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
14 comments:
Wow, some intense discussion here. Good stuff. As Christians, it is so important to know what we believe in and to know how to defend our faith...just as long as we realize that our motives are loving and not selfish and trying to win a debate; which I believe is the case for both Paul and Evan here.
I think I really was objective in reading Paul's arguments. As Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin, it is helpful for me to see where Christians who believe homosexuality is 'ok', are coming from.
Despite reading and being able to see where Paul was coming from, I just can't get past the verse Evan brought up: Romans 1:18-32. To me, this very clearly states that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes.
As Christians, we also must use our common sense. Like a puzzle, certain pieces just don't fit together. I don't believe God's plan for sex is flawed.
On another note, there are tons of people that God uses in the Bible...yet, I can't think of one righteous person in the Bible who was gay. If homosexuality was righteous in God's eyes, wouldn't there be atleast one righteous person who was gay?
If God had intended for homosexuality to be 'ok', why did he only initially put a man and a woman together?... Instead of a man, man, woman, woman and let them take their pick?
I will say that as Christians, we do need to show that we don't shun homosexuals, but embrace them. Their sin is no different than anyone else's. Hopefully, God's spirit will guide us all to repentance and trying to live a sin-free life.
Neil makes a great point. If homosexuality was something that God honored, was pleased with etc., it does make sense that there would be a bunch of references to that in the Bible. All the references I know of speak of love between a man and a woman. Of course we can think of Jonathan and David which had a healthy male friendship/love. The greatest book on love in the Bible (Song of Songs) could've been about a same sex couple, but no, it was about a man and a woman.
It's kinda like saying we evolved from fish or whatever and yet there is no clear "in between" fossils we've found. You'd think there would be thousands if not millions of those funny looking half ape, half man fossils. Or plenty of odd looking fish-to-crawly things-to-walking and flying creatures.
well, I don't know where to begin.... perhaps I am oversimplifing the bigger picture but here it goes...
I seem to agree with Paul on this subject.
I guess that we should all strive to be "good Chistians" but if that means turning my back on someone that is "different" than myself by sheer virtue of their sexual orientation...then I guess I am really confused. Doesnt that mean that there are some contradictions in what we are learning to be Christians? I didnt know it was OUR responsibility to "judge" others...
I thought we were to be compassionate, loving, caring, and patient. We can not "Teach" "therapy" or "pray" someone to be straight. My belief is that they were "created" that way.
Why would someone "choose" to live a hard, judged,unaccepted lifestyle when they could have it so much easier being straight? I have relatives and friends that are gay and I can honestly say that I have never thought about what they do in the bedroom any more than I have thought about you, my neighbors or co workers habits behind closed doors.
Evan, were gay people choosing "freewill" or were they "destined" to be gay?
God created Blacks, Asians, Hispanics etc...why not gays?
Perhaps I am not totally understanding the Bible passages that segregates Gods people. It has always been MAN that has segregated throughout history, women, Jews, Blacks etc...
Did homosexuality not exist when Jesus walked the earth? It would have had to be prevelent back then or they couldn't have made statements about the unnaturalness of it all.
Gay people can "try" to conform to society and the Bible; hide who they really are but when all is said and done....A gay person can "pray" to be straight until the end of time but will ...however bibically unacceptable it is, they will still be gay. We would have more success in turning an Athiest into a Christian.
Seems that our Lord wouldn't walk away from anyone...ever! why would He then teach that behavior? I don't want to cut and paste the Bible but I think I will agree to disagree with Evan on this and just choose to be accepting and loving to ALL my neighbors and not just the ones that are cookie-cuttered into whats "acceptable".
Sue,
Sounds like you are trying to work through this issue yourself. What this whole debate comes down to is not what Paul or I have to say about it. It’s all about what the Bible has to say. If we are not going to the Bible as a guide for life, then anyone’s opinion is just as valid as the next. I am doing my best in this discussion to point out what the Bible has to say.
As Christians we need to be able to honestly look at both the Old and New Testament passages that deal with homosexuality. Then it becomes about what God has to say, and not our emotional tie- ins with people we may know or are related to.
Being a “good Christian” means following God’s word. In doing so, sometimes we step on people’s toes (on a variety of issues, and not just homosexuality, as mentioned in Romans 1:18-32) and that may come across as “judgmental.” We need to get away from this hang up on being judgmental. If the Bible clears states that something is wrong, then it would be wrong to not point that out in a context of love and relationship. God holds us to a high standard in every area of our lives, sexuality included. It’s not our job to judge anyone, that’s God’s job. However, we are inadvertently going to get in discussion with people about current issues. So, do we just remain silent, or speak what we believe the Bible has to say. If ever some gets upset with your “judgment” let ‘em know that you didn’t come up with this idea. It’s God’s idea and all men and women (eventually) are accountable to God.
That standard really only makes sense on a cognitive level for a Christian. I can’t expect a non-Christian to act like a Christian. So, any person who is sinning against God and doesn’t hold to a Biblical standard is kind of “out of the loop”. Once the Holy Spirit has moved on someone’s heart and they have accepted Christ, then they are held to that same high standard.
No doubt, we are to be compassionate, loving, caring, and patient. In doing so, that doesn’t mean we forgo what the Bible teaches. In Matthew 10:16 Jesus says, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.”
Whether someone was born gay or not is not the issue. Again the issue is what the Bible has to say about it. Since the Bible clears tells us that homosexuality is wrong, then we all need to do our best to line up with that standard. Obviously this can be a huge struggle for “gay Christians.” I never said it would be an easy thing for someone in that category to do. However, I believe the grace and power of God is bigger than anyone’s struggle with sin. I have personally seen many, many people who struggle with homosexuality recognize the Biblical view and with God’s help “change” or at least deal with it best they can.
What any one does “behind closed doors” is never a secret to God. Just because they are doing whatever behavior “behind closed doors” doesn’t make it right. All of us... gay, straight, addicted, non-addicted, non-TV viewers, porn addicted etc. etc. are accountable to God.
It would be wise for everyone to study the key Bible passages on this issue (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Judges 19:22, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-10) to make sure they are hearing from God on this issue and not man.
Having a correct understanding of the Bible helps you realize that it’s not about God segregating people. Either you are on God’s side or not whether you are any race or creed. Yes unfortunately, men have done a horrible job of segregation throughout history.
Yes, homosexuality has been around “forever”. It was just as prevalent in Jesus’ day as ours. And that brings me to the point I made in response to Neil’s post: “If homosexuality was something that God honored, was pleased with etc., it does make sense that there would be a bunch of references to that in the Bible. All the references I know of speak of love between a man and a woman. Of course we can think of Jonathan and David which had a healthy male friendship/love. The greatest book on love in the Bible (Song of Songs) could've been about a same sex couple, but no, it was about a man and a woman.
(Sue said)
Gay people can "try" to conform to society and the Bible; hide who they really are but when all is said and done....A gay person can "pray" to be straight until the end of time but will ...however bibically unacceptable it is, they will still be gay. We would have more success in turning an Athiest into a Christian.
Like I mentioned earlier, I know lots of people who have dealt with the gay issue as a Christian and are living a life today that pleases God.
(Sue said)
Seems that our Lord wouldn't walk away from anyone...ever!
Maybe you forgot the sermon I preached a few weeks ago where Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword. That was not his intention so much as the effect of his teaching. The message of Jesus can even divide families. The teachings of Jesus and the gospel message brings division. Being a Christian is answering to the high call of God, and that’s not always popular.
Yes, we do need to love our neighbors no matter what their sexual orientation, but that love includes mention of the Biblical standard for our lives, again mentioned in love and respect within a healthy relationship (someone you have gotten to know and not just spouting a Biblical world view at some stranger).
(Sue said)
I don't want to cut and paste the Bible but I think I will agree to disagree with Evan on this and just choose to be accepting and loving to ALL my neighbors and not just the ones that are cookie-cuttered into whats "acceptable".
It would be prudent to stay away from statements like, “cookie-cuttered into whats "acceptable" from our human perspective. If what anyone is doing is not acceptable to God then we all fall under the same judgment and wrath of God mentioned in Romans 1:18.
Hope that helps. I welcome your response.
Evan
I don't believe that stating 'homosexuality is a sin' is shunning gays. To me, it seems that if 'gay Christians' and their supporters do not hear that 'homosexuality is not a sin' then they automatically feel that gays are being shunned. This I gather not just from the discussion on this blog but from what I see and hear in the media as well...Really, I believe that saying 'homosexuality is a sin' is a loving thing.
When Jesus said to love our neighbors and enemies, I don't believe it only means warm and fuzzy feelings and showering a person with praise.
When parents discipiline their children, they do it out of love. They know that by disciplining their children, they are making them better for the future.
I believe the same idea applies to our Chrisitan brothers and sisters. If we see that a brother or sister is going down a path away from God, then lovingly we should make this known to them and offer help (if they want it)...The early church was very much like this. Paul corrected Peter when he saw Peter was in the wrong.
The way we go about it is important. I believe that we can lovingly let a brother or sister in Christ know that they're in the wrong without 'judging' them....I really think the expression, "don't judge me" is used too often as an excuse.
I am the same way with my own sins. I don't like hearing what I don't want to hear.
Really, how loving is it to not point out to someone if they're truly living a life that is out of God's will?
found it! thanks Evan for the clarification... and the passages help alot. I will look over them. I guess if someone comes to me, as Neil said, then guiding them to what is bibically acceptable is fine but none of the gay people I know, my cousin, uncle and boss ever asked. they were comfortable in their own "ways" so I feel that who am I to offer or question anything about their lives. But I get what you are saying and appreciate your thoughts.
I have alot of work to do on myself before I can offer up any advice to anyone....especially on a topic that I only know second hand.
I can only live the best and closest to Gods word myself and perhaps by example...that might be enough. I always figured that what someone else did or believed was bewteen them and God and they are the ones that have to answer for their own sins. I suppose that is selfish in a way but with so much work to do on myself...all seems overwhelming to think of someone being gay as something they have a "choice" in changing as my priority. I have much to learn...
see you on Sunday! :)
Ok, one last comment on this – and this comment really doesn’t have to do with the subject at hand, but with Paul’s way of handling things.
Paul feels that, as he puts it, what he believes is 100% true.
What is interesting to me is that Paul seems to see himself as a very open-minded Christian, yet he has behaved more like a Pharisee in this discussion than anyone. He is so stuck on his platform that he’s lost sight of what being a Christian really is. His mind is made up and he won’t so much as entertain the ideas and comments of others. Legalism at its finest.
Oddly enough, Paul, being a Christian is NOT about being gay; but your writings might make one think that this is what you believe. In fact, I’d venture to say that based on Paul’s attitude, I might not get into heaven due to the unfortunate fact that I am NOT gay.
Ok, I’m being facetious here and Paul didn’t say that – but he really rubbed me the wrong way. NOT because of his beliefs, but because of the way he presented them.
Here’s the thing… Many of us here tried to meet Paul halfway – several of us didn’t agree, but we tried to see his points and tried to find a common ground. He, however, not only wouldn't meet us halfway, he wouldn't even consider our views. At all. His mind is made up and if we don't agree with him, then we are 100% wrong, period.
I can't argue with someone like that. There's simply no point.
It seems to me that while Paul definitely has a heart for gay Christians, I'm sad to say he is TOTALLY off on the rest of us. I know he'd disagree with that (shock!), but I think it's pretty obvious. Seems as though he's got a lot of pain in his heart where mainstream Christians are concerned and passion where gay Christians are concerned.
So I’ll just wrap it up by saying - "Paul, Jesus loves you, and yes, Jesus loves the gay people. Why don't we just leave it at that? After all, that really is the bottom line."
OK. The fact is that the truth is not subject to what we believe or how we feel. It remains the truth and is not subject to personal interpretation. Homesexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. No matter how much you like those friends who are gay, their behavior is a sin. It does not mean they are bad people, just sinful. We all have a sinful nature. Homesxuality is no less and no more a sin than adultery. One is just more accepted in today's society than the other. They are both sins in God's eyes.
Whether or not your homosexual friend will be in heaven is not for me to say. That is up to God. But, I wouldn't be surprised if many homosexuals wound up in Heaven. Heaven would be an empty place if sinners were not allowed. Regardless of how great a friend a homosexual is, or how kind they are, their behavior is sinful and should not be glorified. They should be treated with the same love and respect as all of God's children.
However, defending their behavior as just is encouraging the perpetuation of a sin, and that is wrong.
Hey all, I've had a super insane couple of weeks of work, so I haven't been able to get back to this until now.
Sue: Evan's views, while being held by a majority of churchgoers, isn't held by all of them and isn't the final word on the issue. Evan is right in that the Bible is the common meeting point we all come to as the method of finding clues as to how to do the most important thing - follow in the footsteps of Christ. I think he's wrong in assuming that his way, or even the majority way, of interpreting what we read in the Bible is correct. This is an area in which Christians fiercely disagree, and the case isn't near as open/shut as Evan presents it. I encourage you (and y'all!) to study this, not because you'll find out "I'm right" but because it will hopefully drive you to a deeper conversation of "how do I read Scripture" and "how should I be more like Jesus"?
Evan/Todd: You both act like it's a given that the Bible has always been interpreted the way that you as 21st century Christians currently read it without acknowledging the centuries and layers of interpretation and thought that have laid the foundation for how you think about the Bible. For example, you take it as a given that the earth revolves around the sun, but Galileo was excommunicated for suggesting that very thing. He was harshly rebuked by people like Martin Luther as being heretical because they believed (based on the Joshua story about him commanding the sun to stand still) that Scripture clearly stated the sun revolved around the earth. We now know they were obviously wrong. The Bible was used for centuries to uphold the institution of slavery. These things were just assumed and taught and perpetuated by the entire theological and ecclesiastical structure to the point where people just assumed they were true. It took a long time, and a lot of struggle, to change Christians minds and understanding to what you guys just assume today is true. So, to state that you KNOW the truth and this is what it IS without acknowledging the shifting foundation your stance has been historically built on isn't intellectually rigorous.
Paulla, having a discussion on this doesn't mean that we have to agree, right? This issue is a hot button because it gets to the fundamentals - how we interpret Scripture and live as followers of Christ. Having a discussion means respectfully and passionately saying "you're wrong" and then proving your point. I hope your irritation doesn't stay focused on me personally - this discussion is bigger than the two of us and it's about digging into deeper truth about an important issue where people's lives with God are at stake.
As for being a Pharisee, I suppose a bit of context would be helpful. I've heard all the counter-arguments Evan has presented a million times. I grew up in an extremely fundamental church, and have a long history as an evangelical. I know the mainline church position on homosexuality like the back of my hand. And I think it's wrong. It's not that I didn't hear what you guys said - it's that I heard, completely understand your position, and completely disagree with it for reasons I pointed out that have yet gone unanswered.
The primary takeaway here is -- I know how churches pay lip service to "accepting gays as people" while actually being so disgusted by them as to make it completely inhospitable for gays to even think of attending their churches. Christians all say "love the sinner, hate the sin", but it's still a massive problem. I personally think it's because it's fueled by this wrong-headed approach to the issue in the first place. But hopefully we all agree that the church in general has some serious defects in it's ability to love those it finds disgusting, and that we all as church attenders have to work as we have opportunity to change that attitude.
Evan, yer my dawg, brothah. Thanks for hosting this.
Paul,
Although there is some scripture that is obscure and up for debate.
However,Romans 1:18-32 seems be pretty clear to me that homosexuality is indeed a sin.
I think there comes a point where you can't over-analyze the text and read it for what it's worth.
As I've mentioned before, can you find example of God's chosen people who was gay? There are many people who God uses as role models and I can't find one that was gay.
You would think that if God had intended homosexuality to be part of his perfect plan, that at least one of his righteous people was homosexual.
Excellent article! We will be linking to this great post on our site.
Keep up the good writing.
Feel free to surf to my site; Hotel Deals
Great article, exactly what I wanted to find.
my web page - mediahood.net
Hello, i think that i noticed you visited my site thus i came to
go back the favor?.I am trying to find issues to enhance my web
site!I suppose its good enough to use a few of your ideas!
!
Stop by my site :: dental insurance course
I visited multiple blogs however the audio feature for
audio songs current at this web site is genuinely
wonderful.
Here is my blog post plumbing and heating london
Post a Comment