Blogging Homosexuality - Scripture
Wow! So the last post had comments all over the board! I wasn't expecting so much feedback, honestly (and for the most part, fairly charitable) We had some good thought-provoking comments on both sides and also some tastless and/or pointless comments on both sides. Such is the nature of the beast, I suppose.
I had a point I would like to focus our discussion on with this comment made by our favorite Anglican, Kyle Potter:
Perhaps the strongest voice on the opposition to Kyle's comment was Ian Brown. He also leaves a comment on the inspirtation of scripture:
Ian does make a good point. There are different levels of inspiration that God has granted amongst humankind. Yet I still would agree with Kyle, despite Ian's fine words. I believe that even St. Paul isn't above making biases according to his own cultural and traditional prejudices. He was inspired, surely, but he also was human. We can't ever forget that.
I would like to finish this post and begin this discussion with a comment by Day Zimlich. He left us all very wise words in regards to practical issues surrounding a conversation such as ours:
Amen.
I had a point I would like to focus our discussion on with this comment made by our favorite Anglican, Kyle Potter:
I don't know how you feel about this statement but it seems to make perfect sense in my mind. It may sound like "second-guessing the bible" and I think that's ok. Sola Scriptura never satisfied me. Chesterton said something to the effect of that when a thing begins to be doubted it becomes a true religion. That's not to say that scripture has little to no role in the faith-community, rather, that its role is strengthened by examining it extensively (even, at times, quite harshly)
For virtually everything else that the Christian scriptures consider to be a sin, there is either provided or implied some specific moral reason: we can say that sin is sin because it is demonstrably destructive of peoples' lives and their holiness and relationship with God.
The scriptures don't seem to provide much of a rationale as to why same-sex romantic relationships are destructive. Even if we follow the Genesis creation narratives and say that there is a "creative intent" from which those relationships depart, this does not demonstrate why that is a destructive departure.
The reality is that there are many ways of living that we could say are outside of "God's original intentions" that scripture is cool with or that the Church has agreed to permit. Once again, I submit to you the state of Christian attitudes on divorce and (re)marriage. (This is more difficult for Protestants, because Roman Catholics at least have some doctrinal consistancy in these matters.)
Perhaps the strongest voice on the opposition to Kyle's comment was Ian Brown. He also leaves a comment on the inspirtation of scripture:
You say that Paul was just as culturally conditioned as you or anyone else. This is beyond question. However you fail to recognize that Paul's writings, and Paul's teachings are not on the same level as your teachings or your writings. And I'm not speaking of the literary value of anything you might distribute, I'm speaking of the difference between prophet, apostle and joe blow. Looking at what you said, I see no reason why I should take even Jesus' teachings seriously. Jesus said that looking at a woman is like adultery? So what? Well I say he was just a man. You say "He" was the Son of God? Well I do not believe you St. Peter, St. Paul, or St. John. Everyone has biases but not everyone has authority undergirding their doctrines and ideas. Hell, God has biases and "opinions".
Ian does make a good point. There are different levels of inspiration that God has granted amongst humankind. Yet I still would agree with Kyle, despite Ian's fine words. I believe that even St. Paul isn't above making biases according to his own cultural and traditional prejudices. He was inspired, surely, but he also was human. We can't ever forget that.
I would like to finish this post and begin this discussion with a comment by Day Zimlich. He left us all very wise words in regards to practical issues surrounding a conversation such as ours:
I know a lot of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people don't set their sexuality and spirituality on a collision course like i did, but I do want to ask the churches to please be gentle and sympathetic with teenagers and young adults like me. You are God's hands and feet. You are light and salt. These teenagers listen to you. I know it sounds cheesy, but use pastoral guidance, like the Good Shepherd."May God guide our conversation in kindess and charity."
Amen.
posted by -mike- at 10:34 AM
10 Comments:
Here's what I wrote on my blog today
1 Thessalonians 2: 13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.
When I was at college training to be a minister, I had a hard time dealing with some of the professors’ interpretations of scripture. They had studied Hebrew and Greek for decades, along with Form and Literary criticism, which made them question, consider and categorize some parts of scripture as being human, faulty and full of flaws. They found it hard to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, so they set about tearing scripture to pieces, only keeping those passages intact that appealed to their own personal lifestyles, philosophies or theologies.
I came from a background of a conversion experience, so my loyalty and gratitude to God would not allow me to accept my professors’ interpretation of scripture. This got me into trouble at times, especially during exams, when I was supposed to regurgitate everything that I had been taught from my professors and lecturers. I struggled with it year after year, and when I finally finished six years later, I threw all of my class notes into the garbage. I didn’t want to depend upon the clever concoctions and academic assumptions of my teachers. I just wanted to preach and pastor from the heart, letting the word of God work within me because I believed, as I still do today, that it was God’s Word.
We all struggle with God’s Word because it continually challenges our ideas, opinions and cherished beliefs. It is wonderful to study, to learn the backgrounds of ancient peoples, to travel back in time to discover what they thought about God, but in the end only one thing will be important: whether we believe it comes from men or from God.
Prayer: Lord God, You chose to reveal Yourself to us through mighty acts and glorious deeds that have been recorded in writing and set down in scripture. Your Purpose is to enable us to know Who You are, so that we may be drawn to You and to Christ our Savior. When we have doubts about Your Sacred Word, disperse them with Your Living Word. When we struggle at times trying to follow Your Gospel, grant us open minds and hearts to the bidding of Your Holy Spirit. In Jesus’ name, we pray. Amen.
Mike,
This is, I promise the last I will say about this, on this blog. It's fine to admit there are varying degrees of inspiration, but its entirely useless for that only to matter when we agree with it. Case in point: Paul's so called cultural blinders were unique to his Jewish culture, everyone in the Roman empire was perfectly okay with homosexuality. So while the scriptures are guilty of being old, they are also guilty of being unique. The early church had a decidedly different stand on homosexuality then in contrast to the world around it and now liberal protestantism thinks they were crazy.
I think its incredibly ironic that for all our talk of the great gifts of PostModernism, at the end of the day we're still applying an essentially "Modernist" methodology towards biblical interpretation. Many today say they hate individualistic and socially-narrow methods of exploring the Christian faith. But, if the solution is simply to choose terribly small liberal communities over the overwhelmingly global and, yes, ancient faith I have to say all this talk of being conversant with the scriptures, and community over the individual, the "we" over the supreme "I" is just all talk and fruit. They are just euphemisms for carrying out the same exegetical agendas of 17th century liberalism. So much for postmodern christianity.
"...everyone in the Roman empire was perfectly okay with homosexuality."
I'm not sure that I can jive with this. I'd like to see a source or two. Yes, the Greeks were admittedly okay with it but the Romans? The same Romans who thought that women without head coverings were either "prostitutes" or "New Roman Women?"
I don't expect a response from Ian because he, by his own admission, is not reading but I will accept a response from whomever.
-JHearne
i'm certainly with ian here. i think it's hilarious that most of the hip, cool postmodern kiddies pretend that their approach to the faith is something different from past generations. many people (people on here particularly) seem to treat postmodernism as if it were set over and against modernism, as if it were 'anti-modernism' or something along those lines.
in reality, though, postmodernism is just the new modernism, the extension of modernist philosophical conclusions being worked out practically within the world; it's a supermodernism, if you will. when i read and think about derrida, i find the parallels in approach and ideology with, say, kant to be striking. the main difference is that kant had a reluctance to take it all the way, but derrida did not.
metaphysical suspicion. that's all modernism was, and, not so surprisingly, that's what postmodernism happens to be.
certainly the metaphysical suspicion has different emphases. but it is essentially no different than the shift from nonchristian deism (that is, deism totally divorced from a christian worldview) to atheism.
Ian and Sean: I don't know how this got onto a track of pomo vs. modernism... I don't think that this has much to do with the idea of scripture rather it's more of a philisophical rabbit-trail.
I, for one, do not think modernity is/was entirely evil. Seriously. Human thought develops over time. Good things and bad things come along with that development. To say we hate individualistic interpretations is stupid. Scripture is essentially interpreted by the individual into an honest belief or conviction. But the history of the church reading the bible and its accumulations of individual AND corporate readings build into what we call tradition.
Tradition is great but not perfect. It is human. Humans make mistakes. And through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we fix them also.
Of all the commentors, very few would describe themselves as "postmodern." I admit, I will. But it depends on the company... Seriously. I am not to the same degree as many of the "deconstruction evangelicals" who take apart everything from what elements we consume at communion to the idea of wearing a cross. Yet I think I would be more in the "pomo" stream, if you will, than such figures as NT Wright. Postmodernity, as modernity before it, is not a monolithic giant of likemindedness.
JHearne: I agree. I thought that statement to be rather sweeping. In my humanities class we discussed Roman and Greek understandings of homosexuality and it appears to me that the Romans withheld total affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle to the degree Greek and many modern western cultures do or did.
Everyone: I am leaving for Kentucky on wednesday. I will try to monitor this as best I can from there but it may be scattered. Please stay kind to one another and do your best to stay on topic and off of persoanl attacks.
Gracias.
as far as Scripture and homosexuality, I have concluded in my life that God places a serious amount of wieght on His WORD. (ps. 138:2)
let's not forget that Jesus IS the WORD(John Ch. 1). if Jesus is the WORD, then to deny God's WORD is to deny Jesus. I think this is simple, yet important for us to realize.
Mike, et al.
It's nice to visit you here on your blog. I appreciate the add on Myspace and look forward to dialoging with you in the future. I appreciate what you and Kyle (who I usually find thought provoking) have stated, as well as Ian and the other commentors. I agree 100% with those who refuse to label homosexuality (or any other sin for that matter) a "super-sin," since such an understanding is nothing more than a (mostly) unconcious way of permiting one of the oldest human sins: self-justification ("This woman you gave me...") as opposed to taking our selves off the idolatrous pedestal we often claim and allowing God to work in our lives.
At the same time, I would have to agree with Ian--as a Christian I am under the authority of scripture, not over it. Certainly there must be interpretation and application, yet this is primarily the work of the community through the power of the Holy Spirit. And not just a work of the local community, which is as likely to go wrong when it comes to their own pet sins as any individual, but it is rather to be left to the discernment of the entire body of the faithful. Does this mean there can't be disagreement in the body? Of course not; it simply means that on matters of great importance, in which class I would place morality, since I reject the arguments that morality (in this case sexual morality) is adiaphora or indifferent to the living of a faithful Christian life, then I must submit in humility to the catholic consensus rather than attempt to forward a private interpretation, no matter how much easier it might be in our context to live with that alternative interpretation.
The arguments about the appropriate expression of Christian sexuality are not simply mundane and concerned with the negative statements of the Apostle Paul or various Old Testament morality codes, but are instead concerned with the cosmic initiative of God in creation. This is what Christ is demonstrating when he responds to the Pharisees’ question about divorce by returning to the origin, to Genesis and positively stating the ideal spousal relationship for humanity, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”(Mark 10) All Christian teaching about marriage and sexuality is flawed if it does not first begin where Our Lord himself began—with the intent of the Father in creation. Does this mean that those with homosexual inclinations should be forbidden church membership? No, but it does mean that same-sex acts are sins on par with divorce and are not to be celebrated or blessed by the Church and that if continued in unrepentantly, as with unrepentant serial monogamy or unrepentant anything, will amount to rebellion against God which is a “super-sin” because it is an active and knowing choice of the evil, i.e. that which God would not have us do.
I’ve written much more about the theology of marriage, [http://www.adamantius.net/marriage.htm]in this paper,Love that Hath Ends will have an End: Considering Christian Marriage in our Time, I invite you to look at it. I don’t mention homosexuality directly except for one quotation, and this was intentional because I believe we cannot begin to forward a Christian understanding of same-sexuality without first understanding the relational icon presented to us in God’s Word, and that pursuing that icon while considering the emotional and politicized topic of homosexuality can not but warp our deliberations. Instead we must understand what a Christian sexuality looks like first, before we can begin to consider whether it is possible for same-sex activity to fall into the realm of the acceptable or the laudable.
God Bless
Breaking my word(!):
Mike,
You have continued to sidestep and refuse to answer my direct and easy to answer questions. In fact I've asked probably a score of questions and had none of them answered directly. This is because you feel that I'm forging philosophical "rabbit-trails". On the contrary, I have been trying to establish a common universe for dialogue. Without that we can't have a meaningful exchange.
Jhearne and Mike,
And you're completely wrong to compare Roman homosexual lifestyles with that of modern western societies. Homosexuality was a valid public option, it was frowned upon as a lifestyle for Caesars and generals, but it was hardly viewed as negatively as it is in America today. If you got married in Rome you might get a male sex slave as a gift. Homosexuality was perfectly normal. You've been miseducated.
Peace.
My friend Josh told me about your blog. Thank you for contributing to a wonderful conversation.
P.S. Can anyone identify any other culture in history where homosexual marriages were the goal of homosexuality. It seems Paul was speaking about a certain type of homosexuality, but it does not seem to be a single, life long relationship. And the fact that Jesus never mentions it, is interesting to say the least.
See my post regarding Paul and scripture. Scripture
This is late, but I want to add my 2 cents. Which now we know the metal of the coins is worth more. (:
Jody ended a paragraph with these words and it got a path of thinking going with me : "will amount to rebellion against God which is a super-sin because it is an active and knowing choice of the evil, i.e. that which God would not have us do." Which is what we see in 1John, the difference between conscious, chosen sin as a chosen lifestyle vs. falling off the curb sin, or that we are imperfect and will choose to do some sin many times daily the rest of our lives. We all justify sins we do daily. That is why in Romans 2, Paul says "and you are them." (my paraphrase.) Romans 1 is not about homosexuality being a sin. It is about people who have so repeatedly chosen to turn from God wooing, that they live rebellion against God. And as we go into Romans more, thank God, we are rescued from such spiritual callousness and retardation.
I just find it so important that when the Romans 1 verse is brought out, that we put it in the larger context of the whole of Romans, what all the sins and sinners in Romans 1 is about, then onto Romans 2, then none are righteous we all have turned to our own way, then onto God's remedy in Christ, as a lifestyle.
I said it in the first blog entry on homosexuality - the goal is to be in relationship with each other that the trust is earned that we can help each other stand. I would love conversations with the topic of homosexuality to be how can we help each other stand? I am not there yet, but I am getting there. Then there is not christian homosexual X over there that it is our mission to be a friend to so to save him/her from her/his ways. We will be helping each other live this christian life as God wants us to, rather than trying to figure out what is a sin and why and who. X struggles with same gender attraction? Well, I struggle with self pity. Let's help each other live the full life God has for us. Which, would seem to be a different kind of relating to each other than being with those who have defiantly set their face against God. Which is another conversation.
As to how to know what part of scripture applies to us today, we get into that conundrum when we divide reality into spiritual and physical. If spiritual and physical are one, then I apply the same logic and trust that I know this chair is real and will support me when I put my butt on it. That is, someone early in my life taught me and showed me chairs support butts, and I then tried it and found voila' they do support butts, and have come to trusting chairs support butts. If that process was to start as an adult, we would need someone telling us reasons that the chair is real and is made in such a way it can support our butts, then seeing it support their butts, then trying it for ourselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home