there to read up, do the research from the Bible and other sources and ask God to show you what it right.
Thanks again Paul and I’d love to hear what others have to say.
Godspeed my friends!
Evan
Don't know if any of you have had the chance to see "The Golden Compass" yet. I've been reading with great curiosity all the reviews, especially the reviews from Christian telling other Christians not to see it. I even heard some prominent local pastors speak out against the movie (I wonder if they actually saw it.) I haven't seen it yet and after reading this review am considering it. 
.jpg)
