What the Bible says about Homosexuality...

[Dana Grant]

Bert & I have two very dear women friends who are in a committed homosexual relationship. We could not ask for better friends, and we treasure that friendship. They will be going through a marriage ceremony in New York this coming fall.

They have sent me this video. I am asking that we have a calm and loving discussion about this video. This is a subject about which I am needing more knowledge and understanding, and I would appreciate it very much if those of you who have the time (It is about an hour) would watch this video and share your thoughts and your expert Biblical knowledge with me.

I will be showing this thread to my friends. I know that this can sometimes be a volatile issue. I would appreciate your respectful comments. Thanks very much!!



Dana

[Hans Deventer]

Dana, if anything, I am impressed by this man's plea, and his way of showing Biblical support for it. I need to let this sink in first.

[Dale Cozby]

For those who do not want to spend over an hour watching this video, fast foward to 58:14 for his point.
I disagree with him and his conclusion.

This issue IMHO will most likely be the one that rips our denomination asunder.

[Dan Henderson]

For those who do not want to spend over an hour watching this video, fast foward to 58:14 for his point.
I disagree with him and his conclusion.

This issue IMHO will most likely be the one that rips our denomination asunder.

I also disagree with the premise, but do not think this will be an issue that will divide the denomination. This is not a subtle issue of the type that is dividing us.

If you want to have this conversation, try substituting "gossip" anywhere the advocate or opponent uses the word "homosexual." If you can convince me, using scripture, that gossip is not a sin, then we will talk about homosexuality.

[Hans Deventer]

For those who do not want to spend over an hour watching this video,

don't write in this thread.

Or read the transcript the video at http://matthewvines.tumblr.com/

[Doug Ward]

don't write in this thread.

Or read the transcript the video at http://matthewvines.tumblr.com/

Thanks, Hans. Much better reading it.

[Dennis Bratcher]

If some would rather read than watch, here are basically the same arguments from Walter Wink, a well respected Methodist Bible scholar: Homosexuality and the Bible (not an endorsement of his position).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B,.

[Bob Hunter]

Phyliss Tickle believes that same sex relations will one day be accepted in the Church much like we now ordain divorced men and women. I have a gay step-sister, she is coming to visit me next month. I do not think I can accept a gay in leadership that is acting upon his or her sexual impulses with the same sex. That is like having sex with yourself, definitely not what God intended. I can live with the tension of having a gay step-sister, no worries there, just not endorsing.

[Eric Frey]

Phyliss Tickle believes that same sex relations will one day be accepted in the Church much like we now ordain divorced men and women. I have a gay step-sister, she is coming to visit me next month. I do not think I can accept a gay in leadership that is acting upon his or her sexual impulses with the same sex. That is like having sex with yourself, definitely not what God intended. I can live with the tension of having a gay step-sister, no worries there, just not endorsing.

Interesting that she connects the two issues...

[Heidi Anderson]

Interesting that she connects the two issues...

I've often connected the two myself as I do think they are similar "sins" yet we seem to be justified in our acceptance of one and not the other. I wonder why that is. Good point Eric!

[Dale Cozby]

I've often connected the two myself as I do think they are similar "sins" yet we seem to be justified in our acceptance of one and not the other. I wonder why that is. Good point Eric!

Perhaps rather than divorce or gossip, we should connect it to the sin of incest. If you "married" your sister/brother/aunt/uncle/mother/father/etc in a "loving" relationship should the church accept you "as is"? I know all those forms of marriage are against the civil law of this country right now, but so has been same-sex marraige until just the last few years and only in certain states. This might actually be a closer "sin" analogy than divorce.

Or if you divorced your wife and married the church secratary should the church accept you... "as-is", or when you have "repented" and want back in while stayin married to the secratary because it is now a "loving" relationship with your second wife whom you just happened to comit adultery with and then married. If the litmus test in thiis is going to be: Is it a long-lasting loving relationship? Then we should remain consistant.

I disagree with all of these and will stick with my current set of beliefs.

[Greg Farra]

Interesting that it was in a Methodist church. They just voted down changing their views on homosexuality. And I didn't watch the whole video, it was too long for me. From what I heard, there were no new arguements.

[Doug Ward]

An hour is too long, but I have read the article Dennis linked to. Perhaps you might share the 3 or 4 points that you find compelling, or confusing. Then we can talk through a few points. In the article from Dennis, I read the same arguments that I have heard numerous times before - some valid, and some quite inaccurate. But I do not know where to start.

However, I do agree that we need to take a step back, and remember that our command is to love. There are real people in the homosexual world, and unworthy of our seeming creation of a special category of sin.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Dana,

Unfortunately, I likely won't be able to participate much in this thread. I would ask, however, that you relay to your friends that some of us want to apologize for the way some of us in the Church have treated them. We have not always responded like Jesus would - and does. I, for one, am sorry for any ill treatment they may have received. I am confident that Jesus' greatest desire is for their happiness and abundant, fulfilling life. I will continue to pray for that fulness.

Dennis

[Doug Ward]

Let me perhaps get the ball rolling a bit here. SInce I cannot know what specifically impacts you, let me try to briefly sketch my current understanding of the topic.

1. Where the Bible talks about homosexuality, it is always negatively. Quite simply, it is never embraced, and it is viewed almost as the crowning achievement of wickedness. One can argue that in some of the familiar passages that homosexuality may or may not be primary, but it is not embraced anywhere.

2. To argue that Paul did not know what we know - we are more nuanced with homosexuality than he is, seems arrogant to me. We do not know what Paul knew or did not know about homosexuality, but I find it hard to believe that Paul would be unfamiliar with various practices of homosexuality in his Hellenistic, and growing Roman world. He had the opportunity to parse his views and make distinctions - he did not. I think that means something.

3. There is an undercurrent in at least the article - well, it is natural, therefore it must be OK. I wonder how wide we want to cast that net. I find it easy and quite natural to be critical - that is not OK. I know people who seem to gossip quite easily - that is not OK or expressive of God's will. I know people who have been born with CP - well you get the picture. All of us possess qualities quite naturally that do not reflect Christ. SOme of us have larger issues than others.

4. Much time was spent in the article on various portions of OT law, that we do not recognize today. Well, there are NT reasons for much of this. Many of the obscure OT laws, the Israelites never lived by. With homosexuality specifically, we have a number of references in the NT. Yes, the author highlights the well-worn Romans 1 passage, but it seems to me that there is an expectation of sexual expression to be kept between husband and wife. I am thinking of 1 Cor. 7, and the qualifications for leadership in 1 Timothy. Again, the author could have listed other expectations, but they did not. These are multiple passages, written by more than 1 author.

5. For the last time - the NT does not condone slavery, especially how we in North America understand that term. To say that abolitionists do not have a Biblical argument is just irresponsible. (This is not a part of this argument - but it needs to be said again. AIDS does not impact homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. This is a medical fact)

6. The Bible seems to have a larger lens than we want to use. We say, why shouldn't I be able to express myself? The Bible seems to have a longer term perspective. Denial of ourselves here is not only a good, it reaps righteousness for us that may not be vindicated until His kingdom fully arrives.

[Benjamin Burch]

Let me perhaps get the ball rolling a bit here. SInce I cannot know what specifically impacts you, let me try to briefly sketch my current understanding of the topic.

1. Where the Bible talks about homosexuality, it is always negatively. Quite simply, it is never embraced, and it is viewed almost as the crowning achievement of wickedness. One can argue that in some of the familiar passages that homosexuality may or may not be primary, but it is not embraced anywhere.

2. To argue that Paul did not know what we know - we are more nuanced with homosexuality than he is, seems arrogant to me. We do not know what Paul knew or did not know about homosexuality, but I find it hard to believe that Paul would be unfamiliar with various practices of homosexuality in his Hellenistic, and growing Roman world. He had the opportunity to parse his views and make distinctions - he did not. I think that means something.

3. There is an undercurrent in at least the article - well, it is natural, therefore it must be OK. I wonder how wide we want to cast that net. I find it easy and quite natural to be critical - that is not OK. I know people who seem to gossip quite easily - that is not OK or expressive of God's will. I know people who have been born with CP - well you get the picture. All of us possess qualities quite naturally that do not reflect Christ. SOme of us have larger issues than others.

4. Much time was spent in the article on various portions of OT law, that we do not recognize today. Well, there are NT reasons for much of this. Many of the obscure OT laws, the Israelites never lived by. With homosexuality specifically, we have a number of references in the NT. Yes, the author highlights the well-worn Romans 1 passage, but it seems to me that there is an expectation of sexual expression to be kept between husband and wife. I am thinking of 1 Cor. 7, and the qualifications for leadership in 1 Timothy. Again, the author could have listed other expectations, but they did not. These are multiple passages, written by more than 1 author.

5. For the last time - the NT does not condone slavery, especially how we in North America understand that term. To say that abolitionists do not have a Biblical argument is just irresponsible. (This is not a part of this argument - but it needs to be said again. AIDS does not impact homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. This is a medical fact)

6. The Bible seems to have a larger lens than we want to use. We say, why shouldn't I be able to express myself? The Bible seems to have a longer term perspective. Denial of ourselves here is not only a good, it reaps righteousness for us that may not be vindicated until His kingdom fully arrives.

Eh, I'm uncomfortable with some of this here, but overall it isn't bad by any means. I think it's a helpful primer. I think you'd be great to have this conversation with over espresso at Intelligentsia. I, however, just cannot have this conversation in type/internet forum form.

[Bob Hunter]

Let me perhaps get the ball rolling a bit here. SInce I cannot know what specifically impacts you, let me try to briefly sketch my current understanding of the topic.

1. Where the Bible talks about homosexuality, it is always negatively. Quite simply, it is never embraced, and it is viewed almost as the crowning achievement of wickedness. One can argue that in some of the familiar passages that homosexuality may or may not be primary, but it is not embraced anywhere.

2. To argue that Paul did not know what we know - we are more nuanced with homosexuality than he is, seems arrogant to me. We do not know what Paul knew or did not know about homosexuality, but I find it hard to believe that Paul would be unfamiliar with various practices of homosexuality in his Hellenistic, and growing Roman world. He had the opportunity to parse his views and make distinctions - he did not. I think that means something.

3. There is an undercurrent in at least the article - well, it is natural, therefore it must be OK. I wonder how wide we want to cast that net. I find it easy and quite natural to be critical - that is not OK. I know people who seem to gossip quite easily - that is not OK or expressive of God's will. I know people who have been born with CP - well you get the picture. All of us possess qualities quite naturally that do not reflect Christ. SOme of us have larger issues than others.

4. Much time was spent in the article on various portions of OT law, that we do not recognize today. Well, there are NT reasons for much of this. Many of the obscure OT laws, the Israelites never lived by. With homosexuality specifically, we have a number of references in the NT. Yes, the author highlights the well-worn Romans 1 passage, but it seems to me that there is an expectation of sexual expression to be kept between husband and wife. I am thinking of 1 Cor. 7, and the qualifications for leadership in 1 Timothy. Again, the author could have listed other expectations, but they did not. These are multiple passages, written by more than 1 author.

5. For the last time - the NT does not condone slavery, especially how we in North America understand that term. To say that abolitionists do not have a Biblical argument is just irresponsible. (This is not a part of this argument - but it needs to be said again. AIDS does not impact homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. This is a medical fact)

6. The Bible seems to have a larger lens than we want to use. We say, why shouldn't I be able to express myself? The Bible seems to have a longer term perspective. Denial of ourselves here is not only a good, it reaps righteousness for us that may not be vindicated until His kingdom fully arrives.

WARNING: Slightly graphic sexual descriptions.

I like a lot of this, I think it expresses what many Christians believe.

In recent years I have tried to be somewhat abreast of the medical risk factors involved in male homosexual behavior. A few years ago, I started an online support group for men who suffer from Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (A.K.A. "Headache in the Pelvis"). I have several medical experts in the group who share advice and offer help. We also have several homosexual men. 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. Of course, proponents of homosexuality will argue, "it's not about sex...blah, blah, etc." But it never precludes sex either. We use all kinds of justifications and excuses to nurse our sexual indulgences. Heterosexual men do the same thing when they are addicted to porn and masturbation; they say stuff like, God forgives me, I can't help myself, I was born this way, I have a high sex drive, I'm single, no one understands, etc. Denial of the problem runs deep into the soul.

I believe homosexual behavior is contrary to God's natural design. The foreskin on a penis is analogous to the clitoris on a vagina. The compatibility of male and female bodies is truly amazing. Homosexual relations can never achieve what heterosexuals can in terms of procreation and compatibility. But once again, proponents of homosexuality will say our position is arrogant and does not take into account a condition that people are born with. I'm fine with letting them have that argument. But I have yet to see anyone argue successfully against God's natural design. 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.

So we have a long way to go if we are going to make progress on this issue. I don't agree with Phyliss Tickle, I don't see the Church coming around on this issue. In some denominations we may see "open and affirming" doctrine embraced, but overall I see the Church holding the line.

[David Pettigrew]

One thing to always keep in mind when the bible makes social rules - the population of the world in Jesus and Paul's day was about 300 million. Out of every 100 people born, 33 died before age six, another 33 before age 18, and another 30 in their 30s or 40s. Only 3 or 4 would see age 60.

When we try to apply cultural prohibitions in the 21st Century, we are dealing with a different planet. Our population is 25 times larger, and life spans are much, much longer.

Also, the first century Mediterranean culture operated with an honor/shame patronage system that we simply have no frame of reference to understand. Many of the dietary, dress, and behavior standards only made sense in that framework.

This is why Jesus said that all the law and prophets were summed up in two commands - love God with everything, and love your neighbor as yourself. Any cultural standard or prohibition (ie. women keep silent, men must never cover their heads) must be filtered through these two timeless laws.

[Hans Deventer]

I believe homosexual behavior is contrary to God's natural design.

Since we're at it, I understand that few women reach a climax through penetration. Stimulation of the clitoris seems to work much better. So should we come to the conclusion that homosexual sex is wrong, heterosexual sex is limited when it comes to the fun part, but for women, lesbian sex is how God wanted it? I'm not so sure these kind of arguments take us in the right direction.

[Valisha Trammell Hall]

Since we're at it, I understand that few women reach a climax through penetration. Stimulation of the clitoris seems to work much better. So should we come to the conclusion that homosexual sex is wrong, heterosexual sex is limited when it comes to the fun part, but for women, lesbian sex is how God wanted it? I'm not so sure these kind of arguments take us in the right direction.

And lesbians practically never contract HIV from a sexual partner.

[Gary Creely]

Since we're at it, I understand that few women reach a climax through penetration. Stimulation of the clitoris seems to work much better. So should we come to the conclusion that homosexual sex is wrong, heterosexual sex is limited when it comes to the fun part, but for women, lesbian sex is how God wanted it? I'm not so sure these kind of arguments take us in the right direction.

you Europeans!

[Bob Hunter]

I'm not sure how to answer your questions. Obviously, these issues that are up for discussion. I guess what I am trying to say is that the typical sexual outlet for men in same sex relationships is anal sex. And this behavior has decidedly more risk. It shortens life-spans and creates physical health issues. I am fully aware that heterosexual folks practice this behavior and it doesn't seem to be as detrimental. I just don't think it is a good idea, but then we all know that some forms of heterosexual sex can put people at greater risk too. There is some pretty crazy and perverted stuff out there.

I did see one study that showed that men experience four times the level of prolactin in the brain when they have intercourse with their wives. The Penner's wrote some interesting stuff on this and began to distinguish between commitment sex and adrenaline sex. They advise couples to take their time and not wait for the "rush" of excitement. They claim commitment sex that focuses its energies on intimacy is far more lasting and pleasing to the brain.

But, as a principle, I do not think God intends men to have sex with men and women to have sex with women.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I did see one study that showed that men experience four times the level of prolactin in the brain when they have intercourse with their wives. The Penner's wrote some interesting stuff on this and began to distinguish between commitment sex and adrenaline sex. They advise couples to take their time and not wait for the "rush" of excitement. They claim commitment sex that focuses its energies on intimacy is far more lasting and pleasing to the brain.

Are you suggesting that gays don't or cannot have commitment sex?

An interesting aside. As you know I am open and affirming, reconciling in the language of the UMC of which I am now part (next stop, when Ben and I carpool again, Constantinople) and I have never even considered the mechanics of gay sex.

[Bob Hunter]

Are you suggesting that gays don't or cannot have commitment sex?

An interesting aside. As you know I am open and affirming, reconciling in the language of the UMC of which I am now part (next stop, when Ben and I carpool again, Constantinople) and I have never even considered the mechanics of gay sex.

Sure gays can have commitment sex, however, it is like they are having sex with themselves because they engage with the same sex. It reminds me of the Woody Allen quote, "Don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love." Moreover, the evidence suggests it is not very healthy and these men are at a higher risk for many health related concerns. I discussed this reality in an earlier post. I maintain that God designed us male and female and the compatibility and design of our bodies points to God's ultimate desire for humanity. I don't think it takes rocket science to figure it out. Try putting a square peg and a round hole.

I readily admit I am being simple, old fashioned and stubborn. But hey, at least I admit my biases. And remember, I have gay step-sister. Seen it firsthand.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Sure gays can have commitment sex, however, it is like they are having sex with themselves because they engage with the same sex. It reminds me of the Woody Allen quote, "Don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love." Moreover, the evidence suggests it is not very healthy and these men are at a higher risk for many health related concerns. I discussed this reality in an earlier post. I maintain that God designed us male and female and the compatibility and design of our bodies points to God's ultimate desire for humanity. I don't think it takes rocket science to figure it out. Try putting a square peg and a round hole.

I readily admit I am being simple, old fashioned and stubborn. But hey, at least I admit my biases. And remember, I have gay step-sister. Our family has bird's eye view of the trajectory of this.

Yeah, I don't know what kind of sex they have. I know several married lesbian couples who are very loving of each other and in the case of the one couple their twin children. A woman at church came out to me the other week. She is now part of our small group.

[Heidi Anderson]

Are you suggesting that gays don't or cannot have commitment sex?

An interesting aside. As you know I am open and affirming, reconciling in the language of the UMC of which I am now part (next stop, when Ben and I carpool again, Constantinople) and I have never even considered the mechanics of gay sex.

You are UMC?? I'm so excited that you are affirming and open...really? I'm so excited to find someone else on NN!

[Paul DeBaufer]

You are UMC?? I'm so excited that you are affirming and open...really? I'm so excited to find someone else on NN!

Yeah, I left the CotN on this district and the best fit was UMC. Quite a few reconciling churches here. My pastor is, but hasn't taken the church in that direction, yet. There are other allies here that are probably affirming.Nice to meet you Heidi

[Doug Ward]

I am fully aware that heterosexual folks practice this behavior and it doesn't seem to be as detrimental. I just don't think it is a good idea, but then we all know that some forms of heterosexual sex can put people at greater risk too. There is some pretty crazy and perverted stuff out there.
.

Bob, this is not our topic, but the same dangers exist for heterosexuals who engage in this practice - see sub-Saharan Africa.

[Greg Farra]

Since we're at it, I understand that few women reach a climax through penetration. Stimulation of the clitoris seems to work much better. So should we come to the conclusion that homosexual sex is wrong, heterosexual sex is limited when it comes to the fun part, but for women, lesbian sex is how God wanted it? I'm not so sure these kind of arguments take us in the right direction.

Well, I never got any complaints and we've been married 27 years!

[Ryan Pugh]

Well, I never got any complaints and we've been married 27 years!

That's officially the creepiest emoticon I've seen.

[Gina Stevenson]

That's officially the creepiest emoticon I've seen.

You mean as in lecherous? Actually, it rather reminds one of Groucho Marx.

[Billy Cox]

That's officially the creepiest emoticon I've seen.

It's one of my favorites; especially well-suited to wise cracking humor.

[Dwayne Petry]

Heterosexual men do the same thing when they are addicted to porn ; they say stuff like, God forgives me, I can't help myself, I was born this way, I have a high sex drive, I'm single, no one understands, etc. Denial of the problem runs deep into the soul.

Exact things I would say when I left my wife and 2 sons for other women. The "GOOD NEWS" is that the bondage of all sinful lifestyles can be broken by the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ and the empowering of the Holy Spirit!

[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.

[David Pettigrew]

Let me perhaps get the ball rolling a bit here. SInce I cannot know what specifically impacts you, let me try to briefly sketch my current understanding of the topic.


5. For the last time - the NT does not condone slavery, especially how we in North America understand that term...

I guess I struggle with why it is that when Paul talked homosexuality, he meant the exact same phenomena we have in 21st Century culture. However, when Paul said for slaves to obey their masters, he was talking about something different than what we did to black people in America.

I see Christians absolutely treat every societal abnormality differently than what the Bible prescribes - except homosexuality. We excuse divorce, we treat mental illness, we allow in members with disease and deformity, and we abhor slavery. Heck, we even let women talk in church and attend while they are on their period! But when it comes to the gays, suddenly we become inerrant literalists.

I do not know what the answer is, but I know the issue is not nearly as black and white as it would seem. I also know we drive thinking people from the church when we try to excuse the parts of the Bible that make us uncomfortable - to the left or the right.

[Eric Frey]

I guess I struggle with why it is that when Paul talked homosexuality, he meant the exact same phenomena we have in 21st Century culture. However, when Paul said for slaves to obey their masters, he was talking about something different than what we did to black people in America.

I see Christians absolutely treat every societal abnormality differently than what the Bible prescribes - except homosexuality. We excuse divorce, we treat mental illness, we allow in members with disease and deformity, and we abhor slavery. Heck, we even let women talk in church and attend while they are on their period! But when it comes to the gays, suddenly we become inerrant literalists.

I do not know what the answer is, but I know the issue is not nearly as black and white as it would seem. I also know we drive thinking people from the church when we try to excuse the parts of the Bible that make us uncomfortable - to the left or the right.

THIS!!! THANKS!!! We definitely need a consistent hermeneutic for dealing with these issues.

[Doug Ward]

I guess I struggle with why it is that when Paul talked homosexuality, he meant the exact same phenomena we have in 21st Century culture. However, when Paul said for slaves to obey their masters, he was talking about something different than what we did to black people in America.

I see Christians absolutely treat every societal abnormality differently than what the Bible prescribes - except homosexuality. We excuse divorce, we treat mental illness, we allow in members with disease and deformity, and we abhor slavery. Heck, we even let women talk in church and attend while they are on their period! But when it comes to the gays, suddenly we become inerrant literalists.

I do not know what the answer is, but I know the issue is not nearly as black and white as it would seem. I also know we drive thinking people from the church when we try to excuse the parts of the Bible that make us uncomfortable - to the left or the right.

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.

[David Pettigrew]

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 Corinthians 7 deals with maintaining whatever status you are currently in because Jesus will be returning soon to set up a theocracy, and all attention must be given to preparing for that return. That's why we find Paul's admonition in the midst of advice about marriage, remarriage, and levirate marriage. In other words, if you're a slave, remain a slave. If you're free, stay free. The only thing that matters is preparing for the Kingdom.

Nevertheless, I agree with you. Slavery was an acceptable, essential social status in the empire system, much like the lower castes in India were necessary to dispose of human waste and the dead. It doesn't mean it was a just system or that being a slave was fun; but, we can't judge 1st Century natural order by our norms and mores.

To address your question, however, the biblical world had NO concept of homosexual orientation, whereby I mean the phenomena of someone who has never known anything but sexual/physical attraction to the same sex. Again, we are dealing with a miniscule population of people concerned with not starving and scratching to make it out of childhood in tact. Sexual orientation just wasn't a luxury they could debate. Homosexual behavior in the Bronze and Iron Ages was about two things - power and idolatry. The Bible simply does not address someone who at age 5 knew they were "different", and has never known anything but same sex attraction. However, I've known a lot of preacher's kids that fit that description - some of them very dear to my heart - and I refuse to believe they are all lying.

So I guess my point is, why do we give slavery a cultural pass, completely ignore the divorce passages, excuse away the verses that instruct us to sell all we have and give it away - but shut the church door on the gays?

[Doug Ward]

So I guess my point is, why do we give slavery a cultural pass, completely ignore the divorce passages, excuse away the verses that instruct us to sell all we have and give it away - but shut the church door on the gays?

I guess I still do not understand. . . who is doing this? Who is ignoring the divorce passages or ignoring the passages with the rich ruler? Certainly, no one in this thread wants to shut the door on those who see themselves as gay. But that is not the question it seems to me. What will our engagement with that community look like? Will it be "you are depraved evildoers, sit down and change," "we are glad you are here, be a part of the life of the church, even as we ask that you refrain from sexual behavior," or will it be "join our church, and start a dating service?"

I have purposefully used extremes here, but just to show the question is what will our engagement look like?

[David Pettigrew]

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

I am. You probably are, too. Do you have any board members who have been divorced and remarried? I do. Jesus called that adultery. We don't. Nor should we.

I've ignored Paul's Corinthian advice completely. Thanks to FHA, I just made myself a slave to the lender for the next 30 years.