Biblical interpretation

[Hans Deventer]

David Pettigrew posted this link (http://www.reallivepreacher.com/node/633) on the general discussion forum. It did not get the reply it deserved, in my view, but perhaps it was the wrong thread. Because this is indeed about Biblical interpretation.

Now I would like to know, where does this guy go wrong? For our church has a different interpretation.

(And I'll be honest with you, I don't accept any "that's what it says" kind of replies as valid. The Bible (Deut 21) also tells us to stone our rebellious sons and I haven't seen any of us do so, so we all interpret, we all accept some commandments as valid and disregard others. Nor do we take the wife of our deceased brother and have children with her. Or do we eat kosher, or observe the Sabbath. Of course the examples are numerous, these are just given to settle the issue.

Also, don't start about my premise. You won't change it and I didn't ask for a reply regarding it, I am just explaining at forehand what kind of replies will be ignored.)

With all of that aside, I'm seriously looking forward to the answers.

Here is the part I am talking about:

There are exactly 6 scriptures that are thought to address homosexuality. I’ll either quote the passage or provide a link so that you can read it.

The story of the destruction of Sodom – Genesis 19:1-29. If you read this story, you’ll quickly see that the men of the city of Sodom wanted to commit a brutal, homosexual rape. We simply cannot condemn a sexual orientation because of a rape. There is a heterosexual rape described in the next passage we will examine together. Shall we condemn heterosexuality because of this rape?

Any reasonable person will understand that this passage has nothing to say about loving, consensual homosexual relationships.

Judges 19:1-30 is a sad story of human evil of the type that is often recounted in scripture. It is basically a retelling of the Sodom story in a different context. This time, however, the men actually did rape a woman. This passage speaks to the need for God's love in a brutal world. It has no bearing on the question of homosexual orientation for the same reason that the Sodom story is not applicable. Both of these stories condemn ignorance and sexual brutality, but not homosexuality.

Texts 3 and 4 are both in Leviticus and make up a part of the Old Testament Levitical code.

Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

The code of rules and behaviors in Leviticus does not apply to Christians. The book of Acts, specifically chapter 15, makes it clear that Gentile Christians are not required to keep all of the Mosaic laws. No Christian group I know demands full compliance with this ancient code of behavior. If we did we would have to keep kosher laws. We don’t even demand compliance with the sexual laws in Leviticus. If we did, we would allow polygamy, which is lawful in Leviticus. Unless you are prepared to obey all the laws in Leviticus, you cannot blame the homosexual for not feeling bound to obey all of them. To point to these two verses and demand selective compliance is ludicrous.

The Old Testament really has nothing specific to say to Christians about homosexuality. We turn now to the New Testament.

Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality. His absence of comment does not support or condemn homosexuality. Jesus was Jewish, kept the Law of Moses, and mainly dealt with Jewish people. The issue of homosexuality was not relevant or important to his ministry. It’s not surprising that Jesus never addressed what was not an issue for his culture.

Paul, who lived in the gentile world and dealt with gentiles, discusses specific homosexual acts twice. These passages are the only two times homosexual behavior is mentioned in the New Testament. Let me repeat that because it is important. The two passages I am about to discuss comprise the total New Testament witness on the subject of homosexuality.

I Corinthians 6:9 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders” (NIV)

"Male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders." Can someone explain to me why we would condemn an entire orientation because of the prohibition of these very specific behaviors?

The Greek words Paul used in this passage include the word for a young, effeminate male prostitute and the word for the older man who paid to have sex with him. Admittedly, there is some disagreement over how these words should be translated, but let me point out that I'm quoting from the New International Version, arguably the most conservative modern translation available. You may disagree with this translation, but you cannot dismiss it as ridiculous. The scholars who worked on the NIV are not lightweights. And uncertainty and ambiguity in translation is only a further argument for tolerance.

We can acknowledge that the New Testament condemns prostitution and a system where a younger man makes his living committing sex acts for money with older men. But we cannot condemn homosexuality in general because homosexual prostitution was condemned. Paul condemns many heterosexual acts in his writings, even in this very verse, yet we do not condemn heterosexuality.

Romans 1:18-29 is the last passage we shall look at. It is the one most often quoted, and it is clearly the closest thing we find to condemnation in the New Testament. Verse 27 is the most specific verse.

I simply ask you to read this entire passage with an open mind. In it, Paul says that those who reject God will be given over to "shameful lusts”. They will engage in many acts that are not pleasing to God. Men will “burn with lust for one another.”

In Paul's experience, the only homosexuality he knew was that practiced in the non-Jewish world and probably tied to pagan temple worship. He claims that homosexuality is one of the punishments for those who reject God. But what are we to do with gentle and committed Christians who love God and worship God, but who tell us that they have a homosexual orientation?

My homosexual friends do not burn in lust for people and run around committing scandalous acts. They are quietly committed to their partners in love. The dilemma here is that the homosexual Christians I know just do not fit the picture Paul gives us in Romans.

I'll be honest- I don’t know exactly what Paul meant by this passage. I know he was describing people who chose not to worship God and then "burned with lust for other men." I don't know exactly what he meant, but I know this DOES NOT describe the homosexual Christians I know, who love God with great passion.

Because of my inability to make clear sense of these passages, I am willing to allow a person's sexual orientation to be between him or her and God. I am willing to take a chance and err on the side of compassion and inclusion.

[Martijn van Beveren]

David Pettigrew posted this link (http://www.reallivepreacher.com/node/633) on the general discussion forum. It did not get the reply it deserved, in my view, but perhaps it was the wrong thread. Because this is indeed about Biblical interpretation.

Now I would like to know, where does this guy go wrong? For our church has a different interpretation.

And I'll be honest with you, I don't accept any "that's what it says" kind of replies as valid. The Bible (Deut 21) also tells us to stone our rebellious sons and I haven't seen any of us do so, so we all interpret, we all accept some commandments as valid and disregard others. Nor do we take the wife of our deceased brother and have children with her. Or do we eat kosher, or observe the Sabbath. Of course the examples are numerous, these are just given to settle the issue.

Also, don't start about my premise. You won't change it and I didn't ask for a reply regarding it, I am just explaining at forehand what kind of replies will be ignored.

With all of that aside, I'm seriously looking forward to the answers.


Well, Hans it's definitly an interesting topic. And when I read it, it makes sense to me. I'd have to say that I have a double feeling about it. It's a embracing message, but on the other hand this way of life seems somehow unatural to me, though I know we live in a blur in this world.


Here is the part I am talking about:

[..]



I'll have to give it more thought...

marty:basic03

[Hans Deventer]

Well, Hans it's definitely an interesting topic. And when I read it, it makes sense to me. I'd have to say that I have a double feeling about it. It's a embracing message, but on the other hand this way of life seems somehow unnatural to me, though I know we live in a blur in this world.

I'll have to give it more thought...

Martijn, same here. Mixed feelings, though I try to separate my emotions from the subject. That is why I posted the question here, to get a Biblical view.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

There are exactly 6 scriptures that are thought to address homosexuality. I’ll either quote the passage or provide a link so that you can read it.

Partly, at least, the guy goes wrong in that he has simply responded to the "proof-text" approach to the issue. His approach has been to refute a handful of "proof-texts." He has ignored the "big picture" approach.

Looking at the big picture we find human relationships and sexuality to be major theme of the creation narrative. Being created male & female and the two being made for relationship, etc., is huge part of the story. Homosexuality is to short-circuit God's plan. Genesis 2 makes it such a "given" that addtional references are basically superfluous. I think this "big picture" Biblical Theology is perhaps more important than any of the other passages on the topic.

The story of the destruction of Sodom – Genesis 19:1-29. If you read this story, you’ll quickly see that the men of the city of Sodom wanted to commit a brutal, homosexual rape. We simply cannot condemn a sexual orientation because of a rape.


This explanation ignores verses 6-8. In that passage Lot tells them not to do this "wicked thing" then offers his daughters which they refuse. This suggests that the homosexual portion of the deed was a factor rather than it simply being about the rape.

Any reasonable person will understand that this passage has nothing to say about loving, consensual homosexual relationships.

This is a loaded statements that ASSUMES that there can be a "loving" homosexual relationship. A Christian pastor will tell a young girl that if the young man "loves" you he won't have sex with you before marriage. A loving relationship would not seek a sexual relationship outside of God's plan (which is for heteroesexual relations--refer to creation theology as mentioned above).

Judges 19:1-30 is a sad story of human evil of the type that is often recounted in scripture. It is basically a retelling of the Sodom story in a different context. This time, however, the men actually did rape a woman. This passage speaks to the need for God's love in a brutal world. It has no bearing on the question of homosexual orientation for the same reason that the Sodom story is not applicable. Both of these stories condemn ignorance and sexual brutality, but not homosexuality.

I would agree that this story is irrelevant to the issue but would not tie it to the Sodom passage as the author did. Sodom dealt with homosexuality and this story doesn't.

Texts 3 and 4 are both in Leviticus and make up a part of the Old Testament Levitical code.

Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

The code of rules and behaviors in Leviticus does not apply to Christians.

We have to separate the idea of "law" versus "grace." There are, of course, changes from OT to NT. Ritual law has changed. Jesus fulfilled the prescribed sacrafices, for example. Concerning ethical behavior, however, the "law" is still in effect. It is how we deal with the law that has changed. Lev. 18:22 & 20:13 say homosexuality is wrong and we should execute the offender. There are other passages that say to execute adulterers. Jesus met the woman caught in adultery and taught us not to stone her. He also told her to quit sinning. So we no longer stone homosexuals but that is not to put a stamp of approval on the behavior.

If we did, we would allow polygamy, which is lawful in Leviticus. Unless you are prepared to obey all the laws in Leviticus, you cannot blame the homosexual for not feeling bound to obey all of them.

Progressive revelation is a factor here. However, the trend is toward tightening the law (from polygamy to mononagamy to eventually not even to lust...) The move wasn't from strict monogamy to loose polygamy.

Furthermore, I again don't think we can treat this kind of moral, ethical behavior the same as ritual and/or "health" laws such as dealing with mold and what to eat.


Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality. His absence of comment does not support or condemn homosexuality. Jesus was Jewish, kept the Law of Moses, and mainly dealt with Jewish people. The issue of homosexuality was not relevant or important to his ministry.


Unlike many of we modern Christians, Jesus didn't focus on condemning sins of any kind to the extent that we do. He did rail on hypocrisy, etc., and he taught things like loving one another, etc. In general, however, we don't find him preaching that one should not steal and give three examples of what constitutes stealing, etc. He recognized that he was dealing with sinners and offered mercy and healing. We would not expect him to single out homosexuals.

I Corinthians 6:9 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders” (NIV)

"Male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders."

Can someone explain to me why we would condemn an entire orientation because of the prohibition of these very specific behaviors?

The Greek words Paul used in this passage include the word for a young, effeminate male prostitute and the word for the older man who paid to have sex with him. Admittedly, there is some disagreement over how these words should be translated,

Regardless of the English terminology, the behavior is condemned. Some even interpret the "two" terms here to be getting at the root of both sides, that is the passive and the active sides.


Romans 1:18-29 is the last passage we shall look at. It is the one most often quoted, and it is clearly the closest thing we find to condemnation in the New Testament. Verse 27 is the most specific verse.

I simply ask you to read this entire passage with an open mind. In it, Paul says that those who reject God will be given over to "shameful lusts”. They will engage in many acts that are not pleasing to God. Men will “burn with lust for one another.”

In Paul's experience, the only homosexuality he knew was that practiced in the non-Jewish world and probably tied to pagan temple worship. He claims that homosexuality is one of the punishments for those who reject God. But what are we to do with gentle and committed Christians who love God and worship God, but who tell us that they have a homosexual orientation?

Again we have the argument based on the assumption that there can be a good loving committed Christian homosexual. When a pedophile is arrested interviews with those who knew him will often say, "He was a kind, loving man. I would never have suspected him." We wouldn't then say, "Well evil viscious child raping is wrong but what about the pedophile who is kind a loving Christian pedophile." Rather we would recognize that his participating in pedophile behavior indicates that he is not a committed loving Christian regardless of the appearances of the other parts of his life.

My homosexual friends do not burn in lust for people and run around committing scandalous acts. They are quietly committed to their partners in love.

One can only make this statement after one has already concluded that homosexual acts are not scandalous.


Because of my inability to make clear sense of these passages, I am willing to allow a person's sexual orientation to be between him or her and God. I am willing to take a chance and err on the side of compassion and inclusion.


I am willing to treat adulterers with compassion and inclusion but I am not willing to facilitiate their behavior and tell them their behavior is OK. The same goes for homosexuals.

Wilson

[Dennis Bratcher]

David Pettigrew posted this link (http://www.reallivepreacher.com/node/633) on the general discussion forum. It did not get the reply it deserved, in my view, but perhaps it was the wrong thread. Because this is indeed about Biblical interpretation.


I'll try to respond in more detail when I have time. But I thought the opening paragraph in the article was interesting.

"If we Christians were honest, we would admit that we do not abide by all the commandments of scripture ourselves. I don't mean that we try and fail. I mean we deliberately choose to ignore scriptures that are not convenient for our lifestyles. As I pointed out in my post yesterday, the amount of scripture that is ignored, scorned, and abused by modern Christians is incredible. This blatant disregard for scripture never seems to bother church people when the issues at hand have to do with their own sins. But suddenly, when the subject of homosexuality comes up, everyone becomes a biblical literalist. The hypocrisy of this is appalling."


What I find interesting here is that it never seems to occur to him that this just might work both ways.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis M. Scott]

This thread of thought is a common presentation and response. In three personal previous conversations: two of which were with same-gender persons, this same logic has been used somewhat convincingly. When one side poses that male-female marriage is the Biblical pattern and ideal, Paul's position on celibacy as an exception opens pretty wide the door for other exceptions, a couple of which quickly come to mind. That every person on the face of the earth must marry and produce children is obviously not the case. So that part of our argument is dangerously weak.

Our objections to same-gender sexual relationships are not primarily based on scripture. Admittedly, a number of theological inflamatory issues have been based on even weaker scriptural support.

As are many of our theological persuasions, our objection to same-gender issues are based more on lack of familiarity, sometimes unfortunate personal experience, emotions, and majority-rule thought patterns. Those are the same anvils upon which many of our persuasions are hammered. As much as we would like, the reality is that very few of our positions are based solely on scripture. Thusly, valid is the point that neither side of the discussion can be proof-texted.

When we personally come face to face with someone for whom gender or sexual orientation is a real issue, and especially if that person is someone whom we know personally and/or have strong feelings for, our traditional thinking is challenged. Similarly, if a loved one has experienced abuse at the hand of another, we tend to have emotional investment. Perhaps my biggest heartache is that so many people - inside and outside the church - have been so powerfully hurt by sexual abuse. The variety of such abuse is seemingly without limit. I don't know how abuse counselors keep on going.

Our biggest difficulty is that we have not positioned ourselves carefully on human sexuality in general. Celibacy broadly applied has not worked well. Avoidance of pre-marital intercourse is hardly wide-spread. Divorce and remarriage are as common among church persons, including clergy, as among those characterized by other than church values. Fornication, adultery, incest and lust run rampant in church culture, and because the church hasn't clearly addressed those sexual issues, the church's voice has a hollow ring to it. The loudest voice doesn't always carry much credibility.

There are sexually moral people outside the church, just as there are sexual transgressors in the church. There are some who now question whether sexual behavior in church culture differs significantly from that of society in general. That doesn't mean the church shouldn't take a stand. In fact, it probably means the church needs to shoulder responsibility to work harder; much harder, and more clearly.

One of the reasons church-folk are quicker to voice strong opposition to gender issues is while there is a strange and quiet identification with a number of lust related sins, gender orientation is more easily isolated from the one voicing. "I may experience or have done some of those things, but THAT one is beyond the scope of my transgressions. Therefore it must be wrong." The scriptural position on fornication and adultery is much clearer than on same sex relationships, but largely because many don't personally identify with the latter, the emotional outburst just isn't equal. When was the last time you saw police called in to quell an unruly mob of the religious right protesting fornication?

Jesus' example in John 4 might be a pattern to follow in sexual issues in general.

[Hans Deventer]

Wilson, thanks for a thorough reply! It helps. I have taken the liberty to edit your post because the quotes were not mine but from this preacher named Gordon Atkinson. So in order to avoid confusion of who said what I made the edit.

Partly, at least, the guy goes wrong in that he has simply responded to the "proof-text" approach to the issue. His approach has been to refute a handful of "proof-texts." He has ignored the "big picture" approach.

Looking at the big picture we find human relationships and sexuality to be major theme of the creation narrative. Being created male & female and the two being made for relationship, etc., is huge part of the story.

I agree.

Homosexuality is to short-circuit God's plan.

If all of us became homosexuals, yes. I don't think it is a big issue with the current number. God's plans have seen many attempts to short-circuit (the killing of the Jews in WW2 as perhaps one of the largest examples) but He managed to survive those attempts. I trust He always will.

This explanation ignores verses 6-8. In that passage Lot tells them not to do this "wicked thing" then offers his daughters which they refuse. This suggests that the homosexual portion of the deed was a factor rather than it simply being about the rape.

But then again he didn't even mention Ezek 16:49 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." On the contrary, one could say, they were even keen on raping their guests, a huge sin in those days. I do tend to believe they were focussed not so much on homosexuality as on raping the strangers.

This is a loaded statement that ASSUMES that there can be a "loving" homosexual relationship.

I have a colleague that I would describe as being in such a relationship. He's a good guy, friendly, not running around hitting on people in bars and bushes, but indeed in a monogamous relationship with another guy. So I tend to answer the question if such a thing exists in the affirmative, while I recognize that (as Paul and Brad pointed out) there is also numerous distorted and destructive homosexual behaviour. It seems to me both are a reality.

A Christian pastor will tell a young girl that if the young man "loves" you he won't have sex with you before marriage. A loving relationship would not seek a sexual relationship outside of God's plan (which is for heterosexual relations--refer to creation theology as mentioned above).

If the person is a Christian, of course.

We have to separate the idea of "law" versus "grace." There are, of course, changes from OT to NT. Ritual law has changed. Jesus fulfilled the prescribed sacrifices, for example. Concerning ethical behaviour, however, the "law" is still in effect. It is how we deal with the law that has changed. Lev. 18:22 & 20:13 say homosexuality is wrong and we should execute the offender. There are other passages that say to execute adulterers. Jesus met the woman caught in adultery and taught us not to stone her. He also told her to quit sinning. So we no longer stone homosexuals but that is not to put a stamp of approval on the behavior.

This is an important point, because you are trying here to lay down principles for interpretation and I really appreciate that. I agree that it is essentially the ethical part of the law that remains, though I realize that this statement might be too broad and unspecific.

Progressive revelation is a factor here.

Now you got me! I certainly agree with that concept. :basic01

However, the trend is toward tightening the law (from polygamy to monogamy to eventually not even to lust...) The move wasn't from strict monogamy to loose polygamy.

Agreed.

Regardless of the English terminology, the behavior is condemned. Some even interpret the "two" terms here to be getting at the root of both sides, that is the passive and the active sides.

That may be a little too fast.


Again we have the argument based on the assumption that there can be a good loving committed Christian homosexual.

According to most people's definition, the answer is no for he would never be a Christian, no matter how loving. That, however, is circular reasoning.

When a pedophile is arrested interviews with those who knew him will often say, "He was a kind, loving man. I would never have suspected him." We wouldn't then say, "Well evil viscious child raping is wrong but what about the pedophile who is kind a loving Christian pedophile." Rather we would recognize that his participating in pedophile behavior indicates that he is not a committed loving Christian regardless of the appearances of the other parts of his life.

Yes, but there is a difference between having sexual relations with a child, on a basis that lacks equality, or between adults.

I am willing to treat adulterers with compassion and inclusion but I am not willing to facilitate their behavior and tell them their behavior is OK. The same goes for homosexuals.

Then it would really help if the Manual included a statement regarding homosexuals as they have about those that killed their unborn babies:

Our local congregations are to be communities of redemption
and hope to all who suffer physical, emotional, and spiritual
pain as a result of the willful termination of a pregnancy.


I think our local congregations are also to be communities of redemption for those that suffer physical, emotional, and spiritual pain as a result their homosexual tendencies.

[Billie Goodson]

My reading agrees with Wilson's comments referring the active/passive.

I would challenge the original author's statement (who was not Hans) that the NIV is the "most conservative translation" he is presupposing something that is subjective and only offers it to bolster his assumption. The original Greek word that is used implies the effeminate position -- or the receptor in the act. What Paul did seems to condemn both the receiver and giver.

I read one interesting interpretation of this passage in 1 Corinthians at this site (http://www.dtl.org/ethics/article/homosexuals.htm). Hope it helps in evaluating the passage.

I do however, find that Han's statements have much in common with my thinking. We seem to relegate this "sin" to a greater sin category than some others -- that is the part of this that bothers me most (right now). Are we not to hate all sin, but still love all sinners?

[Kevin Rector]

I think that in general we have a really lousy theology of sexuality in the church (I mean the church universal not just the COTN). So, I will try to lay out what I see as a better theological framework from which we can look at all sexual issues.

Typically, when it comes to sexuality we see the issues as one of rules. This is perhaps more true of sexuality than any other issue. There are rules for proper sexual encounters (which are pretty strictly defined) and any breaking of that rule is a sin.

Now, as the theological world has taken a epistemic shift to relational theology we've come to understand that sin is not the breaking of rules but rather is the breaking of relationship. The "rules" are there to guide us into holistic healthy relationships. This means that rules must be contextualized at all times because it is not necessarily true that the rules that guide your relationship with your mother will be the same as the rules that guide my relationship to my mother (etc.). I would like to temper this by saying that it is true that there are some rules that are obviously universal; for instance the rule that you shouldn't beat up your mother because it will definitely hinder your relationship to her.

So you might be thinking Hans, "what does this have to do with the topic of biblical interpretation?" Just about everything. The bible is the unfolding story of God's revelation of his will for relationships. It is designed to help us understand how to love God and how to love each other.

What the bible is not is a play by play guidebook that outlines all behaviors that are acceptable and all that are unacceptable for all time. It is definitively not a rulebook. So the question then becomes, how do we determine which sexual activities are acceptable to God and which are not if we are not to use the bible as a rulebook?

The simple answer is that we debate it. We struggle with it. We work together through the issues keeping the goal of relationship always at the fore. This is messy, it is not easy, but it is how things have been decided since the Church's founding fathers had to decide what to do with the Gentiles.

So, in regards to sexuality in general. Sexuality should be understood sacramentally by the Christian. That is, sexuality is in essence an engagement that is descriptive of our relationship with God. It is a model. This means that sexuality to be pure must be other focused. Sexuality is not for our own personal pleasure (although it is extremely pleasurable), it is about our partner's pleasure. When it is holy sexuality both parties to the engagement will be fulfilling the other.

So how does this relate to homosexuality? Well, it seems to me that homosexuality is often a form of self-love. That is it negates to some extent the "differen-ness" that is necessary for a truly holistic sexual encounter. The homosexual loves someone who is like him or herself which destroys the sacramental nature of sexuality.

I'm not saying this means that homosexual sex is sin, but I am saying that it should put up some really big red flags.

As an aside in regards to homosexuality I think the strongest rebuttal of homosexuality is that virtually every homosexual I've known has suffered from deep emotional scars of one type or another (that they deny leads them to homosexuality but it seems so to me). If this is so, then the homosexual relationship can not be holistic on it's face because it is predicated on dysfunction.

So with Hans I agree our denomination should talk less about wrath in regards to homosexuality and more about redemption.

I wish I were more eloquent because I don't feel like I've really said what I'm thinking very well, so try to assume the best if you disagree with me -- it's very possible I've said what I mean badly.

[Hans Deventer]

I wish I were more eloquent because I don't feel like I've really said what I'm thinking very well, so try to assume the best if you disagree with me -- it's very possible I've said what I mean badly.

Kevin, I think you expressed yourself very well and I really appreciate your contribution. In fact, the focus on the relationship is a very good one, the problem with studying the Scriptures is that we can sometimes forget the words of the Lord who said that they point at Him. And they always should!

[Billie Goodson]

As an aside in regards to homosexuality I think the strongest rebuttal of homosexuality is that virtually every homosexual I've known has suffered from deep emotional scars of one type or another (that they deny leads them to homosexuality but it seems so to me). If this is so, then the homosexual relationship can not be holistic on it's face because it is predicated on dysfunction.


Does this not bring us to the subject of the dialog on the GLBT issues? They would argue the scars and difficulty comes because of the repression. If there was no repression by the church/society, then they would not bear these scars. Of course, that could also be construed as the path to the acceptance of incest/pedophilia/beastiality if one wanted to push the debate further. But, for now, lets stick to the relatively "safe" topic of the GLBT issues.

Here is my position -- dialog on the topic is good. We need to understand the issues and make our decisions based on first and foremost the Word of God. I am willing to dialog to more completely investigate the will of God in my life and what that will may be. Dialog helps both sides understand each other. However, it can not be based on the premise that one side must accept the position of the other. That is called "idealism" not dialog.

Do not expect me to accept a bending of the will of God to fit my own personal "issues." In that respect, I think Hans is correct, my feelings don't matter. I do not serve a God that bends to my will or is not willing to make be a better man.

[Hans Deventer]

I read one interesting interpretation of this passage in 1 Corinthians at this site (http://www.dtl.org/ethics/article/homosexuals.htm). Hope it helps in evaluating the passage.

Yes it does! I can recommend the reading. And I especially liked his approach at the end:

I want to make one point clear, I do not believe that one needs to cease to engage in homosexual behavior to become a Christian. To say one must stop sinning and then God will accept you would be salvation by works, which the Gospel of Jesus Christ most definitely is not.

He goes on to say that once saved, he does expect change. But I think the sequence is crucial here and his remarks about salvation by works right on spot.

[Hans Deventer]

I'll try to respond in more detail when I have time.

I'm looking forward to it!

[Jerry Frank]

The homosexuality issue is very close to me as my youngest son is one.

After many years of exposure, I have yet to come to a clear understanding of how to hate the sin yet love the sinner. The rationale is certainly clear to me, and the intent in my heart is real, but the practice is much more difficult.

I find that one of the more rational groups (they are neither pro nor anti-gay) is NARTH. You can find info at http://www.narth.com/index.html . A page of interest at that site http://www.narth.com/docs/dallas.html#Scriptural responds, at least in part, to the biblical arguments generally used by the gay community. I don't know that the all the comments represent good biblical exegisis but they may certainly help in understanding the various interpretations.

Note that NARTH is primarily interested in a psychological response to the issue but they recognize that biblical interpretation is closely associated with their ideas.

An excellent resource is the book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover. A web search will yield numerous hits for accessing the book.

Jerry

[David Pettigrew]

Disclaimer: I do not have the answers to any of the questions I am asking here. I do feel they are worth asking, and this is the safest place I know to ask them.

I'm so glad to see this issue discussed in a theological context. Too often, the discussion of homosexuality within our circles begins and ends with "It's wrong. Deal with it."

I would agree that I have met many homosexual men and women with emotional issues. I have met far, far more heterosexual men and women with emotional issues. I've met gay men who were sexually abused as kids. I've met a lot more straight men that were. I have met very few full time vocational ministers that didn't have emotional scars in their past (and I include myself in that number). I don't believe abuse turned me in to a pastor.

Some have expressed problems with homosexuals because of bad experiences they have had with them in their own family. I have an uncle who died a horrible death from AIDS. I saw it tear my mother apart. It made me wish he wasn't gay. On the other hand, I've known a lot more people that were hurt by church folks than gay folks.

So what do we do with the gay men and women who grew up in normal, healthy Nazarene homes (many even parsonages)? The ones who say they've never known anything but homosexual orientation? Do we say they are all lying?

Is the best response to simply quote scriptures to them and send them to the altar? The Bible has been used to condemn a lot of good behavior and justify a lot of wicked behavior.

Abraham and David, two of the OTs greatest heros, had more than one wife. Does this justify plural marriage? Lot offered his daughters to the wicked men of his city. Does this justify rape? Lot's daughters got him drunk and slept with him. Does this justify incest?

Jesus said very clearly that if you get a divorce and remarry, you are living in adultery. It used to be impossible to be a member of the COTN and be divorced. You can now be divorced and be an ordained elder. Why did we change? How many Nazarene board members are adulterers, according to this scripture? Why would I be scared to death to preach this, yet feel perfectly safe preaching against homosexuality?

Again, I have no answers to offer, and I'm tired of pretending I do. But I feel better after asking the questions.

By the way, Kevin, I love the idea of sex as a covanental act. I think I'll use that one on my wife later. "But, honey, this reinforces our image of God's love for us! You do love God, don't you?":p

[David Pettigrew]

After many years of exposure, I have yet to come to a clear understanding of how to hate the sin yet love the sinner.

I've wrote all this out a lot more eloquently, then got chicken and deleted it. Then I figured "in for a penny, in for a pound". So here it is in the rough and hurried version.

"Hate the sin; love the sinner."

I have learned to despise this phrase. Do you think anyone to whom it's applied feels loved? "I love YOU, I just hate who you ARE. Sorry if you don't see the difference."

How would we feel if someone said to us "I love you so much, but man, I hate the fact that you are a Christian, and I'll never stop hating that you are a Christian. I'll always be trying to change the fact that you're a Christian." Would we want to hang out with such a person? Would we feel safe opening up to them?

It's not that I don't hate sin. Sin is destructive. That's why God hates it, not because He's a big party pooper, but because it destroys the ones He loves.

It's not that I don't love sinners. I better, because God sure acts like He does, what with that whole sending His Son to die for them thing.

It's just that phrases take on meanings, and this particular phrase has taken on a very bad one. It's used by Christians to dismiss a whole issue and not have to think about it.

Wake up and smell the coffee! People sitting on our pews are secretly struggling with this issue, from teens in our youth group to members of our boards. We, as a church, better help them feel they are safe talking to us about it, or they'll go find a gay bar where they don't feel so hated.

[Kevin Rector]

I would agree that I have met many homosexual men and women with emotional issues. I have met far, far more heterosexual men and women with emotional issues. I've met gay men who were sexually abused as kids. I've met a lot more straight men that were. I have met very few full time vocational ministers that didn't have emotional scars in their past (and I include myself in that number). I don't believe abuse turned me in to a pastor.

Emotional issues manifest themselves in varied and different ways in different people's lives. A family tragically loses a father early. One daughter turns to God for solace one daughter gets angry at God.

Five children are sexually abused by a trusted same sex adult. One becomes a homosexual, one becomes a pedophile, one becomes a drug addict, and one becomes a child welfare advocate, one looks completely "normal" but becomes a workaholic (possibly a workaholic pastor).

Three children have a father who is an alcoholic and emotionally vacant. One becomes a homosexual, one become an alcoholic and one turns to God for healing.

Five children grow up in a very normal parsonage. They've watched how the church has mistreated their mother and father or at the least how the church never paid their pastor parent a wage comparable to the wage their friend's parent's work could pay. One grows up to be a pastor. One grows up to be a layman who manipulates his church. Two grow up and won't darken the door of a church (one of which deals with substance abuse issues and the other bulimia). One turns out apparently well adjusted and fine a pillar of the community and the church.

Now all of this is hypothetical... but my point is that we live in a really screwed up world and we must not underestimate the power this has to shape and form who we are (as an aside - this is why redemptive communities of faith are so vitally important as redemptive communities are even more powerful for formation).

My secondary point is that we virtually never know what the emotional damage was that formed us to be the way we are.

Thirdly, saying that straight people have faced emotional trauma does not in any way speak to what I was saying. Heterosexuals may simply manifest the emotional trauma in some other way (perhaps something as "benign" as being a controlling person in their marriage - the quote marks are to note that this is not in fact benign but it will rarely raise the ire of your fellow church mates).

Finally, many people may have experienced trauma or grief, learned how to grieve and mourn it properly and move on past it. So while you may have become a pastor because of your past, it's also completely possible that you did not.


So what do we do with the gay men and women who grew up in normal, healthy Nazarene homes (many even parsonages)? The ones who say they've never known anything but homosexual orientation? Do we say they are all lying?


No, the best way to deal with them is to love them unconditionally. This means we don't need to "say anything" about them or to them unless they invite us to do so after we have earned the right to speak into their life.


By the way, Kevin, I love the idea of sex as a covanental act. I think I'll use that one on my wife later. "But, honey, this reinforces our image of God's love for us! You do love God, don't you?":p

I've tried it on my wife and she says, "you're such a theology geek" and then she laughs at me. I sure do love her.

David, thanks for the conversation. I don't really have any answers either, everything I've said is strictly my opinion. As I said in the first post there is significant value in the dialog.

[Randy Wise]

Christ Jesus did not come to abolish the law He came to fulfill the law. What does the law state :Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

What does the law require of the lawbreaker
Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

The fulfillment of the law"They must be put to death" was met in Christ Jesus for those that belong to Him.

That means the law is still valid. If one turns from their sin and accepts Christ Jesus as Lord they can receive the forgiveness. This by no means abolishes the act as being defined as a sin.

What does the scriptures state about those who receive Christ Jesus and continue to sin?

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=31#fen-NIV-30148d)] and again, "The Lord will judge his people."[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=10&version=31#fen-NIV-30148e)] 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Randy

[Kevin Rector]

Christ Jesus did not come to abolish the law He came to fulfill the law. What does the law state :Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

What does the law require of the lawbreaker
Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

The fulfillment of the law "They must be put to death" was met in Christ Jesus for those that belong to Him.

That means the law is still valid. If one turns from their sin and accepts Christ Jesus as Lord they can receive the forgiveness. This by no means abolishes the act as being defined as a sin.
Randy

This is totally wrong. I will rarely use such language but you are significantly mistaken.

If the Levitical law defines sins (like a rule book) everyone on this board is in big trouble:

1) Lev. 25:23 - Buying and selling real estate permanently would be sin (Unless it's a house within a walled city)
2) Lev. 25:36 - Selling food at a profit to a fellow countryman would be sin (woe to the farmers on the day of judgment)
3) Lev. 25:36 - Loaning at interest to a fellow countryman would be sin (woe to the bankers on the day of judgment)
4) Lev. 23:3 - It would be sin to do any work of any kind of the sabbath
5) Lev. 19:27 - It would be a sin for men to not wear a beard or to cut their hair short (woe to the barbers on the day of judgment)
6) Lev. 19:28 - It would be a sin to get a tattoo
7) Lev. 20:18 - It would be a sin to have sex with a woman who is on her period.
8) etc. etc. etc.

The Levitical Code was given to a specific people for a specific time. We can glean valuable information from it (for instance that God cares deeply about whether his people are hospitable or not) but we can not find out what the rules are. The bible is not a rulebook.

Being Christian is not about obeying rules. If it is we're all up a creek. Being Christian is about loving God and loving people. Period!

[David Pettigrew]

Add one more to the list -

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

[Randy Wise]

This is totally wrong. I will rarely use such language but you are significantly mistaken.

If the Levitical law defines sins (like a rule book) everyone on this board is in big trouble:

1) Lev. 25:23 - Buying and selling real estate permanently would be sin (Unless it's a house within a walled city)
2) Lev. 25:36 - Selling food at a profit to a fellow countryman would be sin (woe to the farmers on the day of judgment)
3) Lev. 25:36 - Loaning at interest to a fellow countryman would be sin (woe to the bankers on the day of judgment)
4) Lev. 23:3 - It would be sin to do any work of any kind of the sabbath
5) Lev. 19:27 - It would be a sin for men to not wear a beard or to cut their hair short (woe to the barbers on the day of judgment)
6) Lev. 19:28 - It would be a sin to get a tattoo
7) Lev. 20:18 - It would be a sin to have sex with a woman who is on her period.
8) etc. etc. etc.

The Levitical Code was given to a specific people for a specific time. We can glean valuable information from it (for instance that God cares deeply about whether his people are hospitable or not) but we can not find out what the rules are. The bible is not a rulebook.

Being Christian is not about obeying rules. If it is we're all up a creek. Being Christian is about loving God and loving people. Period!

Is it a sin to murder? Commit adultery? To steal? Not to honor your father and mother? Doesn't it state the sexual immoral don't enter the kingdom of God?

Randy

[Dennis M. Scott]

My heart aches for those who for much of their life have a cadre of scripture verses that in black and white answer all their questions. Those verses especially are good for lashing out answers to other people's issues, as though the other people are unfamiliar with them. Then, at some point, life's circumstances change, the verses don't fit, and they lose their entire world. I have watched as they abandon the church, God, their friends and family, saying it was all a lie, when their entire life they are the ones who refused to look at scripture contextually and glean the essence. Often they are so concrete they can do nothing but sink and crack.

Pete Wagner was one who told the following.

A man thought he was dead. No matter what friends and family said to him, he would not change his mind. He wouldn't be dissuaded. He was sure he was dead.

A friend came to him and asked, "Do dead people bleed?"

"No, of course not," said the man.

The friend took a needle and pricked the man's finger, and blood came out.

"Oh," said, the man. "I have been wrong. . . . Dead people DO bleed."


May God grant that we learn the new things He would have us learn, and know the difference.

[Scott Hilton]

O.K., I am kinda jumping in here with more questions, sorry. I am not nearly as studied or fluent in my wording of things as I have read and I am still fairly young in my faith. So, I apologize if I come off as not quite as knowledgeable as to what I have read on here so far. I also want to thank those on this thread, I have gotten some great insight to some things, I appreciate the heartfelt and thoughtful responses ya'll have.

When considering topics like the one we are discussing, where maybe some scriptures are in dispute or maybe the Holy word is not as clear as we would hope on some issues, where are we to look for confirmation or further indications of what Gods desire is in certain things? From what I have read, on this issue, I feel it has been made pretty clear, but this thread still leads me to that question.

For some more clarification, I have been a member of another Christian message board and a certain topic came up. I think it kind of ties into this one, but not fully. It was about sexual acts allowed between husband and wife, more specifically:anal sex. Now, many felt this act was fully allowed by God as long as both adults were consenting and the debate was actually very thought provoking. However, in the end, it still left me with the questions of where we look for our answers.

That is one reason I like Kevin's post, because it puts God first. That was how I felt about that other discussion I was in. A lot of people were looking at it from if it was o.k. with them first and then concluding that it would then be o.k. with God. I thought they had that order backwards personally. Another thing from that discussion that I felt, was that God did give us at least 2 more things to use when considering what He would desire for us. 1. being some common sense and 2. being nature and how things were created by him. On that topic, I brought up the fact of several health issues involved with that and what seemed to be the obvious purpose of that area (if you get my drift, I am trying to be as pg-13 as possible).

So that leads me to I guess try to condense what I am trying to say. Do we also use the nature God created, common sense, and physiological understandings to confirm biblical teachings?

I hope I got that out right....if not, let me know and I will try to rephrase.

God bless
Scott

[Dane Gjesdal]

Good questions and I do believe there are some sound answers.
I'm so glad to see this issue discussed in a theological context. Too often, the discussion of homosexuality within our circles begins and ends with "It's wrong. Deal with it."

I would agree that I have met many homosexual men and women with emotional issues. I have met far, far more heterosexual men and women with emotional issues.

My guess is that there would be about 92% more heterosexuals that have issues.

I've met gay men who were sexually abused as kids. I've met a lot more straight men that were.

Abuse affects everyone differently. Adding this variable may not help those who may have a tendency toward the sin of homosexuality.

I have met very few full time vocational ministers that didn't have emotional scars in their past (and I include myself in that number). I don't believe abuse turned me in to a pastor.

I bet it made you a better one though.

Some have expressed problems with homosexuals because of bad experiences they have had with them in their own family. I have an uncle who died a horrible death from AIDS. I saw it tear my mother apart. It made me wish he wasn't gay. On the other hand, I've known a lot more people that were hurt by church folks than gay folks.

It’s all sin and falls short of God’s glory.

So what do we do with the gay men and women who grew up in normal, healthy Nazarene homes (many even parsonages)? The ones who say they've never known anything but homosexual orientation? Do we say they are all lying?

I know some who have come out of the homosexual life and say that their circumstances of life helped in shaping their likes and desires. While still others who have had a similar environment and circumstances affected their likes and desires totally different. Yet there was another who was raised in a wonderful loving Christian home that was an identical twin who discovered she had homosexual desires.

What we see is that we are born sinful, and it should not surprise us that this fallen body and nature desires that witch is not God’s will. We are all sinfully different. That still does not legitimize our desires as morally right. In any desire, that is not according to God’s known will, should never be endorsed whether it is lying or homosexuality.

Is the best response to simply quote scriptures to them and send them to the altar? The Bible has been used to condemn a lot of good behavior and justify a lot of wicked behavior.

Abraham and David, two of the OTs greatest heros, had more than one wife. Does this justify plural marriage? Lot offered his daughters to the wicked men of his city. Does this justify rape? Lot's daughters got him drunk and slept with him. Does this justify incest?

No, to all the above.

Jesus said very clearly that if you get a divorce and remarry, you are living in adultery. It used to be impossible to be a member of the COTN and be divorced. You can now be divorced and be an ordained elder. Why did we change?

I would go back and study the scripture on what Jesus was saying. The big picture of that text is dealing with men who were using the law to justify their adultery. They found a loop whole. Jesus came back at them and plugged up the loop whole by exposing their motives. Jesus is saying just because you give your wife a certificate of divorce and you go out and marry the hottie of your choice still makes you an adulterer. Why? because God knows your heart. This whole text deals with motives and our heart. Jesus is not saying that someone whose husband leaves her (desertion) should then never be able to remarry for fear of adultery. And one who does remarry, who did not have biblical grounds for their divorce, does not make that person’s new marriage illegitimate. If that is true one has just made remarriage an unpardonable sin, or does God want them to divorce again? Or, are they in need of forgiveness?

How many Nazarene board members are adulterers, according to this scripture? Why would I be scared to death to preach this, yet feel perfectly safe preaching against homosexuality?

If one has a board member living in adultery they should not be on the board. I feel safe preaching against both.

I am very confused at some of these approaches to understanding homosexually. Stating hypocrisy on other issues does not prove anything but that both issues are wrong.

[David Pettigrew]

Great question, Scott. In the Wesleyan tradition, we believe we have four authoritative sources in questions of life and faith:

1. Scripture - What does God's word say?
2. Tradition - What has the church said about this?
3. Reason - What does our brain say about this?
4. Experience - What does our life tell us about this?

Think of a three legged stool, with "truth" as the seat. Scripture is the floor, or foundation, that the truth rests upon, with tradition, reason, and experience as the three legs of the stool. Remove the floor, and you have no foundation for truth. Remove any of the legs of the stool, and you fall over.

In regards to the, uh, "topic" you brought up, nos. 1 and 2 are virtually silent, so you would have to relay on nos. 3 and 4. That says to me that there's some wiggle room on this one.

[Jerry Frank]

It's just that phrases take on meanings, and this particular phrase has taken on a very bad one. It's used by Christians to dismiss a whole issue and not have to think about it.

Wake up and smell the coffee! People sitting on our pews are secretly struggling with this issue, from teens in our youth group to members of our boards. We, as a church, better help them feel they are safe talking to us about it, or they'll go find a gay bar where they don't feel so hated.


David,

I used the phrase because I believe that I am writing to a Christian community on this thread. The fact that it has taken on bad undertones does not make the statement less valid, as you have indicated by your affirmation of hating sin and loving everyone. My problem, as I stated, is in living up to it.

The main problem with the phrase is that it is used so tritely by so many. They make it sound like it is so easy to do, when in fact it is one of the most difficult callings of living out the Christian life. I know quite a few people who think of themselves as sanctified but who cannot effectively live out that calling, whether it involves homosexuality or some other issue.

As for homosexuals feeling hated - My son, for one, does not "feel hated" because of my lack of love for him. He "feels hated" because I do not agree with what he is doing. There is nothing I can say or do to change his feelings. Only the person with the feelings can change them, sometimes with the help of professionals.

I, more than many on this forum, recognize the problems regarding the issue of homosexuals in our churches. Some 8 or 9 years ago I was considering creating a city wide support group for Christian parents of homosexuals but I convinced myself that I was under qualified to do so. There are several such secular support groups for parents of homosexuals but none in the churches of Calgary that I am aware of. There are some church support groups in other North American cities, some of which I would refuse to participate in because of their stance on the issue.


Jerry

[Kevin Rector]

Is it a sin to murder? Commit adultery? To steal? Not to honor your father and mother? Doesn't it state the sexual immoral don't enter the kingdom of God?

Randy

Randy, you have completely evaded the point of my post.

I've noticed that you love to ask questions, but rarely do you answer them in return.

I will not answer your questions unless you are willing to honestly engage in dialog and that would involve responding to what I wrote in response to what you wrote.

I wish you peace brother.

[David Pettigrew]

Good questions and I do believe there are some sound answers.


I would go back and study the scripture on what Jesus was saying. The big picture of that text is dealing with men who were using the law to justify their adultery. They found a loop whole. Jesus came back at them and plugged up the loop whole by exposing their motives. Jesus is saying just because you give your wife a certificate of divorce and you go out and marry the hottie of your choice still makes you an adulterer. Why? because God knows your heart. This whole text deals with motives and our heart. Jesus is not saying that someone whose husband leaves her (desertion) should then never be able to remarry for fear of adultery. And one who does remarry, who did not have biblical grounds for their divorce, does not make that person’s new marriage illegitimate. If that is true one has just made remarriage an unpardonable sin, or does God want them to divorce again? Or, are they in need of forgiveness?



If one has a board member living in adultery they should not be on the board. I feel safe preaching against both.


I appreciate you taking the time to address my questions. I agree with many of your answers. I have to disagree a little on a couple, however.

Here's the scripture in question, since I keep referring to it:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. - Matt. 5:27-32

Yes, I can go back and look at the background of what Jesus was saying. And someone else would say "Go back and look at the background" on all six scriptures dealing with homosexuality. My question is: are we justifying the sinful behavior that we, as Nazarenes, are guilty of by saying "Well, that's what the Bible says, but it's not what it means" while not giving the same freedom to homosexuals, since, in theory, that's not one of OUR sins.

So you would really be ok with saying from the pulpit that if you're divorced and remarried you are an adulterer? Can you imagine this statement being made around nomination time - "This year, we are not allowing any homosexuals to appear on the church ballot. We are also not allowing anyone who has been divorced. Oh, and also, no one who has lusted, unless you've already poked out your eye."

My struggle is, how can we have it both ways?

[David Pettigrew]

Hey Jerry,

I apologize if you thought I was being critical of you in particular in my post. That was not my intention. I think we're on the same page on this one, but it's hard to convey that through typed word sometimes.

[Randy Wise]

Great question, Scott. In the Wesleyan tradition, we believe we have four authoritative sources in questions of life and faith:

1. Scripture - What does God's word say?
2. Tradition - What has the church said about this?
3. Reason - What does our brain say about this?
4. Experience - What does our life tell us about this?

Think of a three legged stool, with "truth" as the seat. Scripture is the floor, or foundation, that the truth rests upon, with tradition, reason, and experience as the three legs of the stool. Remove the floor, and you have no foundation for truth. Remove any of the legs of the stool, and you fall over.

In regards to the, uh, "topic" you brought up, nos. 1 and 2 are virtually silent, so you would have to relay on nos. 3 and 4. That says to me that there's some wiggle room on this one.

When it comes to Judgment I believe only #1 will prevail before God.
Randy

[Barb Bouldrey]

This female, non-theologian, non-pastor, will step into this discussion just once to point out something that only Wilson has touched on.

From the beginning and creation, throughout the entire Bible, marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. A man and woman are to leave their parents and become one. Rules and laws about marriage in the Old and New Testaments talk about relationships between a husband and wife.

Wihtout ever studying the "6 Scriptures dealing with homosexuality," I cannot accept homosexuality as a normal relationship and never as a "marriage."

God created Eve to be Adam's helpmate and help him multiply the population. I wonder if God created sex ONLY as a means of procreation. Maybe. Maybe Dennis and you other theologians have insight into that question.

I wonder if God created sex for recreational purposes? I personally do not think so. I just think He made it an enjoyable experience for humans but expected it to be limited to a husband-wife marriage.

So, if I believe all that, I have to believe that homosexuality is against God's plan for His creation.

Barb

[Billy Cox]

Great question, Scott. In the Wesleyan tradition, we believe we have four authoritative sources in questions of life and faith:

1. Scripture - What does God's word say?
2. Tradition - What has the church said about this?
3. Reason - What does our brain say about this?
4. Experience - What does our life tell us about this?

Think of a three legged stool, with "truth" as the seat. Scripture is the floor, or foundation, that the truth rests upon, with tradition, reason, and experience as the three legs of the stool. Remove the floor, and you have no foundation for truth. Remove any of the legs of the stool, and you fall over.

In regards to the, uh, "topic" you brought up, nos. 1 and 2 are virtually silent, so you would have to relay on nos. 3 and 4. That says to me that there's some wiggle room on this one.

I would suggest that the seat of the three legged stool is Scripture. Without tradition, reason, and experience, the understanding of Scripture will be distorted or possibly even evil. Without the seat, the three legs cannot possibly be anything resembling a stool.

Making Scripture the floor presents a problem because there are wacky people in the world who think that they can jettison tradition, reason and experience and 'just sit on the floor'.

'Wiggle room'... heh

[Bob Carabbio]

Genesis 19:1-29. If you read this story, you’ll quickly see that the men of the city of Sodom wanted to commit a brutal, homosexual rape. We simply cannot condemn a sexual orientation because of a rape.

On the other hand, the context of the passage doen't RECOMMEND Homosexuality either - it WAS involved, and it was most certainly wrong - period. Not really related to the subject at hand.

Any reasonable person will understand that this passage has nothing to say about loving, consensual homosexual relationships.

Rabbit trial - false dicotomy True - It also dosen't have anything to say about whether to buy a Chevy or not either. bla. bla bla.

Judges 19:1-30

Isn't related to the subject at all.

Texts 3 and 4 are both in Leviticus and make up a part of the Old Testament Levitical code.

Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

The code of rules and behaviors in Leviticus does not apply to Christians. The book of Acts, specifically chapter 15, makes it clear that Gentile Christians are not required to keep all of the Mosaic laws.

Now THIS is dispensational hair splitting on a fantastic level. God directly ans SPECIFICALLY addresses Homosexual behaviour, calls it "detestable" - and this is subsequently ignored BECAUSE IT WAS OLD TESTAMENT?????!

I don't THINK so!

To point to these two verses and demand selective compliance is ludicrous. The Old Testament really has nothing specific to say to Christians about homosexuality.

Anybody who believes THIS is a MASTER of rationalization. The Old Testament clearly states God's displeasure with it - period. I doubt that God has altered His opinion of it.

Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality.

A worthless arguement from silence. It doesn't matter what Jesus DIDN'T say.

Paul, who lived in the gentile world and dealt with gentiles, discusses specific homosexual acts twice. These passages are the only two times homosexual behavior is mentioned in the New Testament. Let me repeat that because it is important. The two passages I am about to discuss comprise the total New Testament witness on the subject of homosexuality.

This is basically says that Homosexuality isn't important because there ain't 17 chapters about it. So the Word of God isn't important if God only says it twice. A REALLY stupid arguement.

I Corinthians 6:9 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders”

I.e. Homosexuals practicioners ain't making the cut - period

"Male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders." Can someone explain to me why we would condemn an entire orientation because of the prohibition of these very specific behaviors?

A classical rabbit trail. and an appeal to rationalization. "Homosexual offenders" - ARE THOSE WHO PRACTICE HOMOSEXUALITY - and Male prostitutes are offenders who also get some ca$h for it.

The Greek words Paul used in this passage include the word for a young, effeminate male prostitute and the word for the older man who paid to have sex with him.

Interesting but unimportant.

But we cannot condemn homosexuality in general because homosexual prostitution was condemned.

True, we condem homosexual practice on the basis of the "homosexual offence" phrase (which he conveniently omits), AND God's disapproval of it already in the Old Testament (duh).

Paul condemns many heterosexual acts in his writings, even in this very verse, yet we do not condemn heterosexuality.

Rabbit trail - false dichotomy.

Romans 1:18-29 is the last passage we shall look at. It is the one most often quoted, and it is clearly the closest thing we find to condemnation in the New Testament. Verse 27 is the most specific verse.

I simply ask you to read this entire passage with an open mind. In it, Paul says that those who reject God will be given over to "shameful lusts”. They will engage in many acts that are not pleasing to God. Men will “burn with lust for one another.”

ANd he doesn't even bother to QUOTE this one (figures it's bad for this thesis, no doubt). it is: Romans 1:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

It's not surprise he didn't have the personal integrity to include THIS text. In DEFENDING Homosexual practice he comes close to the "Reprobate mind" classification himself. Just HOW CLEAR can it get that Lesbiansm v26 - and Homosexual practice V27 aren't considered Biblically in a favorable light???

In Paul's experience, the only homosexuality he knew was that practiced in the non-Jewish world and probably tied to pagan temple worship. He claims that homosexuality is one of the punishments for those who reject God. But what are we to do with gentle and committed Christians who love God and worship God, but who tell us that they have a homosexual orientation?

AH - the heart-rending emotional appeal - to blazes with the Word of God - how about the poor downtrodden, gentle, lovely homosexual folks who want the fire insurance, but want to do what they want to do it with each other anyway???? This is the classical "If it feels GOOD - just DO IT" arguement.

I DON'T see that a homosexual orientation (if it's real, and I personally believe that it is in MANY cases) is sinful in itself, however there's not the SHADOW of a doubt that it's condemned WHEN it turns into physical action.

The dilemma here is that the homosexual Christians I know just do not fit the picture Paul gives us in Romans.

Sure they do - if they weren't "burning with lust" toward one another, they'd not be committing homosexual sin with one another. What foolishness.

this DOES NOT describe the homosexual Christians I know, who love God with great passion.

If their "love for God" is so "passionate" why don't they OBEY Him??

More foolishness. God says it ain't right,and while sin can be forgiven, Habitual sin committed under the social guise of "I Love Him/her" will lead eventually to death.

Because of my inability to make clear sense of these passages,

In other words he doesn't know what he's talking about, so lets his emotional judgement trash what the Word says about the subject.

Can two men live together, sinlessly??? - sure I've done it for periods myself - economics y'know.

Can two men LOVE each other?? - sure I've experienced that also - no sin there (David and Jonathan weren't "lovers" by the way).

Can two men/ladies KISS each other in love?? Sure - if you know anything about Italian families, you just PRAY that when uncle Joe comes around he's shaved - gets painful otherwise. It was fairly common on the '70s among the Charismatic folks (the first time it happened to me was somewhat of a shock to my psyche).

Can two men (or two ladies) play with each other sexually and physically without sin?? Not according to the Word. In the OLD testament you'd get KILLED if they caught you because it was abominable in the sight of God - PERIOD. In the New Testament it's the RESULT of willfully supressing the knowledge of God, and an outright SIN - period.

That's my story and I'm a-stick'in to it.

[Hans Deventer]

Add one more to the list -

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! David, I would almost say I love you for posting this, but within the context of this discussion, I figured it wouldn't be a wise thing to say :basic05

This is exactly what I was referring to in my initial post.

[Dale Cozby]

In the early church the Gentile short list included "Sexual immorality" The broad term used for alot of sins.

We don't even need to defend the "All or nothing" arguement with the levitical code.

We can still site the stories of homosexual offenders in the OT, but frankly there is still enough to condemn the act(s) as sinful in the NT.

Besides Pauls adressing the issue to the Corinthians we have the other proof texts, none of which I have any problem agreeing with the traditional interpretation of.

But lets take it step further:

Comitted relationships test.
So if a person had a dog they wanted to marry and be comitted to, would that make Beastialty OK? nope.
If a person lives with multiple partners does that make orgies OK? nope.
If a boy and girl decide to play house does that make fornication OK? nope.
So the comitted relationship test fails.

How about the "I was born that way" arguement? Ok, I can live with that too.

If a person is born a homosexual, that is like saying a person is born a murderer, a rapist, a liar, a thief, or any other sin of choice. Perhaps we are genetically inclined toward certain sins. So what? That just means we are from Adam by birth. But as a Christian I am born of the Spirit, not after the flesh. I died to sin, how can I live in it any longer?

Hey, I would have to say I was born to do alot of those things. BUT, I don't why? The power of the Holy Spirit restrains me and because it is a violation for God's known will for me.( we won't get into defining this stuff for now)

How about the "I was abused" arguement? OK, I got beat up as a kid, my parents spanked me, I got in lots of fights at school, etc..... that doesn't exuse me to go kill people does it?

If I preach about sexual sins, I might start with homosexuality just to bait them in, but then I start to include, adultery, pornography, fornication, lust of all types. People begin to squirm when you step on thier "pet sin" but that will pass as soon as they walk out of church. Unless they are made aware of how out of relationship with God they are. Isn't that what sin is suppose to do? Show us how far from God we are?

Kevin Rector is right. Sexual purity has alot to do with defining our relationship with God. It isn;t just an sinful act of the flesh, it a soul killer.

People struggle with all sorts of sexual immorality. Many lose the fight. But God is a God who restores.

I don't mind saying, that in spite of all the opportunities to commit sexual sins, I remained pure as a young Christian. No fornication, no adultery, no naughty stuff. 1 wife, 1 partner after marriage, 19 years and counting.

IF more of the church that has lived victoriously in this area would stand up and testify we might find some role models for our kids instead of people saying "don't do what I did" we could have "success" stories for them.
If you are needing financial advise don;'t consult the guy who has declared bankruptcy three times. Likewise, if you need advice on purity, don't go and consult the person who has fialed over and over in this area of life. We need champions of purity in the church.

Scripture:
I don't condemn homosexuality as some "special sin", but I do call it a sin. The Bible is clear on this, dispite some cleaver hair splitting legalese that would make a defense lawyer proud. Sin seperates us from the peace of God.

Experience:
I have yet to meet a gay person that is truly at peace with themselves and God. How can they be? How can any sinner be at peace with God with unrepented and unforgiven sin on thier soul?

Traditon: 2000 years the church has condemned it

Reason: The stats and facts are in and we can see it is destructive to soul and body. Thus scripture refutes it from that stand point too.

Sorry if this post is rambles, but it is late and i should be in bed.

[Hans Deventer]

Experience:
I have yet to meet a gay person that is truly at peace with themselves and God. How can they be? How can any sinner be at peace with God with unrepented and unforgiven sin on their soul?

Well, read the original post and there you go. I can show you another one:

http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf by Rev. Dr. Mel White, who, as he writes,

spent more than 50 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching, and teaching from the sacred texts. I earned my master’s and doctoral degrees at a conservative biblical seminary to better equip myself to “rightly divide the word of truth.” I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own.

I'm not saying I agree with his conclusions in that paper, but he does seem to fit your description, and in his case, hardly because of lack of theological knowledge.

So experience isn't as crystal clear as we would want it to be.

[Dane Gjesdal]

I appreciate you taking the time to address my questions. I agree with many of your answers. I have to disagree a little on a couple, however.

Here's the scripture in question, since I keep referring to it:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. - Matt. 5:27-32

Yes, I can go back and look at the background of what Jesus was saying. And someone else would say "Go back and look at the background" on all six scriptures dealing with homosexuality. My question is: are we justifying the sinful behavior that we, as Nazarenes, are guilty of by saying "Well, that's what the Bible says, but it's not what it means" while not giving the same freedom to homosexuals, since, in theory, that's not one of OUR sins.

So you would really be ok with saying from the pulpit that if you're divorced and remarried you are an adulterer? Can you imagine this statement being made around nomination time - "This year, we are not allowing any homosexuals to appear on the church ballot. We are also not allowing anyone who has been divorced. Oh, and also, no one who has lusted, unless you've already poked out your eye."

My struggle is, how can we have it both ways?

Your premise is that we “justify the sinful behavior that…we are guilty of”. If you clearly believe this then to you it is sin and you have to take a stand against all evil. That is Christian character. Homosexuality aside, if you are condoning and justifying sin then as a minister that is clearly wrong no matter what way you slice it.

I am not condoning sin. The passages you gave if properly divided hermeneutically and exegeted properly they do not contradict scripture. Yet with proper exegesis of the texts dealing with homosexuality one will conclude that it is not God’s will for one to have homosexual desires or behavior.

I cannot disagree with you more. Proper hermeneutics have to come into play here, or we can baptize for the dead, and cut of our hands and gauge out our eyes because we want to interpret the bible to fit our needs. Proper interpretation keeps one from becoming a “false teacher”; the very thing Paul battled with in his ministry. You have to ask this simple question. Is homosexuality God’s will? Is it his plan? Does the bible give us direction on what God thinks? Is there approval from God of this desire and behavior seen in scripture? Or did God miss the boat.

[David Pettigrew]

And I still say that one man's "properly divided hermeneutics" of one passage will be another man's justification of sin for the same passage. This is why we have so many denominations - people interpret the Bible differently.

There's really no sense in us going back and forth on this, because I fear we're each just repeating ourselves. We'll have to agree to disagree, and keep building the Kingdom together, my brother.

[Dane Gjesdal]

And I still say that one man's "properly divided hermeneutics" of one passage will be another man's justification of sin for the same passage. This is why we have so many denominations - people interpret the Bible differently.

There's really no sense in us going back and forth on this, because I fear we're each just repeating ourselves. We'll have to agree to disagree, and keep building the Kingdom together, my brother.

And I still say that one man's "properly divided hermeneutics" of one passage will be another man's justification of sin for the same passage. This is why we have so many denominations - people interpret the Bible differently.

There's really no sense in us going back and forth on this, because I fear we're each just repeating ourselves. We'll have to agree to disagree, and keep building the Kingdom together, my brother.

I do not mean to be confrontational and I appreciate your honesty but this is too important to just let it go. :)

We are not talking about how we interpret taking communion or how we baptize or speaking in tongues, we are talking about an act of sin that will separate a person from God for all eternity. If someone says that homosexuality is OK; not only will the person who lives that life style fall under judgment, but so will the instructor according to God’s word. Personally I hope you are right, because I would not want to be on the wrong side of this one even in attitude.

You dismiss things people are pointing out too easily. Just saying that it is one person’s interpretation is not the issue. It is whether they are using proper hermeneutics. If a church is telling their men to gouge out their eyes when they lust and half their church is in the ER, do you just sit back and say, “Well that is their interpretation”? Or, do you step in and say how they are interpreting the scripture is wrong and show them why? The price of a person’s soul is way more important than an eye, yet we just dismiss it to be PC, or to appear somehow to be more caring and understanding.

Answer me this, as I asked above… (Just answer one of them)

Is homosexuality God’s will?
Is it his plan?
Does the bible give us direction on what God thinks?
Is there approval from God of this desire and behavior seen in scripture?

There is no imputed righteousness for homosexuality or any sin.

[Dane Gjesdal]

Romans 1:26
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural (phusis).

(Para = against Phusis=nature/instinct

Romans 2:14-15
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively (phuris) the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves. NASU

(greek) Phusis = instinctively, natural.

Notice that Paul points out that even the basic instinct of man, the deepest cravings have a “normal” desire for the opposite sex, and that the same sex relation is not in our “nature” and is in fact “against it”. Paul shows that those “gentiles” who “instinctively” or in their “nature” (phusis) obey the law (sorry John Calvin) is because it is placed there by God.

Paul clearly says that the act and desire of homosexuality is against nature and our basic instinct. Paul calls this “vile”.

Tell me how one can spin this to say that homosexuality is God’s will?

[Randy Wise]

Randy, you have completely evaded the point of my post.

I've noticed that you love to ask questions, but rarely do you answer them in return.

I will not answer your questions unless you are willing to honestly engage in dialog and that would involve responding to what I wrote in response to what you wrote.

I wish you peace brother.

The Levitical Code was given to a specific people for a specific time. We can glean valuable information from it (for instance that God cares deeply about whether his people are hospitable or not) but we can not find out what the rules are. The bible is not a rulebook.

Yes, I agree the law came down from God to Moses to the children of Abraham and we are not under the law of Moses, but I also state the act of our High Priest didn't redefine the act in question as lawful. A act that was clearly written as detestable punishable by death under the law given to Moses from a Holy God. I am not alone in my judgment as others have posted Pauls judgment in such behavior. The new testament does indeed have warnings against continuing to sin that have now been sent to ALL people, though rulebook is not a term I would use. Jesus did state He didn't come to abolish the law.

Grace and Peace,
Randy

[David Pettigrew]

You dismiss things people are pointing out too easily.

Answer me this, as I asked above… (Just answer one of them)

Is homosexuality God’s will?
Is it his plan?
Does the bible give us direction on what God thinks?
Is there approval from God of this desire and behavior seen in scripture?


1. I haven't dismissed anything anyone has said. Many good points have been made on both sides of this issue in this and other threads. You assume I think homosexuality is A-OK, and I'm arguing with those who think it's a sin. This is not true. I'm just not willing to accept "It's a sin because the Bible told me so" and leave it at that. (That's the disagreement we have.) That kind of thinking is why the modern church is dying, and helps no one stuggling with this issue. I believe God called us to question and gave us a brain to use.

2. I am an ordained elder in the Church of the Nazarene. If the day comes that I feel homosexuality is perfectly in God's will or plan, I will surrender my credentials. My point in all of this is that we have done a poor job of ministering to the closeted and open homosexuals in our pews, and, yes, we have been guilty of hypocrasy.

3. I will not answer your questions, because they are the ones I am asking. Why should I give concrete answers to questions that I can't answer concretely? I don't know if anyone can know what God thinks. The Pharisees sure thought they knew, and they blew it big time. Jesus said many things to the religious leaders of His day that were just as controversial to them as this topic is to us. "Work on the sabbath" was their "homosexuality", and they had scripture to back up their view. Since they had already started with the answers, they couldn't allow Jesus to mess them up with the questions. So, they killed Him.

4. By now I've thouroughly convinced you that you were completely wrong on this, and you're ready to take it all back, right? Wrong. I've just given you fifty more reasons to disagree with me. That's why I wanted to agree to disagree, friend.

Let's see, that's one, two, three, four points. Darn it, I normally try to keep my sermons to three. Sorry for holding everyone over - hopefully you can still make it to Luby's before the Baptists get there.

[Dane Gjesdal]

3. I will not answer your questions, because they are the ones I am asking. Why should I give concrete answers to questions that I can't answer concretely? I don't know if anyone can know what God thinks. The Pharisees sure thought they knew, and they blew it big time. Jesus said many things to the religious leaders of His day that were just as controversial to them as this topic is to us. "Work on the sabbath" was their "homosexuality", and they had scripture to back up their view. Since they had already started with the answers, they couldn't allow Jesus to mess them up with the questions. So, they killed Him.
.

OK, Just one :basic05

What does God think of the homosexual lifestyle in the OT and NT? Scriptures already posted. What more do you need? Joseph Smith thought just because the bible said it was good enough, so an angel came to him. That worked.

I do not think that healing (work) on the Sabbath was controversial to the people, but only to those that did not know God. We are not Godless as in the case of the Pharisees. The Pharisees had added to the law and if they would have listened to the Lord would have understood the law. They had NO SCRIPTURE to support their view. Noticed that Jesus used the law right back at them to show them that they were interpreting it wrong. Jesus used proper hermeneutics (He is our hermeneutical teacher). Your argument here actually proves my point. They did not have scripture to back up their point and that is my point. You have no scripture to support your view that we are hypocrites and that we have somehow not ministered to the homosexual. I have had a transgender lady/man in my church for over a year. I watched a young man die of aids while ministering to him? They knew I loved them and thought the world of me, despite my clinging to God’s word as truth. I minister in the most liberal Godless State in our country, Oregon.

[David Pettigrew]

I refer you to #4 in my previous post. I can come up with a dozen scriputes to refute everything you bring up (Luke 13:10-22 comes immediately to mind), as you can for me. This has been a great adventure in missing each other's point, and I think it's time to move on.

Have a blessed weekend as you prepare for the Lord's day.

[Barb Bouldrey]

David,

This is getting off the subject and maybe I should start a new thread about that. I am not sure.

But you said:
"This is not true. I'm just not willing to accept "It's a sin because the Bible told me so" and leave it at that. (That's the disagreement we have.) That kind of thinking is why the modern church is dying..."

I am confused here. Are you suggesting that we should not believe the Bible as God's Word on sin? Ae we to believe the "thou shalt nots" of the 10 Commandments are not sin until we are convinced they are sin?

When Paul lists the things we should "put off" and "put on" are we to accept that as God's directives or wait until we decide which ones really are truth?

I do believe that every believer needs to search the scriptures, led by the Holy Spirit and asking the Holy Spirit to help us know truth, until each of us know in our hearts that we believe the scriptures. It is not what the church teaches or Christian parents teach, it is what God teaches my heart about His Word as Truth.

If you ever come to the point that you think that participating in homosexual activity is not sin, does that make what you believe Truth? What if God still says it is sin, but you just cannot accept that as Truth? Who is wrong?

When you look at all the scriptures about marriage and male/female relationships and add to that all the "6" scriptural references against homosexuality, I do not see how anyone can question that it is normal and acceptible to God. Unless we question the validity of the scriptures.

I hope that in your search for understanding you find answers that are God's answers...on everything about Kingdom living. We try the Spirit and test the scriptures so we can be grounded in our beliefs and not tossed about by every wind of doctrine.

I know how the denomination believes, but I also know how I believe. But then, I am a lot older than you. LOL. I have had more years of putting to the test what I believe.

Maybe you can start a new thread on why you believe the modern church is dying because it believes what the Bible says as the Truth, and "that's it. I believe it because the Bible says so."

Barb

[Dennis M. Scott]

Barb,

At the risk of jumping in the middle of a good thread and messing it up, I would venture to say that the reference to "because the Bible says it" doesn't end it is not to question whether or not it is sin, but rather to see the need to further understand where individuals are that are caught in whatever the particular sin is.

"God said, I believe it, that settles it," is one of the most arrogant, unChristlike phrases ever to be broadcast from our pulpits. Even if one accepts the technical side of the statement, the tenor and spirit of the utterance denies the essence of Jesus' teaching. Had that been the case, there would have been no need for Jesus to work with his disciples, or for anything in the New Testament to have been written.

God's written word is baseline. Further conversation does not change the base. Conversation often helps us know how to appropriately, fairly and effectively contextualize the message.

[David Pettigrew]

Hi Barb,

I have nothing but respect for someone who has survived as many years of ministry as you and your husband. I'm in my fifth year and wondering how I'm going to make it through the next 30! I wouldn't begin to think I would be qualified to teach you anything.

But I have determined I am going to quit stuffing my questions, and be honest when they come up. My God is big enough to handle them. I hope my church is!

As I type this, my wife is watching the Dr. Phil episode she recorded earlier today. The subject is "controlling spouses". Dr. Phil is trying to talk sense, in the way only he can, to a man who treats his wife as a slave. He brow beats her, keeps her from her family, and even made her clean house when both her legs were broken. His justification? The scriptures! "The Bible says women are to submit to their husbands."

Here are a few rules that have been in the Nazarene manual in the last hundred years -

Women couldn't cut their hair.
They couldn't wear make-up.
They couldn't wear jewelry.
They couldn't wear pants.
Nazarenes couldn't go to the circus, the bowling alley, the skating rink, dances, or the movies.

All of these rules were backed up with scripture. The scripture references were listed right after the rules as proof text.

We no longer have any of these prohibitions in our Manual.

What changed? The scriptures? The church? The culture? Were we misinterpreting scripture then, or are we misinterpreting it now?

The Bible Missionary Church that split off from us in the mid 50's would say we have gone the way of the world, ignoring clear scriptural teaching to justify our compromising behavior.

Do you see my point? Scripture is absolutely our ultimate source of authority. But our wesleyan theological traditon has NEVER taught that it's our ONLY source of authority. John Wesley said we should interpret scripture through the teachings of the Church, our own personal faith journey, and the brain He gave us to think with.

The story of scripture is timeless and unchanging. There's a God Who loves us, and will do anything to reach us, in spite of the fact we keep turning our back on Him.

I think it's healthy to question the details, though. That's how we grow. When we quit doing this, we go the way of the Bible Missionary Church, and it is one hot mess, let me tell you.

[Dane Gjesdal]

Yes, I agree the law came down from God to Moses to the children of Abraham and we are not under the law of Moses, but I also state the act of our High Priest didn't redefine the act in question as lawful. A act that was clearly written as detestable punishable by death under the law given to Moses from a Holy God. I am not alone in my judgment as others have posted Pauls judgment in such behavior. The new testament does indeed have warnings against continuing to sin that have now been sent to ALL people, though rulebook is not a term I would use. Jesus did state He didn't come to abolish the law.

Grace and Peace,
Randy

Well stated. The law was given to show us how sinful and ugly we are. The law convicts of sin (Romans 7). We are only under the law when we remain in sin by breaking the law. As Paul said, “sin sprang to life in me and I died”. The law was not abolished, but fulfilled in Christ. We die to the law when we are born into the kingdom. Show me one moral law that God later said he now accepts as morally acceptable? Is homosexuality fulfilled in Christ? That is freaking twisted.

What I think is sad about all of this…is that this next generation will come to accept homosexuality as a legitimate alternative lifestyle, and God will come and remove the lamp stand from that church. The only churches that I see growing are the evangelicals who are taking moral stands without waiver. God will bless them. The churches that are shrinking are the mainline liberal churches that have nothing to offer but human opinion. They have a form of Godliness but deny the power thereof.

Look at Pastor Pearson from Higher Dimensions in Tulsa a church of 5K people. I had been to his church and heard this guy preach; he was Carman the singer’s Pastor. This guy went down this slippery path and lost his soul. He preached his church down to nothing. I knew a Pastor in Eugene OR who Pastored a United Methodist Church and questioned their churches stand against homosexuality and would not speak out against it and his church dwindled down to nothing and he died of aids 6 years ago.

Our churches legalism in its history has nothing to do with salvation. Those were unfounded uneducated twistings of scriptures to support poor hermeneutics. But I never heard any church with a legalistic back ground say that if you do not believe the way they did you are lost. But anyone who preaches that homosexuality is God’s will and is a holy lifestyle is teaching heresy.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Thanks to both of you guys,

I now understand what you are saying. And I agree with both of you.

What the church has called "sin" in the past that was really only legalism was not biblical sin.

But there are some sins mentioned in the Bible that were sin to the Old Testament and also to the New Testament that are still sin today.

All sin can be forgiven and cleansed.

Barb

[Dane Gjesdal]

Barb,

At the risk of jumping in the middle of a good thread and messing it up, I would venture to say that the reference to "because the Bible says it" doesn't end it is not to question whether or not it is sin, but rather to see the need to further understand where individuals are that are caught in whatever the particular sin is.

"God said, I believe it, that settles it," is one of the most arrogant, unChristlike phrases ever to be broadcast from our pulpits. Even if one accepts the technical side of the statement, the tenor and spirit of the utterance denies the essence of Jesus' teaching. Had that been the case, there would have been no need for Jesus to work with his disciples, or for anything in the New Testament to have been written.

God's written word is baseline. Further conversation does not change the base. Conversation often helps us know how to appropriately, fairly and effectively contextualize the message.

Should the 10 spies have questioned what God wanted? Or did the 2 that didn't question God have simple minds? :basic05

It is OK to question, but the Bereans would not have been more “noble” if they came to the conclusion that the Apostles teachers where wrong.

Acts 17:10-11
11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. NIV

[Hans Deventer]

Should the 10 spies have questioned what God wanted? Or did the 2 that didn't question God have simple minds? :basic05

You would have stoned the woman caught in adultery?

I knew (read my very first post in this thread) we would eventually get caught up in discussions like these. David did a great job trying to explain what I meant, but that isn't always enough. I really applaud Barb for staying with us and asking questions.

Anyway, the bottom line is that it is impossible to read the Scriptures without interpretation. Probably already because God did not throw a golden book down to the earth, but chose to use people to write down His message and these people lived in specific circumstances and addressed the people with God's message in those specific circumstances. Of course we can (and should!) learn from those messages, for they are still God's words, but it is crucial to understand how they are also shaped by people and circumstances. "Theopneustos" is the word, and that does not mean, dictated. (2 Tim 3:16)

You know, I am actually encouraged by the way God used people to write the Scriptures. The fact that He didn't feel like He needed to use them as typewriters says something very profound about what God can do THROUGH us, in stead of DESPITE us.

[Randy Wise]

You would have stoned the woman caught in adultery?

In this day and age I would say to the living such a sin will lead to death if left unrepentant.

Randy

[Kevin Rector]

Yes, I agree the law came down from God to Moses to the children of Abraham and we are not under the law of Moses, but I also state the act of our High Priest didn't redefine the act in question as lawful. A act that was clearly written as detestable punishable by death under the law given to Moses from a Holy God. I am not alone in my judgment as others have posted Pauls judgment in such behavior. The new testament does indeed have warnings against continuing to sin that have now been sent to ALL people, though rulebook is not a term I would use. Jesus did state He didn't come to abolish the law.

Grace and Peace,
Randy

Thank you for attempting to address the point I've raised. However, you've still missed my point entirely. I'll try again and I'll try to be more clear.

Here's the crux of it... how do you latch onto one law as still valid and completely disregard many of the others? This seems like hypocrisy to me. This is not a question of what is or isn't sinful (so please don't think that I am saying it's ok with God if you're gay because I'm not saying anything about homosexuality per se), it's a question of biblical interpretation which is the title of the thread anyway.

If we can use Leviticus to determine that the act of homosexual sex is sinful why can we not also use Leviticus to determine that the act of eating lobster is sinful? Why can we also not use Leviticus to determine that permanently buying or selling real estate (except within walled cities) is sinful? Why can we not also use Leviticus to determine that men cutting their hair short and not wearing a beard is sinful? Why can we not also use Leviticus to determine that lending money at interest is also sinful?

Seriously, do you consider eating lobster to be "detestable"? That's what the NIV says we are to think about it per Leviticus. So I'll ask again; how do you latch onto one law as still valid and completely disregard many of the others?

[Randy Wise]

Thank you for attempting to address the point I've raised. However, you've still missed my point entirely. I'll try again and I'll try to be more clear.

Here's the crux of it... how do you latch onto one law as still valid and completely disregard many of the others?

Seriously, do you consider eating lobster to be "detestable"? That's what the NIV says we are to think about it per Leviticus. So I'll ask again; how do you latch onto one law as still valid and completely disregard many of the others?

You mean when I read the very words of God, which are Holy because He spoke them how do I determine which is still right and wrong from the law? I see a difference in the acts of the sinful nature from rules and regulations in regard to a religion of sacrifices and offerings and how one is kept ceremonial clean. The new testament would indeed make that definitive.

Randy

[Kevin Rector]

You mean when I read the very words of God, which are Holy because He spoke them...

I'm sure this is a rabbit trail, but do you know that the COTN teaches plenary not verbal inspiration? That means that the bible is not the literal spoken words of God.


...how do I determine which is still right and wrong from the law? I see a difference in the acts of the sinful nature from rules and regulations in regard to a religion of sacrifices and offerings and how one is kept ceremonial clean. The new testament would indeed make that definitive.

Randy

Ok, for the sake of discussion, let's throw out eating Lobster because it is about ceremonial cleanliness.

How do you see loaning at interest? What does the NT say that negates this "act of the sinful nature"?

Or put another way (if you don't see loaning at interest as an act of the sinful nature) how is it that sexual issues are acts of the sinful nature but loaning at interest isn't?

I genuinely want to understand how you handle these passages.

[Randy Wise]

I'm sure this is a rabbit trail, but do you know that the COTN teaches plenary not verbal inspiration? That means that the bible is not the literal spoken words of God.



Ok, for the sake of discussion, let's throw out eating Lobster because it is about ceremonial cleanliness.

How do you see loaning at interest? What does the NT say that negates this "act of the sinful nature"?

Or put another way (if you don't see loaning at interest as an act of the sinful nature) how is it that sexual issues are acts of the sinful nature but loaning at interest isn't?

I genuinely want to understand how you handle these passages.

I think you're straining out a gnat.
Randy

19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

[Kevin Rector]

I think you're straining out a gnat.

I'm really not, and here's why. How we interpret the bible is absolutely fundamental to how and what we believe as well as how and what we live.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I'm starting to understand your interpretive method. You use the New Testament to interpret the Old. If something is listed as a sin in the NT and also the OT then the OT passage has weight. If it is not listed as a sin in the NT but is in the OT then the OT is not valid for us anymore. Is this correct? Is this how you interpret scripture?

[Randy Wise]

I'm really not, and here's why. How we interpret the bible is absolutely fundamental to how and what we believe as well as how and what we live.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I'm starting to understand your interpretive method. You use the New Testament to interpret the Old. If something is listed as a sin in the NT and also the OT then the OT passage has weight. If it is not listed as a sin in the NT but is in the OT then the OT is not valid for us anymore. Is this correct? Is this how you interpret scripture?

Or I might see all the law as law and you the new covenant teachings to filter out or make judgments on the acts that can still lead to death . I might find myself like Paul when He is basing a point he is making with the law as a example he said &