What the Bible says about Homosexuality...

[Scott Sherwood]

And gave a pretty solid explanation why that answer was wrong anyway. So the discussion is, how do we read the Scriptures? Which was Dana's initial question. After 77 posts, no one has yet given an answer. See Eric's question: http://www.naznet.com/community/show...l=1#post136967

I believe there to be clear hermeneutic distinctions between the issues equated with homosexuality in the video and in David's posts. At the risk of boorishness, I'll post a paper I wrote on the matter, which I've posted before when these same issues have arisen. I apologize for not fitting my answers into the flow of the thread. If reading an entire paper is too much, please disregard it. I feel an urgency, though, for someone to speak up for the church. I do not believe for a second that it has ever been the Church of the Nazarene's intent to blatantly disregard the clear intent of Scripture. To paint with such a broad brush as to equate fabric-mixing with slavery with homosexual sin and to say that if we accept one, we have to accept them all, is hermeneutically sloppy at best. My paper does not deal in depth with these other issues, but it does touch on each of the Biblical passages relevant to homosexuality.How Is Homosexual Behavior Addressed By Scripture.doc

[David Pettigrew]

I think you nailed it when you say the "crux" of the issue. Our understanding of all scripture must be cruciformed. We interpret uncomfortable passages in light of the cross, which means we ask "what does the law of love say about this?"

The closest equivalent to divorce in Jesus' day would be found in rural areas of the Middle Eastern countries today, where women have no rights, and a man who wants a younger wife can simply accuse his wife of adultery and have her stoned. Jesus was speaking out against injustice.

Is divorce today ever just? I have a relative who in the 1920s left her drunk abusive husband. She remarried a good, hardworking man. Then, she got saved in a revival in the Church of the Nazarene. The church told her she couldn't be saved unless she divorced her second husband and remarried her first, which she did. Was this following the law of love?

If two immature students go to a Nazarene college and get married so they can have sex, then five years later discover they make one another miserable, is the most loving option to force them to stay together, or to allow them to admit their mistake and move on?

At the same time, there are multitudes of cases where divorce is the most selfish, unchristlike act we could commit. We destroy children and churches with divorce. God hates it.

As I watch the young man's video, I must view him through the cross and decide the most loving response.
I offer no answers, but I believe we must wrestle with the cross on the issue

OK, So I've been following the discussion between Dave and Doug with interest. Could you all help me out with a simple question. Scripture is very clear that divorce a no-no and remarrying after divorcing is a adultery. Divorce, remarriage, adultery... sin. Jesus said so. Pretty cut and dry. Not much room to debate the biblical position on these things. Right? Except that the church is very open to even ordaining people who are living in such states. So in this particular case, scripture is clear, but we look the other way.

Then we look at the scriptures pertaining to homosexuality. The levitical stuff is in such a context that we really must throw it out. The Sodom story is interpreted by Ezekiel as not relating to homosexuality at all, but rather about social justice. The Pauline text is so debated no one can really know what the relevant words mean/meant. And Jesus said nothing about it. Yet in this case we want to be dogmatic about making sure homosexuality remains a SIN with a capital S.

Can anyone please explain to me how we can interpret these texts/issues this way? and why the biblically clear issue we ignore and the biblically murky issue we uphold unswirvingly?

This seems to be the crux of the issue, but we don't seem to be getting at it very well.

[Bob Hunter]

Nor do gay people try to sway others into becoming gay

Not always true. They most certainly take opportunity to forward the agenda when it is possible to do so. I don't think you are aware of some of their efforts to promote the discovery of gayness or at the very least raise awareness. We had a man in our Church a few years ago that "came out" and left three children and a beautiful wife to pursue a gay relationships. He was quite handsome and as the wife tells it, he was the crown jewel of the gay community because they welcome a fresh influx of "virgin meat" from which to choose a mate. It's totally sick, his first two gay boyfriends dumped him. So much for that....

Maybe that happens in your part of the world, but not mine.

I lived in Portland, OR for 17 years where keep Portland weird is the motto. Very liberal, very gay and folks are extremely bold about it in the workplace. There is very little fear of repercussions. They are right out in the open with it. (I wouldn't say that of all, but my wife worked in a large hospital where gay was just another lifestyle choice...no big deal).

this young man is twisting the true explanation of the scripture to suit his agenda.

Probably. We all bring assumptions to the text. I hope this thread helps us work through our hermeneutical misteps. We do need to be more consistent. I reject his hermeneutic and respectfully disagree with him. God has more for us.

[Dan Henderson]

There is a scientific aspect to this also. Homosexuality cannot continue via natural selection, proselytizing is the primary method. The kindest I can be to those who would say gays don't try to convince others they are gay is that they are not paying attention.

[David Pettigrew]

I hope this thread helps us work through our hermeneutical misteps. We do need to be more consistent.

I guess that's my issue. A pastor on my district was arrested this week for soliciting a minor online. When we can go three or four months without something like this happening, maybe homosexuals will start to listen to what we have to say when we open the Bible.

Edited to Add - I really really wish we put the effort into saving Christian marriages that we put into preventing gay ones.

[David Pettigrew]

I believe there to be clear hermeneutic distinctions between the issues equated with homosexuality in the video and in David's posts. At the risk of boorishness, I'll post a paper I wrote on the matter, which I've posted before when these same issues have arisen. I apologize for not fitting my answers into the flow of the thread. If reading an entire paper is too much, please disregard it. I feel an urgency, though, for someone to speak up for the church. I do not believe for a second that it has ever been the Church of the Nazarene's intent to blatantly disregard the clear intent of Scripture. To paint with such a broad brush as to equate fabric-mixing with slavery with homosexual sin and to say that if we accept one, we have to accept them all, is hermeneutically sloppy at best. My paper does not deal in depth with these other issues, but it does touch on each of the Biblical passages relevant to homosexuality.Attachment 3688

I appreciate your document and your contribution. It's non-boorish. I think naznet is important because it is a safe place to have these discussions, and maybe stretch each other.

[Andy Mistak]

There is a scientific aspect to this also. Homosexuality cannot continue via natural selection, proselytizing is the primary method. The kindest I can be to those who would say gays don't try to convince others they are gay is that they are not paying attention.

This is a lie. You're wrong about this, and it's a hurtful, harmful attitude that has a real-life cost for people who I love.

[Greg Farra]

I guess that's my issue. A pastor on my district was arrested this week for soliciting a minor online. When we can go three or four months without something like this happening, maybe homosexuals will start to listen to what we have to say when we open the Bible.

Edited to Add - I really really wish we put the effort into saving Christian marriages that we put into preventing gay ones.

Hopefully, we do that a lot as well. I get a lot of invites to marriage strengthening workshops and weekends put on by churches and para church ministries. I also have been working with a couple that I sent to marriage counseling who's problems were way beyond my abilities to counsel.

One thing for sure, we need to love each other. The tough part is how that is played out.

[David Pettigrew]

Hopefully, we do that a lot as well. I get a lot of invites to marriage strengthening workshops and weekends put on by churches and para church ministries. I also have been working with a couple that I sent to marriage counseling who's problems were way beyond my abilities to counsel.

One thing for sure, we need to love each other. The tough part is how that is played out.

Yes, and we're failing. The divorce rate among Christians is no different than non-believers. We have a real crisis.

I'm thankful for naznet, for I believe we are having this discussion lovingly. I'm glad someone like Dana, out of love for her friends, was brave enough to start this thread.

[Dan Henderson]

This is a lie. You're wrong about this, and it's a hurtful, harmful attitude that has a real-life cost for people who I love.

Open your eyes and look around. You can't discount what I say by saying "nuh uh"

[Benjamin Burch]

You can't discount what I say by saying "nuh uh"

Is that better than nuh uh?

There is a scientific aspect to this also. Homosexuality cannot continue via natural selection, proselytizing is the primary method. The kindest I can be to those who would say gays don't try to convince others they are gay is that they are not paying attention.

I wish they had the full clip, there. He says "ERRONEOUS! ERRONEOUS! ERRONEOUS ON BOTH COUNTS!!" And, I think that fits. This is wrong on both counts.

(1) The time for homosexuality to be selected against in our human history would have been when we were young and consistent reproduction was necessary, as were feminine females and masculine males. However, we are now at a point in our evolutionary development as human beings that (a) we no longer need consistent reproduction from ever member of the species, our population is more than large enough and (b) Androgyny is now desirable due to advancements in technology and far less use for traditional gender roles.

If there was a time for homosexuality to be selected against it is not now. If it hasn't been selected against already, it will not start now.

(2) What you've stated goes against the very heart of the LGBT movement and therefore also seems to miss the sociological aspects of homosexuality. They believe (and to a degree they have the scientific evidence on their side at this point) that homosexuality is not nurture or choice, but is nature. Therefore, if you believe that people who believe homosexuality is not a choice try to convert people to choose homosexuality, that makes little to no sense. On top of that, I can tell you from loads of experience (I worked for a gay couple for a year who are extremely active in SD LGBTQ and on a regular basis were serving as well as in conversations with leaders in the movement/SD Chapter, and I am still friends with all of these people) that this simply isn't the approach of the majority of gays.

There are, of course, always going to be the gay men who believe they can convert a straight man to become gay. I've met plenty myself. They're the exception, not the norm. I have found - in my anecdotal experience - that the mindset of conversion is more common among young, immature folks who are still a bit confused and in the peak of their sexual prime. Once they've come to accept that they're gay/lesbian, and matured, I've never met a single one who thought they could convert others.

However, as straight people, we simply don't understand the mindset and will often misunderstand the situations. Homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals when it comes to sexual desire/drive. The same as many heterosexuals will find someone attractive and desire to have a one night stand with them, even if they are for some reasons off-limits, so, too, will homosexual people desire to have one night experiences with individuals, even straight individuals, and attempt to pursue that, just as heterosexuals would. We then misinterpret this as "attempting to convert", which couldn't be further from the truth.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Open your eyes and look around. You can't discount what I say by saying "nuh uh"

Andy is right. The research, the case studies, the neuro-anatomical research consistently demonstrate that gayness is NOT a choice. And just a simple thinking it through, who would voluntarily choose to be hated so like the PEOPLE of the gay community? To ignore the research, to ignore the statements from gays themselves as to how it was never a choice (and I discount the statements from those who have been traumatized and brain washed by gay treatment programming (I have friends who have experienced this hate filled faux therapy)), to ignore the person who has intimate knowledge just to insert our own ideas because they seem right to us is the height of arrogant ignorance. It is akin to letting atheists and Muslims define what it is to be a Christian. Everyone here on NazNet is smarter and better than this whether or not you believe homosexual behaviour to be sin or not.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Yes, and we're failing. The divorce rate among Christians is no different than non-believers. We have a real crisis.

I'm thankful for naznet, for I believe we are having this discussion lovingly. I'm glad someone like Dana, out of love for her friends, was brave enough to start this thread.

Actually I read somewhere, can't recall where, that it actually exceeds the rate in secular society in some areas of America.

[Benjamin Burch]

Against my better judgment.... I'm going to jump in a little here:

I guess I still do not understand. . . who is doing this?

Come on, Doug. The Church of the Nazarene is doing it. We tell pastors who are remarried after divorce that they can be ordained, but we shut ordination off from those who are practicing homosexuality. You know good and well who is doing it, and the answer is the majority of American Protestant Christianity. What David has said is true across large swaths of Christianity, including the CotN.

David, let me press you on this a little. Is there a different definition of homosexuality? In the Biblical record, they meant something different than men exchanging relations with other men? Or maybe that is NOT what homosexuality means today? I guess I do not understand. I am not a Biblical literalist, but perhaps you could explain a metaphorical homosexual to me. I am just not familiar with the concept, but I do not get out much anymore.

It is a matter of historical record that Roman slavery was a far cry from the racial slavery of our experience in North America. Perhaps that is why Paul had to tell believers in 1 Cor. 7 not to become slaves. He did so because slavery was not an undesirable way of life. In fact many slaves had a higher social standing than a mere artisan, like a tentmaker. In order to read scripture we must enter their world as much as possible. I did not know that doing so made one a literalist, but then again, I leran new things every day. So if you run across information that homosexuality meant something different then, well, I am all ears.

I will concede you’re correct on two counts:

(1) Men having sex with men has not changed
(2) Paul could/should have been well aware of the idea of gay people marrying, via Plato.

However, overall you seem to ignore the reality of just how different our understanding of homosexuality is from what the understanding was in Paul’s time. To even begin to say that Paul had any idea about “orientation” in any meaningful way is just not true, not compared to what we scientifically know about LGT people today, psychologically and physiologically. We simply cannot ask Paul to comment on what we know today, when he didn’t (and couldn’t have) know it. Paul was still limited to his cultural (1st Century Hellenistic Jew) understanding of the issue. The question has to become, is that cultural understanding of any value today, given how antiquated it truly is on an issue such as this?

[Gary Creely]

I do not believe for a second that it has ever been the Church of the Nazarene's intent to blatantly disregard the clear intent of Scripture. To paint with such a broad brush as to equate fabric-mixing with slavery with homosexual sin and to say that if we accept one, we have to accept them all, is hermeneutically sloppy at best.

I would agree to parallel slavery and homosexuality is a weak argument right on its face, however the parallel between divorce and homosexuality seems a more compelling comparison. I would also agree with your conclusion on the original intent. I would be interested to see a Nazarene scholar deal with the divorce parallel.

PS- what motivated you to write this paper?

[Benjamin Burch]

Bob, you and I have had these discussions personally multiple times. I doubt all of this will be new to you, but maybe I can help nonetheless. I hope others find my responses helpful.

In recent years I have tried to be somewhat abreast of the medical risk factors involved in male homosexual behavior .... They have very acute symptoms that are sometimes directly related to sexual activity. The male prostate is a very delicate gland that is not designed to be repeatedly traumatized by anal penetration from a male sex organ. There are increased health risks when men practice homosexual sexual activity such as higher rates of rectal cancer, anal fissures, prostate problems, pelvic pain, impotence, hepatitis, etc. Put simply, the male body was not designed and is not sexually compatible with another male body.

Yet, this doesn’t help us discuss LGT issues, because the Church claims that “sin/not sin” applies equally to Lesbian or Gay (well, we certainly don’t actually treat it that way, but we claim this is true). Thus, we should work from this claim. This means that what may be unfortunate side effects of gay sex are not helpful as evidence if there are no unfortunate side effects of lesbian sex - which there are not. Therefore, this simply isn’t helpful information, just unfortunate information. On top of that, we tend to be very selective (as is Scripture) with how we apply either Proverbs or Job/Ecclesiastes, and when we choose to apply one. In fact, we often just skip Job/Ecclesiastes in general and move straight to Proverbs/NT distinctions.

Proverbs proposes that when we make wise (also righteous) choices, things go well for us. When we suffer, it is because we have been unwise (and thus unrighteous). Karma-ish.

Thus, we apply this to things like the consequences of gay sex, as evidence it is not right. However, if something we deem as “righteous” suffers unfortunate consequences, we chalk it up to the NT teaching that we will be persecuted, or that life is not going to be easy for those who are righteous. We completely ignore the teaching of Ecclesiastes that life just sucks and there is no answer as to why. The wicked prosper and the righteous suffer, for no reason, and all is vanity. Therefore, I am skeptical of all attempts to vindicate the idea that something is sinful behavior based upon unfortunate consequences, particularly in this discussion because it does not apply equally.

Of course, proponents of homosexuality will argue, "it's not about sex...blah, blah, etc." But it never precludes sex either.

(1) Is your marriage about sex?
(2) If loving your wife, and sharing intimacy with her forever meant you had to suffer the same ills as gay men do, would you sign up anyway?

I believe homosexual behavior is contrary to God's natural design. The foreskin on a penis is analogous to the clitoris on a vagina.

Fetal development tells us this is meaningless. It’s the same body part, but develops in one of two directions in the womb. This is evidence that humans exist in two sexes, not that those two sexes are designed to be together exclusively.

The compatibility of male and female bodies is truly amazing.

Well... in order for the human race to live on in its early years it needed to be able to reproduce, therefore it would seem like - just as in all other species - male and female sex working well would be a necessity. This doesn’t tell us much other than that evolution works. No surprise there, God seems to have done a good job there.

However, you’re making an assumption (which seems unfounded) which says that since this is so, this is somehow evidence that this is exclusively the way that sex is supposed to function. However, this compatibility between male parts and female parts exists across the whole animal kingdom, and yet tons (literally, over 2,000) of species practice homosexuality. Therefore, the assumption seems ill-founded and unhelpful.

Also, Hans brings up an interesting point about the incompatibility of the male and female bodies for female sexual stimulation. However, as males (who dominate the Church’s theology) we ignore this fact, because it is designed so perfectly for our sexual stimulation. This is not a coincidence, considering our sexual stimulation is that which is important for procreation, not the female’s. However, in light of this, I submit this article for you to read. It’s very helpful in understanding this....

Thus, it seems “compatible” language isn’t helpful at all.

Homosexual relations can never achieve what heterosexuals can in terms of procreation and compatibility.

If reproductive compatibility were the only type, then you’d be correct. I’m guess, again, based upon your love for your wife, you know this isn’t true. Therefore, you’re just expressing a tautology.

But I have yet to see anyone argue successfully against God's natural design.

I would counter that no one has ever successfully argued for God’s natural design being required exclusively simply because it was God’s natural design. This assumes that procreation is always the priority. Our own evolutionary development and current state proves this is not true.

I find nothing compelling about the idea that God’s natural design for procreation is the only design God desires for intimate love. I’ve yet to see anyone provide something helpful to argue this.

And truthfully, we have used that argument arrogantly in ways that have not been helpful (Adam & Eve and not Adam & Steve). We have done the same with the Bible, at times we express the Bible's opposition to homosexual behavior so vehemently that is comes across judgmental.

Yes, we have, and I’m thankful for your attempts to do better than that.

[Paul DeBaufer]

If, as Jesus suggests. to divorce and remarry is to commit adultery. Then the remarried person is continually committing the sin of adultery throughout the subsequent marriage. If homosexual behavour is sin, how is it any different from the sin of adultery within a second or subsequent marriage? Continuing in sin is continuing in sin. Therefore, none of us who have been divorced and remarried can be Christians and have given up our salvation. You cannot have it both ways.

Personally, I believe that Jesus was talking about the reasons for divorce as described by David in post #82. If we can consider other than the plain reading of the text in this, and say that He wasn't addressing divorce within our cultural framework, why do we not allow for the same when it comes to homosexuality?

[Todd Erickson]

There is a scientific aspect to this also. Homosexuality cannot continue via natural selection, proselytizing is the primary method. The kindest I can be to those who would say gays don't try to convince others they are gay is that they are not paying attention.

A. You're using the scientific method selectively in this instance, i.e., homosexuals can't breed with each other, therefore they don't belong in nature. This is inherently flawed, as 1) there are many other species of animal, including wolves, in which homosexuality is not abnormal, and has a long history, and yet those species still thrive. Which seems to indicate that homosexuality is inherently about something other than breeding.
B. By only allowing science to back up the part of your argument you like, while ignoring everything else that science has to say so far about what we actually know about homosexuality, you actively undermine your point.
C. This is really just a call to affirmation of confirmation bias. "Everybody knows the earth is flat, even science tells us so. This Gallileo fellow is full of nonsense". It's okay, your kids and their kids will live in the world that results from your actions too.

[Hans Deventer]

I want to throw something in that has bothered me about my own view. It's something I have to fight against, but it is there. When thinking about men having sex, my stomach turns. Can't even look at men kissing, even if only in the way men from Eastern Europe are used to. My emotions evoke a feeling of disgust.
The strange (or not) thing is that two women kissing hardly evokes any emotion. In fact, imagining them to make love doesn't disgust me at all.

I have wondered why this is so and I think it is because it is easy for me to understand how it is a great and wonderful thing to make love to my wife and hence, by extension, to a woman in principle. The idea that a woman is attractive is not alien to me.

This means that I keep having to tell myself that there is nu fundamental differences between two men or two women having sex. And I know it is true, but it does not feel the same.

All of this is to say that I am aware how emotions play a role in this discussion, but not a helpful one.

[Jim Chabot]

If, as Jesus suggests. to divorce and remarry is to commit adultery. Then the remarried person is continually committing the sin of adultery throughout the subsequent marriage.

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand time yes.

If homosexual behavour is sin, how is it any different from the sin of adultery within a second or subsequent marriage? Continuing in sin is continuing in sin.

Exactly right, there is no difference whatsoever.

Therefore, none of us who have been divorced and remarried can be Christians and have given up our salvation. You cannot have it both ways.

I'm not sure that Superman could make this leap. On what basis do you condemn to Hell, those who continue in sin?

Personally, I believe that Jesus was talking about the reasons for divorce as described by David in post #82. If we can consider other than the plain reading of the text in this, and say that He wasn't addressing divorce within our cultural framework, why do we not allow for the same when it comes to homosexuality?

Because we have applied a prejudiced hermeneutic in the case of divorce and remarriage. Quite simply we are wrong on this one. We have elected to have society dictate what is sin and what is not, giving man greater consideration than we do God Himself. Will we continue down the slope?

[Hans Deventer]

If we can consider other than the plain reading of the text in this, and say that He wasn't addressing divorce within our cultural framework, why do we not allow for the same when it comes to homosexuality?

My guess, that I am willing to exchange for any better, is emotions.

[Todd Erickson]

Since I am sterile and cannot produce offspring, then using the biological model mentioned above, I sin every time I desire sex with my wife, because it cannot result in reproduction.

Since God had to know that I would be born sterile, for God to allow me to have the sexual drives I do, and allow me this marriage, means that I am designed for sin.

Therefore, God wants sin to happen. QED.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Jim, Thank you. Even though we end up with different positions, based on different hermeneutics I think we are understanding one another and actually communicating.

I'm not sure that Superman could make this leap. On what basis do you condemn to Hell, those who continue in sin?

It's actually not my leap. Some things that some have said here and over on the contraceptive thread about not living in sin and being a Christian.

I condemn no one to Hell, because I believe that love trumps legality. I think that we must look to the spirit of the law rather than the letter. The spirit of all of God's laws is Love, Jesus even tells us this. He also goes on to tell us, through his encounters with the legalists of his day, that love and people are more important than strict adherence to the letter of the law. That it is more important to be loving towards one another and not condemning. But this is just my view, my opinion, not perfect, it has holes, but....

[Doug Ward]

(2) What you've stated goes against the very heart of the LGBT movement and therefore also seems to miss the sociological aspects of homosexuality. They believe (and to a degree they have the scientific evidence on their side at this point) that homosexuality is not nurture or choice, but is nature.

Ben, this is a considerable overstatement. The current research points to some genetic predisposition at best. You cannot say it is "nature." You can merely say that it seems that nature plays a part. We have studies on siblings, and 2 major studies on identical twins. If it was "nature" the results would have been vastly different.

[Todd Erickson]

Ben, this is a considerable overstatement. The current research points to some genetic predisposition at best. You cannot say it is "nature." You can merely say that it seems that nature plays a part. We have studies on siblings, and 2 major studies on identical twins. If it was "nature" the results would have been vastly different.

But your predelicition would be, would it not, that unless God spelled it out on the genes in microscopic fiery letters "gay gene here ...I put this here -God" that nothing will be good enough, correct?

[Dan Henderson]

This is a lie. You're wrong about this, and it's a hurtful, harmful attitude that has a real-life cost for people who I love.

The lie is to claim that you love someone and then to risk their eternity on such a thin argument. Why? Because you don't want to hurt their feelings? That is not love? The most evil statement I can think of is the title of an old pop-psychology book I'm Okay, You're Okay. We are not okay. We all fall short of God's glory. Homosexuals may be tempted by different sins that me, but I assure you that I do not view mine less agregious. We are both in need of the same grace. There are no lesser sins. That is why I use gossip as my example when talking about sins because we seem to wink and nod at that one.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Ben, this is a considerable overstatement. The current research points to some genetic predisposition at best. You cannot say it is "nature." You can merely say that it seems that nature plays a part. We have studies on siblings, and 2 major studies on identical twins. If it was "nature" the results would have been vastly different.

I disagree with your conclusion. Monozygotic twins do posses the same DNA, nuclear and mitochondrial. However, once they separate at the 8 or 16 cell stage they become individual organisms and as such experience the in utero environment differently. There is also developmental timing which is affected by environmental factors (I am speaking in utero biological development. Different genes turning on at different times leads to individual differences, especially in the realm of neurodevelopment. So, while twin studies are useful they are no the be all and end all we have made them out to be.

[Todd Erickson]

The lie is to claim that you love someone and then to risk their eternity on such a thin argument. Why? Because you don't want to hurt their feelings? That is not love? The most evil statement I can think of is the title of an old pop-psychology book I'm Okay, You're Okay. We are not okay. We all fall short of God's glory. Homosexuals may be tempted by different sins that me, but I assure you that I do not view mine less agregious. We are both in need of the same grace. There are no lesser sins. That is why I use gossip as my example when talking about sins because we seem to wink and nod at that one.

But what about the risk to their here and now? Gays may have abundant life here...just not love, or companionship, or freedom. If that is a picture of eternity, then surely eternity is hell...

As with so many things, the entire argument is about what may not happen, rather than the alternatives. The babies who aren't aborted, but who live in poverty and suffering aren't any Christian's problem, it's the fault of their careless parents who had sex out of wedlock when they couldn't afford it, etc. The gays who live alone and in torment for the rest of their lives, hey, at least they're going to heaven, where they will be somebody completely different than they are now, acceptable to everybody...

If Christ had loved like we do, nobody would have been willing to be around him. yet the worst of society, the tax collectors and prostitutes, loved him. This is my evidence that our current means of approach has something badly wrong. But we can't talk about it. Just how to not let people take advantage of grace.

...

Also, once again, your stance seems to indicate that just BEING gay is a sin (which the CotN does not hold to) and if we cannot somehow reason them out of it, they're bound to hell.

The gay people I've known can no more help being gay than I can help being sterile. God help us all.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, this is a considerable overstatement. The current research points to some genetic predisposition at best. You cannot say it is "nature." You can merely say that it seems that nature plays a part. We have studies on siblings, and 2 major studies on identical twins. If it was "nature" the results would have been vastly different.

Fine by me. Take out the statement that science is on their side. I don't care. The point still remains, and isn't an overstatement at all. Dan is wrong and misses the entire point of the LGBT movement with his statement.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, Thank you. Even though we end up with different positions, based on different hermeneutics I think we are understanding one another and actually communicating.

You are a gentleman Paul and you are welcome. I'm hoping tomorrow afternoon to actually watch the video and contribute something that will possibly help Dana with her questions.

It's actually not my leap. Some things that some have said here and over on the contraceptive thread about not living in sin and being a Christian.

Didn't think that it was your leap, you are correct it is very common especially among Nazarene's. It's generally used as a challenge, sort of a "how dare you" or something like that. Once one equates continual sin with eternity in Hell, then no one had ever speak of sin. The bar is raised above where discussion can take place. I've been listening to this bluster for thirty years now, nothing new.

I condemn no one to Hell, because I believe that love trumps legality. I think that we must look to the spirit of the law rather than the letter. The spirit of all of God's laws is Love, Jesus even tells us this. He also goes on to tell us, through his encounters with the legalists of his day, that love and people are more important than strict adherence to the letter of the law. That it is more important to be loving towards one another and not condemning. But this is just my view, my opinion, not perfect, it has holes, but....

Amen! Sure makes the conversation about what is and isn't sin much easier doesn't it.

[Paul DeBaufer]

The lie is to claim that you love someone and then to risk their eternity on such a thin argument. Why? Because you don't want to hurt their feelings? That is not love? The most evil statement I can think of is the title of an old pop-psychology book I'm Okay, You're Okay. We are not okay. We all fall short of God's glory. Homosexuals may be tempted by different sins that me, but I assure you that I do not view mine less agregious. We are both in need of the same grace. There are no lesser sins. That is why I use gossip as my example when talking about sins because we seem to wink and nod at that one.

Now this is helpful and does not deny gays their humanity, actually reinforces it. We will still disagree as to whether or not gays in committed, loving monogamous relationships are sinning, but I'm okay with that. I really appreciate your position that their sin is no greater than yours, and by extension, mine and the rest of ours. So often people, who view it as sin, seem to hold up homosexuality as so much greater a sin than any other, and most certainly greater than their own.

Also, I agree concerning gossip.

[Jeff Borden]

This thread has mentioned Jesus' teaching on divorce as an example for the evolution of interpretation based on cultural dictates, or so it seems that way to me. I wonder what makes us think that it is excusable except for the reason of sexual immorality (however that is defined). Jesus simply said it was allowed by Moses because of peoples' "hardness of heart," but it was not God's intended order. Because we have crafted socially acceptable loopholes, does not mean that God's order has changed... I don't think. When pressed by his disciples, Jesus didn't lessen his stance (see vss 10-12). It has been my experience that we (generally speaking) sometimes will go to great extremes (example Matthew Vines' exemplary eisegesis of Scripture in his YouTube presentation--especially with respect to his interpretation on good/bad fruit and his explanation of Romans 1:18-32, especially about exchanging of natures) to promote our agenda. I cannot help but ask the question why Jesus used the example of man and woman in his response to the Pharisees (vss 4-6). Why not use a more inclusive example or broader interpretation (ala Sermon on the Mount), perhaps something like, "You have heard it said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ but I tell you if men or women leave their parents to be joined together..."? I don't know...

Matthew 19 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

Additionally, it seems several arguments come from silence or lack of clarifying Biblical commentary; for example, "Jesus did not specifically address issues of homosexuality..." is a comment I have heard in the discussion of homosexuality and church. However, we generally accept across most streams of the Christian tradition that Jesus supported, upheld, and practiced Torah without fail...and spoke about severe consequences for those who might teach otherwise (Matt. 5:17-20). Unless I have failed to understand these words of Jesus correctly, why would it be necessary for him to speak at length about an issue that was clearly understood, defined, and accepted as per the Law already?

My opinion is my own and I certainly do not want to arrogantly assume to "know it all." I am; however, grateful for the tradition of the Wesleyan-Holiness movement and certain practices born out of John Wesley's methodism... particularly, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Biblical Text - Reason - Experience - Tradition), especially when used properly, as a tool for helping us to discern the intent and spirit of Scripture. I don't think there are "new and improved" or "culturally enlightened" interpretations of Scripture. I am not a literalist either...and I probably get many things wrong, but I think I'll continue to use the tools I trust and in this debate I will remain on the side of thousands of years of agreement.

[Marcus Kibbe]

OK, So I've been following the discussion between Dave and Doug with interest. Could you all help me out with a simple question. Scripture is very clear that divorce a no-no and remarrying after divorcing is a adultery. Divorce, remarriage, adultery... sin. Jesus said so. Pretty cut and dry. Not much room to debate the biblical position on these things. Right? Except that the church is very open to even ordaining people who are living in such states. So in this particular case, scripture is clear, but we look the other way.

Then we look at the scriptures pertaining to homosexuality. The levitical stuff is in such a context that we really must throw it out. The Sodom story is interpreted by Ezekiel as not relating to homosexuality at all, but rather about social justice. The Pauline text is so debated no one can really know what the relevant words mean/meant. And Jesus said nothing about it. Yet in this case we want to be dogmatic about making sure homosexuality remains a SIN with a capital S.

Can anyone please explain to me how we can interpret these texts/issues this way? and why the biblically clear issue we ignore and the biblically murky issue we uphold unswirvingly?

This seems to be the crux of the issue, but we don't seem to be getting at it very well.

You will not receive a straightforward answer to this, Eric. I promise you that.

A lot of assumptions here, Eric.

Assumption 1: Scripture "clearly" teaches that a divorced/remarried individual cannot be ordained. Where do you get this from? I'm assuming you may get this from 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:6 - "husband of one wife". If so, it's a stretch to say that this refers to a person who has never been divorced. All we can really take from this is that it is speaks to the present status of the individual, to his character of being faithful to his wife, or to the fact that he does not have more than one wife/husband.

Assumption 2: "The Pauline text is so debated no one can really know what the relevant words mean/meant." You may choose to believe this but this is no argument. If one comes to the conclusion that Romans 1 is inconclusive regarding its indictment of homosexuality, then the love of God in Scripture is also inconclusive.

Assumption 3: "Jesus said nothing about it." Not true. We believe the Scriptures because of Jesus. He endorsed the OT and made provisions for the NT by giving to the apostles his authority. Our doctrine of Scripture is bound up with our loyalty to Jesus.

Assumption 4: "We want to be dogmatic about making sure homosexuality remains a SIN with a capital S." Sure, there will always be outliers, but I do not think this is reflective of the majority of Christians. Although the world, by and large, will not believe, it is possible to describe homosexual behavior as sinful, perverse, abnormal, and destructive to persons and culture while at the same time being willing to lay down our lives in love for homosexual persons. In fact, we must believe homosexual behavior is sin and harmful in order to love homosexual persons. "Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth" (1 Cor. 13:6). If you deny the truth that homosexual behavior is sin, but instead approve of it or rejoice in it, what you bring to the homosexual person will not be love - no matter how affirming, kind, or tolerant.

Assumption 5: "The biblically clear issue" is that divorced/remarried persons should not be ordained. See Assumption 1

Assumption 6: "The biblically murky issue" is that homosexual behavior is sin. Homosexual conduct of all kinds is consistently viewed as sin in the Bible. It's truly amazing that some see this has "murky".

[Marcus Kibbe]

If, as Jesus suggests. to divorce and remarry is to commit adultery. Then the remarried person is continually committing the sin of adultery throughout the subsequent marriage. If homosexual behavour is sin, how is it any different from the sin of adultery within a second or subsequent marriage? Continuing in sin is continuing in sin. Therefore, none of us who have been divorced and remarried can be Christians and have given up our salvation. You cannot have it both ways.

Matthew 19:9 - "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

If we stay with the text, all we can really say is that the marriage began with adultery. When Jesus says, "and marries another" in that same verse, he implies that the second marriage is in fact a true marriage. Jesus does not say, "and lives outside of marriage with another", but "and marries another." The second marriage cannot be thought of as continually living in adultery, the man and women are married to each other, not to anyone else.

This is completely different, not even remotely similar, to your comparison of persons living a homosexual lifestyle within the confines of "marriage".

[Benjamin Burch]

Matthew 19:9 - "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

If we stay with the text, all we can really say is that the marriage began with adultery. When Jesus says, "and marries another" in that same verse, he implies that the second marriage is in fact a true marriage. Jesus does not say, "and lives outside of marriage with another", but "and marries another." The second marriage cannot be thought of as continually living in adultery, the man and women are married to each other, not to anyone else.

This is completely different, not even remotely similar, to your comparison of persons living a homosexual lifestyle within the confines of "marriage".

Wow...

[Paul DeBaufer]

Matthew 19:9 - "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

If we stay with the text, all we can really say is that the marriage began with adultery. When Jesus says, "and marries another" in that same verse, he implies that the second marriage is in fact a true marriage. Jesus does not say, "and lives outside of marriage with another", but "and marries another." The second marriage cannot be thought of as continually living in adultery, the man and women are married to each other, not to anyone else.

This is completely different, not even remotely similar, to your comparison of persons living a homosexual lifestyle within the confines of "marriage".

I, of course, disagree. If the second marriage constitutes adultery and one remains in that union one remains in adultery. Jesus doesn't legitimize the second marriage He actually uses it to condemn the divorce.

It is exactly the same as the situation if one believes homosexual activity within the confines of a same sex marriage a sin. You have not demonstrated that there is any difference. I believe that Hans is spot on, it is emotion that causes us to see these as difference. Maybe I am wrong about that.

[Kevin Rector]

One of the things that he said in his presentation is, "The emotional bond that gay couples share, the quality of love, is identical of that of straight couples."

This was said, and moved on, and not really analyzed at all. I would argue that the above is a false statement. I do not believe that the emotional bond is the same, and I have not observed that it is the same. Sometimes the best gay relationships certainly look better than the worst straight relationships, but to argue that they are "the same" is to put forth opinion as fact, and in my estimation it is not an opinion that stands up to critique.

I remember clearly one of my gay friends from my Army days (he was not in the Army) who would talk a lot about how frustrating it is to try and develop long term meaningful gay relationships. He had a whole bookshelf dedicated to the difficulties that the male gay community had with monogamy - these were written from a specifically pro-gay perspective. He wanted a monogamous relationship but most of his "gay community" were too much into sleeping around (his words not mine).

One of the reasons that the emotional bonds in a gay relationship is not "the same" as in a straight relationship is because love requires an "other-ness" that is fundamentally missing in gay relations. Bob has said that it's self-love and while I wouldn't go that far, I would argue that it is missing the "other-ness" of the other gender. Gay men have an overabundance of testosterone for a healthy relationship and lesbians don't have enough (or maybe they have too much estrogen).

I can see lesbians being more "successful" than gay men, but it is still not "equal" to a relationship that has to struggle through the challenges of "other-ness".

[Todd Erickson]

I remember clearly one of my gay friends from my Army days (he was not in the Army) who would talk a lot about how frustrating it is to try and develop long term meaningful gay relationships. He had a whole bookshelf dedicated to the difficulties that the male gay community had with monogamy - these were written from a specifically pro-gay perspective. He wanted a monogamous relationship but most of his "gay community" were too much into sleeping around (his words not mine).

One of the reasons that the emotional bonds in a gay relationship is not "the same" as in a straight relationship is because love requires an "other-ness" that is fundamentally missing in gay relations. Bob has said that it's self-love and while I wouldn't go that far, I would argue that it is missing the "other-ness" of the other gender. Gay men have an overabundance of testosterone for a healthy relationship and lesbians don't have enough (or maybe they have too much estrogen).

This seems to pit the very worst of gay relationships against the very best straight relationships for it's proof.

[Benjamin Burch]

This was said, and moved on, and not really analyzed at all. I would argue that the above is a false statement. I do not believe that the emotional bond is the same, and I have not observed that it is the same. Sometimes the best gay relationships certainly look better than the worst straight relationships, but to argue that they are "the same" is to put forth opinion as fact, and in my estimation it is not an opinion that stands up to critique.

I remember clearly one of my gay friends from my Army days (he was not in the Army) who would talk a lot about how frustrating it is to try and develop long term meaningful gay relationships. He had a whole bookshelf dedicated to the difficulties that the male gay community had with monogamy - these were written from a specifically pro-gay perspective. He wanted a monogamous relationship but most of his "gay community" were too much into sleeping around (his words not mine).

One of the reasons that the emotional bonds in a gay relationship is not "the same" as in a straight relationship is because love requires an "other-ness" that is fundamentally missing in gay relations. Bob has said that it's self-love and while I wouldn't go that far, I would argue that it is missing the "other-ness" of the other gender. Gay men have an overabundance of testosterone for a healthy relationship and lesbians don't have enough (or maybe they have too much estrogen).

I can see lesbians being more "successful" than gay men, but it is still not "equal" to a relationship that has to struggle through the challenges of "other-ness".

I think we often ignore the underlying sociological realities behind the promiscuity in the LG culture.

(1) The promiscuity exists in heterosexual culture, also. I find it hard to suggest it is any less.
(2) There is no prospect of marriage, seriously undercutting any hopes of lasting monogamy - they're prohibited from it
(3) Promiscuity offers a way to create a counterculture to the dominant culture which has rejected them

If the prospect of marriage existed, I believe we'd see a change in this culture, over a due period of time.

[Paul DeBaufer]

One of the things that he said in his presentation is, "The emotional bond that gay couples share, the quality of love, is identical of that of straight couples."

This was said, and moved on, and not really analyzed at all. I would argue that the above is a false statement. I do not believe that the emotional bond is the same, and I have not observed that it is the same. Sometimes the best gay relationships certainly look better than the worst straight relationships, but to argue that they are "the same" is to put forth opinion as fact, and in my estimation it is not an opinion that stands up to critique.

I remember clearly one of my gay friends from my Army days (he was not in the Army) who would talk a lot about how frustrating it is to try and develop long term meaningful gay relationships. He had a whole bookshelf dedicated to the difficulties that the male gay community had with monogamy - these were written from a specifically pro-gay perspective. He wanted a monogamous relationship but most of his "gay community" were too much into sleeping around (his words not mine).

One of the reasons that the emotional bonds in a gay relationship is not "the same" as in a straight relationship is because love requires an "other-ness" that is fundamentally missing in gay relations. Bob has said that it's self-love and while I wouldn't go that far, I would argue that it is missing the "other-ness" of the other gender. Gay men have an overabundance of testosterone for a healthy relationship and lesbians don't have enough (or maybe they have too much estrogen).

I can see lesbians being more "successful" than gay men, but it is still not "equal" to a relationship that has to struggle through the challenges of "other-ness".

Are you gay? If not then how can you say that what that young man feels is wrong? As a matter of fact isn't it emotional abuse to tell people that what they feel is wrong? I have seen gay couples who have a love that is every bit as great and committed and long lasting as the best of the hetero couples I've known.