Blogging homosexuality
January 31, 2006
Brian McLaren found something out this week that unfortunately, I’ve had the pleasure of learning about as well: you can’t blog about homosexuality and have an actual conversation. I wish it were possible, but it wasn’t here, here, here, here, here, here or here. Brian set out to write about homosexuality from a pastoral perspective (article here) and then got reamed by commenters, especially Mars Hill’s Mark Driscoll, who posted an inflammatory comment that will only set him further and further apart from the emergent sphere. Brian gracefully responded to Mark’s sarcasm here and Driscoll’s comment again shows that he apparently can not get past his black-or-white mentality on this issue and insists on pinning Brian down for a clear answer here: "Brian, as someone who has known you for many years I will, out of
sincere and true love for you, ask one simple question and kindly
request that you answer it. Do you personally believe that all sexual activity between two persons of the same gender is always a sin?"
As Driscoll shows by his pointed question to Brian, the primary questions that come up over and over again by commenters on posts about homosexuality are questions that deal with absolutes, specifics and black-and-white assumptions. "Is sexual activity between two persons of the same gender always a sin?" "Is homosexuality a sin or not?" "Do you believe gays should be ordained?" Even in a blog-post or article that is focusing on the pastoral perspective (as Brian’s article was) people automatically jump to questions of absolutes, sin and biblical authority.
Why can we not have these conversations on blogs? I’d like to think that it is still possible, but experience has proven otherwise. And I think that primarily the reason we cannot blog about homosexuality (in addition to other sensitive social issues of our time) is because when we sit down in front of our computers, it’s very easy to type out a quick response, something that is witty, "blblical", and maybe, if we’re lucky, filled with "prophetic sarcasm." But this is too easy, and this is too separated from how this all plays out. This type of conversation is devoid of human interaction, community and genuine encounters with the other.
In one of my posts, I actually added in the provision that I hoped people would not join in on the conversation unless they actually had friends or acquaintances that were in fact gay. That sounds pretty silly even as I write that, but I think that when you are actually in relationship with people who are struggling with issues of homosexuality, that gives you an incredibly different perspective, and one that I think is often lacking in these types of conversations. Even for those who are in relationship with gay and lesbian friends, and STILL come out believing that practicing homosexuality is a sin, there is a markedly different tone and way in which they go about arguing that, because there is a human face to the "issue."
It’s definitely been a journey for me to end up in a place where I can welcome, affirm and celebrate my fellow LGBT brothers and sisters, in their lives, relationships and callings to ministry. And I am fully aware that there are many people, many of my close friends and family, who will never end up in that same place in their own journeys. It is important to have these conversations. It is important to have conversations about views on biblical authority. But I think it is important for us to begin, first and foremost, to consider those who this "issue" affects - those who are being denied their humanity and the gift to be able to live and experience the life that Jesus came to give.
Jesus: "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." John 10.10
Technorati Tags: Mark Driscoll, Brian McLaren, Homosexuality, Dialogue
Posted in 
January 31st, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Great post…I agree that knowing people who are struggling with this stuff gives you a really different perspective.
I don’t think the stuff we’re seeing on blogs is any different to the conversations in ‘real life’ though - in my experience most people take the approach of Driscoll. It’s amazing how frustrated people get when I tell them that I don’t know, and I don’t particularly care, whether it’s “right” or “wrong” to be gay, but will simply live and journey with people and share their stories. I think a lot of Christians find ambiguity and lack of certainty utterly terrifying, and that in relation to homosexuality we see that brought into sharp relief.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:42 pm
I have had friends who are gay but I still believe that it is a sin. I guess I don’t see any biblical support for homosexuality in leadership, acting upon the temptation, etc. What is so wrong with the black and white when the Bible IS black and white on the issue. I could bring up Romans 1, 1 Cor 6, Sodom and Gommorah, etc. I just don’t get the other side saying it is okay. Why can’t we recognize that God can heal anyone away from that action or for any sin for that matter? I’m not focusing on homosexuality for any sin can be forgiven it is the intentional, rebellious nature of continuing to sin when one knows it is that is the problem and shows to people what type of fruit is being produced.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:43 pm
*laughing* Ummmm…here we go again…
January 31st, 2006 at 5:46 pm
I reread the comment. Other than mentioning curse words and some sarcasm, I too agree with to a point Mark other than the attitude. I guess in Emergent circles and what pushes me unfortunately away from them is that anything mentioned against current culture is considered inflammetory. This I don’t understand when Paul says “Be in the world but not of it.” We can’t be all things to all people in light of Scripture but we can be like Christ who healed people AND said “go and sin no more”. If Jesus were around today and Emergent heared “go and sin no more” the Emergent would say He is intolerant. I just don’t understand this type of idea that stating something that is clear in Scripture is considered intolerant. Sorry for ranting. :)
January 31st, 2006 at 5:48 pm
I’ve just read all of Mark Driscoll’s stuff…now maybe American humour is different to Aussie humour, but I thought it was Aussie’s that were known for their sarcasm, and to be frank, I found Driscoll’s response utterly rude, obnoxious, homophobic, sexist, utterly unpastoral, and denigrating to those who really are on the margins (male lesbian - that’s only funny if you’re a white, hetero male - as a white, straight woman, I’m tempted to punch the guy out).
Seriously, even if I agreed with Driscoll and not with McLaren on the theological issues, I know who I see as having the characteristics of a “leader”. Driscoll’s response is disgusting. I can’t believe he’s been applauded for it. This raises another issue: why is someone slammed for respectfully communicating a controversial theological position, but someone who holds a standard theological position can communicate it in whatever way they like?
January 31st, 2006 at 5:49 pm
>>>”I think a lot of Christians find ambiguity and lack of certainty utterly terrifying, and that in relation to homosexuality we see that brought into sharp relief.”
Whether or not some may find “ambiguity” terrifying or not is entirely irrelevant, given the fact that the Bible is not at all ambiguous about it. Homosexuality is a sin (i.e., an “abomination”) according to the Bible. I wish it were not so, because I desire nothing more than to see all people happy, including homosexuals. But I cannot and will not deny the Bible simply because of my feelings, or to please other people, or for social/political expediency. Denying the Bible is tantamount to denying God himself. I will not do it.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Post modern people say they want to change the world but in the end what changes is themselves into something that IS the world. This goes against “be in the world but not of it.”
Adam, again these questions “”Is sexual activity between two persons of the same gender always a sin?” “Is homosexuality a sin or not?” “Do you believe gays should be ordained?” Even in a blog-post or article that is focusing on the pastoral perspective (as Brian’s article was) people automatically jump to questions of absolutes, sin and biblical authority.”
are legitamate questions that we shouldn’t downplay. If you are truly post modern you would downplay them.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:56 pm
This is fascinating. Adam posts his musings on the way the discussion of homosexuality occurs, and then a case study is played out below. DH, Jean, do you not get the post?
Jean, whether you like it or not, some of us think that the Bible *is* ambiguous about the issue - and yes, we have studied the Bible, rather than “denied” it.
January 31st, 2006 at 6:01 pm
question: what does GOD say about this issue? i don’t care what mclaren/driscoll say…what does GOD teach us about this? has that been answered by anyone yet?
January 31st, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Jean and DH - but even this is just what I’m talking about. WHY is it that the very first thing we jump to is the issue of the supposed sin? Bec, thanks for noticing that too. There are a multiplicity of opinions that could be considered ‘biblical’ - since that is what everyone is concerned with.
January 31st, 2006 at 6:40 pm
>>>WHY is it that the very first thing we jump to is the issue of the supposed sin?
Talk about ambiguous. What does that even mean? I THINK your statement assumes that the only time we talk about, talk to, or think about the issue of homosexuality is when we’re discussing it Biblically. If that is your assumption, it would be wrong. I interract frequently with people whom I know to be homosexuals, and I don’t go around having biblical debates in my head when doing so. I treat them like the complex human beings they are (i.e., like I treat anybody else).
I have yet to hear a sound biblical defense of homosexuality. If you have one, please offer it (and don’t forget to include the verses).
January 31st, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Prediction: 53 comments.
January 31st, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Two years ago, prior to most of my class going out to do our summer supervised ministry placements, some of us went to a forum on how to have a conversation about LGBT issues in the churches we were going to.
The most important thing that I learned at that forum came from one of our N.T. professors.
She told us that no one is ever going to be convinced to move from one side of this issue to the other by exegesis.
Exegesis is a great tool for learning about the Bible, but it isn’t convincing as an argument.
And she was right. No matter how much exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:5 you present me with, you are not going to convince me that my living into my identity as a transgendered woman is an abomination.
What we need to have this in these conversations, if they are going to accomplish anything are honesty, compassion, patience and love from both sides. That’s true whether we are having the conversation face to face or in the comments of a blog.
I think it is harder to do in a blog because when you can’t see the people you are conversing with, or hear their voices, they loose a certain reality. They become less people and more icons for a particular point of view.
I don’t think that it is impossible to have an intelligent, compassionate conversation in a blog, but I think it would require a terrific effort on everyone’s part to do it.
January 31st, 2006 at 8:24 pm
I would like to say that I see some very legitimate concerns represented in comments that come from conservative corners. these posters suspect (perhaps rightly) that the scary sub-issue here is not homosexuality but scriptural interpretation and authority. the “homosexuality gloss” gives the argument some practical application and the sort of tabloid sensationalism that always accompanies talk about sex, but while our hearts might beat faster at the thought of scandalous sex, it probably beats faster still with the legitimate fear that we are somehow misinterpreting God’s word.
all too often, the framework of our theology about the authority of scripture is so familiar to us that it fades into the background of our thought process. In the meantime, we sail past those we argue with like two ships in the night, wondering how on earth THEY don’t see how this is as simple/complex as the bible itself.
I wish, rather than unending theological football matches over issues like homosexuality, we could have some civil conversation about what the Bible means for our faith, and how different people approach it, and what that MEANS. I suspect along the way, we would gain insight into subjects like homosexuality, among many others.
Because (and here I put my cards on the table) in the end I don’t think God is waiting on pins and needles for gays and lesbians to stop loving each other or for Christians to get out there and preach it. I don’t know how we have convinced ourselves that this is the make or break issue for the church today.
Who Jesus is, what Jesus stands for, and how we receive that truth which IS Jesus through a complicated and sacred text like the Bible seems to me a much more worthy subject for discussion.
January 31st, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Adam, do you sincerely think that those of us who believe that homosexuality is a sin are trying to deny gays their humanity?
January 31st, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Adam, like you I’ve noticed that people are really concerned with getting to a position, rather than having the conversation. Put another way, a lot of Christians are more concerned with outcome than process.
For me, it’s the conversation, not necessarily the position, that is ultimately important (and I think this is what Tim is saying?) I’m more concerned with listening to and engaging with people’s stories and views than necessarily determining whether or not something is “sin”…people often quote the story of Jesus telling the woman at the well to ‘go and sin no more’, but they neglect to recognise that before saying that, Jesus had a conversation with her (furthermore, he was God - we’re not!)
I don’t have a problem with homosexuality - I have read a *lot* on the issue, and until I’m persuaded otherwise, I will choose
I’ve read a lot on the issue, I will choose a theology that includes over one that excludes. But even if I’m wrong - and believe me, I’m very open to the possibility that I am - I don’t think that I, or anyone else, is going to be judged by God for that. God judges us according to whether or not we’re genuinely seeking to follow Christ. We are not judged according to whether or not we comply with a set of rules. Provided that, in all I do, I seek to follow Christ, rather than a set of rules, or pop culture, then I trust that God is loving and big enough to accept my screw-ups. :)
January 31st, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Tim,
Wise and insightful words, friend, are yours:
“I wish, rather than unending theological football matches over issues like homosexuality, we could have some civil conversation about what the Bible means for our faith, and how different people approach it, and what that MEANS. I suspect along the way, we would gain insight into subjects like homosexuality, among many others.”
Is it posible that “authority” (of the Bible) and “authenticity” (of the reading of the Bible) are interrelated? Perhaps Augustine’s complaint about the Manichees could have something to do with the way in which the Bible is “authoritative”:
“They used to say ‘Truth, truth’, and they had a lot to tell me about it; but there was never any truth in them.” [Conf. III.vi(10)]
In other words, the Bible cannot become an authority in one’s life until the truth of the Bible indwells the reader.
In venturing even this far you and I have left the bounds of the topic at hand. But perhaps, as you suggest, that’s all the better….
January 31st, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Tim really touches on something key. To me, and I suspect to many conservative christians, this is less about homosexuals and more about the integrity of the Scriptures. In my own case, I like homosexuals just fine and I wish them the best. But if I pretend the Bible doesn’t say what I know it clearly does say about homosexuality, then what would keep me from tossing the whole thing out? Sorry folks, I just can’t go there. I feel for gays, but I just don’t see how I have any choice.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:09 pm
I am not able to comment at length right now but I need to write something. I have not read the entire posting by Mark Driscoll yet but I have come to the conclusion that he is an angry and dangerous man. I can appreciate that he does not sugar coat his position because that would increase his lethality I think. However, those who take joy in using “humor” to unleash the venom that he does should not be in church leadership. He (and others) may think he is funny, but he is truly frightening to me!
January 31st, 2006 at 9:26 pm
I wonder what a conversation about homosexuality would look like if we talked about the issue and the theological issues themselves, instead of prefacing everything with “Well, this is what I myself believe, and can’t see any other solution.” That is to say, would conversation be different if we stopped saying “I and me” so much, focusing less on our own selves and more on the mystery of God. Instead of trying to cut off our opponents by either emphasizing ourselves or emphasizing particular Bible verses, what if we emphasized the need for peace in our churches and our entire Christian community, looking to the Bible as first and foremost a witness to God’s faithful people and our salvation in Christ? Perhaps it is time to take a step back and take in the larger picture when we dialogue. We need to build up our Christian brothers and sisters instead of tearing them down.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Adam, there’s something a lot of people don’t know about Mark Driscoll that you and I have seen when we visited M.H. Church: Once you remember that this guy is a total asshole, egotistic beyond belief, and seemingly in love with the sound of his own voice, just about everything you see him write begins to make sense. People think he was rude to McLaren? They should have heard the racism in his sermon on July 19, 2004 — for what seemed to be no other reason than for comic relief and laughs!
This guy doesn’t really rate the rising blood pressure over anything he writes!
January 31st, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Adam, I don’t know if I tell you enough how much I appreciate what you are doing with this blog.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:49 pm
I often wonder if hauerwas is right that the real issue here is christian marriage. a point was made earlier that exegesis is not sufficient to convince people of this issue either way. I also find myself unable to make a decision based upon these verses because their meaning is much more mysterious then many conservatives claim they are. on the other hand, i am not convinced that we have hashed this issue out all the way. I support my gay brothers and sisters, but I worry that there needs to be some critical reflection from more liberal minded people about what we are saying when we say we support.
hauerwas, who i do not believe is a supporter of gay marriage but i could be wrong, rightly in my mind suggests that the real issue is the nature of marriage. That chastity is a pretty standard christian doctrine, that from which we can make decisions about the nature of Christian marriage and if we can envision homosexual marriage, and thus homsexual sexual activity within that matrix. I think I might be able to, hauerwas seems not so sure inw hat I have read him write. What he also points out though is that hetero christians are uncomfortable with defining marriage because they may have to acknowledge how the church has ignored Jesus teaching on divorce in many ways. Even more, conservatives often don’t want to discuss marriage as a christian sacrament because they may have to realize that it is not gay marriage that threatens the sanctity of marriage but capitalism. Our society destroys family values, not through a lack of morals, but through an economic system that encourages individuality, consumerism, and the importance of career over familial bonds. In fact, traditional family values, whether they include homosexuals or not, are in direct conflict with capitalism as it currently exists in this nation. Thus, conservatives often times want to have their cake and eat it to. I suspect that if we were to allow homosexuals to marry and thus have long term church ordained relationships, and thus even to serve in ministry, it would cause no erosion to our values or our society. I suspect the kingdom of God would in fact benefit more then lessen because of this. First though, and I apologize to my lgbt brothers and sisters for this, but first we MUST discuss marriage truthfully and scripturally. which means many of us heterosexuals will be in trouble, because we may find that it is our marriages, not homosexual ones, that are out of line with God’s will.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:56 pm
“But if I pretend the Bible doesn’t say what I know it clearly does say about homosexuality, then what would keep me from tossing the whole thing out?”, or as Augustine said it ‚ÄúIf once you admit into the high sanctuary of authority one false statement. . . There will not be left a single sentence of those books which if appearing difficult or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which intentionally the author declared what was not true.” (I prefer Bill’s version)
Well then, throw it out. What if the Bible isn’t the Word of God, but documentation of how an ancient people understood God?
I don’t see how you can have any theological discussion about homosexuality without ending up with Bill’s question. How one answers it changes everything. And, frankly, it makes discussion pointless-other than just the social benefits of civility. People on either side of this divide live in different universes. The same words have different meanings. There are virtually no questions that have the same premises.
What if a Brazilian Aborigine earnestly asked you if you thought tree frogs or grass snakes were better for oozing scratches? How would you help him decide?
January 31st, 2006 at 11:00 pm
I’m just amused at the case study that is happening here, i think the reason that we cant get a “decent” and safe dialogue happening online as much as we can irl is that there are people who sit there and say “yes or no?” and will not engage with you until you make your statement.
If you discagree with them you’ll probably end up in a dialogue that they have designed in order to change your mind… this is not dialogue, it’s petition.
There’s no winning in this discussion if all you want is a discussion and dialogue, because those who say “yes or no” aren’t up for a discussion. They may be interested in a dialogue abotu worship styles, art, music, ministry, youth work, women in ministry but when it comes to it somehow homosexuality is one of those “yes or no” issues.
sigh
oh yeah, and hello bec, glad to have caught up for coffee the other day…
January 31st, 2006 at 11:29 pm
:)
January 31st, 2006 at 11:47 pm
Bibliographic Help:
Background (books on how definitions of sexuality have changed over the centuries)
David Halperin. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, and Other Essays on Greek Love
Thomas Laqueur. Making Sex : Body and Gender From the Greeks to Freud
Not for the faint-hearted when it comes to complex theory
Marcella Althaus-Reid. Indecent Theology: Theological Perversions in Sex, Gender and Politics
Stephen D. Moore. God’s Beauty Parlor and other Queer Spaces in and Around the Bible
Recommendations
James Alison. Faith Beyond Resentment
Eugene Rogers. Sexuality and the Christian Body
Eugene Rogers, ed. Theology and Sexuality
Dan Via and Robert Gagnon. Homosexuality and the Bible
Richard Hays. The Moral Vision of the New Testament
Ray S. Anderson. On Being Human
Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Creation and Fall
I like a quote from Madeleine L’Engle’s Penguins and Golden Calves:
“We tend to defend vigorously things that in our deepest hearts we are not quite certain about. If we are certain of something we know, it doesn’t need defending!”
January 31st, 2006 at 11:52 pm
My father gave me a book last year by a psychologist who presents a decent argument that homosexuality is not genetic…
Of course if you look into the guy who wrote the book he’s also a hardcore evangelical conservative, so his studies came from a fairly tainted starting point.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:09 am
In his book Engaging Scripture, S. Fowl draws an interesting suggestion between 1) the earliest Jewish Christians, who were not so sure whether these Gentiles were of God, and their process of discernment about inclusion, and 2) the process of discernment needed by Christian communities in relation to those amongst us who are homosexual. Perhaps another book to add to my previous list.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:35 am
Lonebarista wrote:
have not read the entire posting by Mark Driscoll yet but I have come to the conclusion that he is an angry and dangerous man.
Are you really comfortable coming to such a conclusion about someone having read only one part of one blog post?
You may be right, I don’t know. I hadn’t heard of Driscoll before the UR post. However, I think applying a label of “angry and dangerous” might require a little more due diligence than skimming a couple of paragraphs. I don’t think I would be able to come to conclusion quite so easily.
Maybe I’m misreading your post. Maybe you have long been familiar with him and his recent post is the final straw. If that’s the case, I misunderstood the first part of your comment.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:49 am
Moondog: “Maybe I’m misreading your post. Maybe you have long been familiar with him and his recent post is the final straw. If that’s the case, I misunderstood the first part of your comment.”
Of course, if you haven’t misread the post, then you’re right to call out this kind of intellectual dishonesty.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:17 am
For me there is a difference between peace and the condoning of sin. I personally believe we can offer peace, acceptance and the like in a way without condoning clear sin. When I read Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 it seems clear what God is saying on the issue. My strong belief is if we were around when Jesus was healing the adulterer that many post-modern Christians would have called Jesus “intolerant” when He said “go and sin no more”. I feel Jesus’s response to this adulterer is exactly our response to anyone struggling with any sin. I believe this proves that we can do it in love. We shouldn’t go to the lowest common denominator with regard to the issue, whether it be condoning the behavior or rejecting the idea of it being sin because people have an attitude of hate toward homosexuals. These things don’t require a rejection of the truth because certain people behave wrongly. Does this make sense? If anyone needs clarification let me know. On blogs it is easy to miswrite (not a word but equivilent to misspoke) :). DH
February 1st, 2006 at 9:25 am
Melissa is correct, its better to think of it as a theological issue.
Within Judaism, homosexuality is seen as not something to be ‘judged’ or ‘ashamed’ of at all.
There are some different ideas amoung a small minority but for the great majority of Jews this is like having brown eyes or blue eyes.
In fact, Adam, Jeruselum has a beautiful and well attended gay pride parade each year. I would guess its the only one in the Middle East. :}
dh, “Homosexuals” are not bad, they are people, they are our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters.
Don’t judge them, look at the world we live in, there are many real problems.
Islam and Christianity has to get over this thing about gay people.
Time to move on to more important problems, there are more than enough to keep us all busy.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:53 am
“I would guess its the only one in the Middle East. :}”
gee, I wonder why that is.
February 1st, 2006 at 10:24 am
callie,
Recognizing sin isn’t the same as thinking people are “bad”. We’re all sinners, and we all fall short of God’s glory. Yup, even the “good” people are sinners in need of God’s redemption through Christ, and even Paul admitted to a “thorn” in his side. Doesn’t mean he was a bad person.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:12 am
Even,
The idea of people as ‘all sinners’ is a Christian one I think.
I don’t see that as the case at all. We all make mistakes. We all need to work harder.
However, ’sinner’ just strikes me as such a strange word to use.
Its judgemental somehow.
Why not try ‘mistake makers’ instead?
This is your world view that you are entitled to of course. But if Jesus is your God then why not follow what he said and not judge others.
Don’t you have enough to do to feed the poor and help the sick? Shouldn’t ‘homosexuality’ being labeled a ’sin’ be waaaaaay down on the list of ‘things for Christians to worry about’?
People are as we speak dieing from preventable illness all over Africa for lack of a pill that costs a few pennies.
Once all those problems get solved, THEN concern yourself with stamping out Gay Pride parades.
They are not hurting anyone and are actually just part of the beauty of the human mosaic.
And by the way, Hindus, Muslims Jews Bahai’s and Buddists do NOT seem to see themselves as in need of ‘redemption’ by your version of theology.
And if this is how you express it I hope that never changes.
Now, go and solve a real problem and stop this nonsense about calling gay people names.
Its unbecomeing and silly.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:21 am
“WHY is it that the very first thing we jump to is the issue of the supposed sin? Bec, thanks for noticing that too. There are a multiplicity of opinions that could be considered ‘biblical’ - since that is what everyone is concerned with.”
The thing that consistently grabs my attention on this blog is that the solutions to the problems posed always seem to be more about not hurting anybody’s feelings and reaching an answer that pleases everyone than they do about upholding or even seeking out biblical truths.
When it comes to a question of Christian morality - which this obviously is - why wouldn’t we be concerned first with “biblical” opinions?
February 1st, 2006 at 11:47 am
oh please Matt!
If we were going to go back to total ‘biblical’ beliefs we would not only see being gay as a ’sin’ we would stone people to death for not observing the Sabbath!
Why do you find it is up to you to pick and choose what is Bibical and what is not?
Jesus, from what I have heard, loved the despised the most. And so I would agree with him when he said to let someone who is without sin cast the first stone.
Will that be you Matt?
February 1st, 2006 at 12:02 pm
“”The idea of people as ‘all sinners’ is a Christian one I think.”"
Callie,
Yes, that is a christian idea. And because I believe ALL people are sinners in need of redemption (not just homosexuals), it logically follows that I’m not being judgmental. I certainly don’t take it as judgmental when my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ seek to lovingly convict/exhort/encourage me from my own sin. In fact, I expect it of them.
Re “stoning”, just because we do not execute people for certain acts of sinfulness does not negate the reality of the sin. David was an adulterer and adultery is always wrong. Just because God did not slay him does not mean that David was okay on that one, it simply means that God is sovereign and choose mercy on whom he will. I can still hold to the standard of Leviticus concerning homosexuality without exacting the judgment Leviticus call for. Why? Because even though the wages of sin is death, Jesus took those sins upon him on the cross. HE died for my sins.
Jesus did not condone stoning the woman involved in sexual sin, but He did tell her to “go and sin no more.” He did not hesitate to let her know that sin is sin and to please God one must stop sinning. There is no need for us to stay silent about the sin of homosexuality for five years or even 5 minutes. To think we can minister to someone better by not being honest with them and true the Scriptures demonstrates a great error in understanding the whole character of God. It is our job to love the sinner while making sure they know that God hates the sin, no matter what the sin is–and homosexuality is specifically stated to be an abomination to Him. While this is not always easy to do, yet it is necessary if we are going to allow Jesus to be the Lord of our lives and Head of the Church.
True, there are issues of far greater importance in the world than the gay issue. But that issue seems to be a flashpoint because on it seems to hinge the very authority of Scripture. As some commenters have stated above, if this one isn’t clear enough for all to see, then we might as well throw in the towel. I guess we aren’t willing to do that.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Man. Let me try this again. Read it slowly.
My point was simply this: In the Christian faith, the Bible is our primary source of knowledge and our source for finding God’s words which serve as our guidelines. That’s what I was saying.
I NEVER CHOSE or said that I choose what is biblical and what is not. Adam’s comment that I quoted seemed to be asking (as I read it) why people seemed so concerned with SEEKING OUT biblical truth - whatever that truth may end up being.
I also said nothing derogatory against anyone in my comment, so please don’t jump down my throat about throwing stones.
That is another logical leap that people need to stop taking. It seems that you’re saying anyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin (which I admit that I do, according to my understanding of scripture) is also a gay-bashing bigot. This is simply ridiculous. I readily admit to my sinfulness, and know full well that I’m in no position to judge anyone else. But simply observing that something is a sin is not the same as making a judgement about a person’s spirituality or character, and is definitely not the same as hating someone.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Here’s the deal:
We would be fine being concerned first with “Biblical” opinions if we could understand that there are a multiplicity of interpretations of it. It is no secret that there are a wide variety of views expressed by the readers of this blog. I don’t think that we are leveling Christian theology to merely protecting each other’s feelings when we agree to disagree on our interpretations of Scripture. That is to say, whether I believe the passage in Romans (for example) to be explicitly anti-homosexuality or not, I need to be sensitive to the fact that there could exist another valid interpretation of the same passage that might be different than my own. And instead of focusing on trying to prove how my interpretation is right, I should be spending more time remembering that Christ’s salvation is offered equally to me and to those with whom I disagree. “Getting the Bible right” is not what enacts my salvation. So in that sense, couldn’t we all give each other a little more room in the discussion?
February 1st, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Evan,
I know people have complained about the positive tone of the comments and I agree with being polite so I will resist the overwhelming urge to call you a sanctimonious twit.
That said, onto more important questions of theology.
you didn’t answer me, didn’t Jesus, who is one of your Gods say ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’ and ” Let you who is without sin cast the first stone”?
Lets stick to those two for the moment.
Who are you to judge anyone? Why not for the moment, take care of the beam that is in your OWN eye before concentrating on the teeny speck in your neighbors?
Its alot of fun to call others sinners I know. Must harder to focus on ourselves and make the world better.
But that effort is worth it.
Now, Evan, I hope we have cleared up your being so judgemental.
“Go on and sin no more.”
Callie. :+}
February 1st, 2006 at 12:19 pm
“”you didn’t answer me, didn’t Jesus, who is one of your Gods say ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’ and ” Let you who is without sin cast the first stone”?”"
Callie,
I most certainly did answer you. Re-read my first and third paragraphs. If you still don’t get it, it’s because you won’t get it.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Evan,
I understand that you believe being gay is a sin.
I realize you say you don’t hate them or judge them.
But when you have this idea they are sinning when they are not, well, that seems judgemental and in my view contributes to a great deal of sorrow to those affected.
Its the belief of Judasim that we are called to “tikkum olam” or to ‘heal the world’…to call gay people sinners is not healing anyone.
I know your theology is totally different than mine but at least on that point we can agree I hope.
Did you know that the suicide rate amoung gay teens is down by half in the last ten years since the education programs about gay people not being sinners starting taking place? Look it up.
And did you know that until 1994 gay teens represented the largest number of teen suicides?
Do you know why they used to feel no choice but to take their own lives? Its ignorance and shame.
I am sorry Evan, people are born gay, they are born with blue eyes, people don’t ‘chose’ to be gay the way they choose to kill someone.
Its not the same. And my ancestors who wrote that in the Bible 5000 years ago were wrong.
They were wrong about alot of stuff but they did have some great ideas too. Like the ten commandments.
So take the good, but leave the bad.
Its not a sin to be gay. Far from it.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Melissa, that’s exactly what I’m trying desperately hard, but apparently failing miserably, to say.
Again, Adam’s comment seemed to imply that he was frustrated with people seeking ANY biblical answers, regardless of what they may be. I know that the Bible can be interpreted a myriad of ways, I never denied that. I simply said that it is the place that we should look for answers to these tough questions.
And Callie,
You’re doing what you love accusing everyone else of doing. You’re mind is obviously made up and you’re not giving anyone else’s point of view any consideration. Adam was dead-on saying that it’s impossible to have a conversation about this. Thanks for at least proving something right beyond doubt.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:43 pm
I hear the word “love” a lot in many of the posts, and it seems that there seems to be many different definitions being used here as to what is Christian love. If you take the approach that Christian love is helping or making a person feel special, and want to see them affirmed and have high self esteem than I can understand the whole homosexuality is not an issue to debate especially if it leads to someone, and their lifestyle being made to seen as unbiblical or wrong.
But, if your view of Christian love is more along the lines of what John Piper promotes being that Christian love is whatever you need to do to help people see and savor the glory of God in Jesus Christ forever it changes how you love homosexuals and to why the issue matters. I will be a bit McLarenish here and not give my position, in order to promote conversation and thought, but consider that those who view the issue of homosexaulity being biblically wrong is not driven out of legalism and a bunch of other nasty labels. But rather their concern over the issue is Biblical, wanting to give people a Biblical view of who God is and what God is like and what he wants for his people. If these become your values because you seek to see people treasure Christ, your motivation is not to judge, and be a fundamental but rather it is so people can have an accurate view of Jesus and love him forever.
cheers,
February 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pm
And it looks like we are indeed nearing the “53 Comments” line.
Adam, I think your conclusions were quite possibly correct (as indicated in the actual point of your article). And I think I’d have to agree with Mr. Hughes. Perhaps we’re asking the wrong questions. Maybe the questions, instead of simply “homosexuality” (by the way - is the consistent use of the term “Homosexuals” really necessary? When we’re talking about our straight brothers and sisters, do we say things like, “Hello, this is my HETEROSEXUAL friend named Will?”) - should actually be what our different interpretations of the Bible are (and there are many of those, too), and how can we work together for really the ultimate cause.
That’s my two cents. I think I’m comment # 45.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Adam, thanks for linking this. I read mark’s post and I was pretty disappointed. I do think he’s a good preacher, and I do believe he loves God, and wants to preach the love of Christ. (I hear him every sunday, and it always comes back to us ALL being sinners and us ALL needing Jesus. But like all of us, he can be a F*$#ing idiot sometimes… I just hope that doesn’t come out again…
February 1st, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Moondog and RNDaniel,
“Maybe I’m misreading your post. Maybe you have long been familiar with him and his recent post is the final straw. If that’s the case, I misunderstood the first part of your comment.”
Thank you for qualifying your critique, because I am familiar with Mark Driscoll. I have read his statement, viewed the Mars Hill website, and read his work Radical Reformission so I don’t think I”m being intellectually dishonest or too strong when I write that he is a dangerous man in evangelical Christianity.
Thank you for helping me clarify my position.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Evan,
You can’t seem to answer one simple question.
Or take into account the possibility that perhaps being gay is not ’sinful’.
Do you really suggest people who are born gay pretend to be someone who they are not to make you and people like you happy?
What would you say if someone in your own family were gay? It happens all the time.
How do you think Cheney felt when his own daughter came out?
Trust me Evan, Judge not lest you be judged is one way to look at it you might want to consider.
Even if its just for a moment.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Adam’s question: Why can we not have these conversations on blogs?
Because there are too many people, too many views, too much distraction. My suggestion: stop having these conversations on blogs, where misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and sarcasm abundantly flow; and start having these conversations in person, with people…
seek to understand before seeking to be understood–the nature of a blog eliminates this possibility.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Gus, preach it homeboy. You wanna go get a beer and talk about it? Give me a call. ;)
Using a flaming blog thread to make plans to go get beer… priceless.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Can I ask you one question in all seriousness?
How can so many Christians think something like being gay is a sin when thats just how people are born?
Does some types of Christianity still actually believe that people just ‘choose’ to be ‘homosexual’?
I think that is my disconnect.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:39 pm
i’d love to grab a happy hour beer…thursday? monday?
ps sorry that you didn’t get the 53 comment.
congratulations callie! you’re #53.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Ryan: “But, if your view of Christian love is more along the lines of what John Piper promotes being that Christian love is whatever you need to do to help people see and savor the glory of God in Jesus Christ forever it changes how you love homosexuals and to why the issue matters.”
Translation: “The beatings will continue until you get the fact that Jesus loves you, you worthless sinner”.
February 1st, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Really! I am 53!
Do I win a prize?
Can I have a personal audience with the boys from “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”?
February 1st, 2006 at 2:10 pm
KP gets the personal audience with the boys from “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”? cuz he predicted it… I think this ‘discussion’ just ran out of steam.
February 1st, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Callie wrote:
Don’t you have enough to do to feed the poor and help the sick? Shouldn’t ‘homosexuality’ being labeled a ’sin’ be waaaaaay down on the list of ‘things for Christians to worry about’?
To answer your questions: Yes we do, and yes we should. Sorry you had to be the one to point it out; we (Christians) should have been on top of it already.
February 1st, 2006 at 2:40 pm
*Cue theme from Rocky*
*KP marches in from stage left, hands held overhead, yelling repeatedly, “Bring on Queer Eye! Bring on Queer Eye!” Marches across and exits stage right*
February 1st, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Moondog,
Its not only Christians who forget what is really important we Jewish people do as well.
But for us, we aren’t worried so much about people being gay or not as what is the best way to deal with growing anti semitism and anti Israel stuff.
One thing I have really learned here that I didn’t understand before is how little Christians and Jews understand about one anothers belief systems.
I thought I had a good understanding of Christians since I was born in a country where almost everyone else is that faith.
But when you really read and think about it Jewish people don’t understand Christianity and all its wide variations at all.
And if I am not overstepping, I also think that Christians don’t understand us very well either.
In any case, I had no real idea that being gay was still an issue for so many Christians since to us, well, we are over it.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Callie, just to clarify something. There is a difference between temptation and acting upon a particular temptation. So, being tempted to be gay is different from acting upon that temptation (”Jesus was tempted in all ways like us yet without sin.”) I have conpassion for those who have the temptation but refuse to give into the sin. However, those who intentionally sin is another story and gives us a sign of where they are in Christ. However, I believe homosexuality or for that matter any sin God will forgive if people repent. We must not focus on one sin over the others for all are equal, sexual sins have a different way of hurting a person than other sins like Paul mentioned, but all are equal in terms of standing (if you get my drift). Callie, I also feel I am over it in that Scripture is very clear in Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 (NT not OT SCriptures) on the subject. Dave, John Piper and for that matter a super majority of Evangelicals do not support “beatings”. That is a gross overgeneralization that does nothing to uplift the body of Christ. Love to me isn’t condoning behavior that is clearly sin. Like I said earlier if we were in Jesus’s day observing the adulterous womans repentance post modern Christians would accuse Jesus of judging for saying “go and sin no more”. I feel this is a travesty and underestimates how Christ lived which was a perfect, sinless life. While we will sin it doesn’t change the fact that Christ wants us to do our best with all our being heart, soul and mind to live for Him and that includes being obedient as well as not doing things that God clearly says is sin. Also, Jewish and Muslim or other Faiths can not be looked at in the same standing as Faith in Christ “If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father in heaven.” in conjunction with “Without Faith it is impossible to please God.” When a particular faith (notice not Faith) denies Jesus as being God they are in all tense of purposes denying Christ and have a faith in another Christ. Also, they are preaching another Gospel than Christ crucified. For Christ was more than just mere man but was fully God and fully man at the same time.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:34 pm
I’m also not being anti-semetic for Jews can experience the spiritual benefit to go along with their natural benefit of being Jew. If no spiritual benefit of being Jew, accepting of Christ, is there than the natural Jewishness is for naught. However, this doesn’t deny the natural benefit of being Jew. In relation to Muslim there is no benefit of that in that Esau was rejected by God over Jacob as well as Isaac accepted over Ishmael. However, again by Faith in Christ alone they too can be adopted in just like all non natural Jews. As well as natural Jews being regrafted in by Faith in Christ as well. “Behold I am the chief cornerstone….” The cornerstone will be a foundation or the cornerstone will crush you. (paraphrase) (not being harsh on the crush but using the paraphrase of the Scripture with its intended purpose which was an analogy).
February 1st, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Dh!
Don’t talk like that it scares me!
First, Muslims are no different than anyone else, you can’t say that they don’t have a relationship with God. To be honest, their religion is no sillier than anyone else’s. Yours and mine included.
And gay people are really looked down on by most Islamic scholars so you agree with them on that.
Also, Nazi’s agree that gays were bad too.
Anytime you agree with Muslim fundamentalist and Nazi’s your thinking is wrong someplace.
Oy!
February 1st, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Bush: No new state unless Hamas recants:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48614
February 1st, 2006 at 6:44 pm
“Also, Nazi’s agree that gays were bad too.”
Congratulations, you’ve just confirmed Godwin’s Law!
“Anytime you agree with Muslim fundamentalist and Nazi’s your thinking is wrong someplace.”
What if I agree with Muslims and Nazis about the law of gravity?
February 1st, 2006 at 7:07 pm
I would answer you Timbo but I killed the thread.
And I have a report to finish and have spent way too much time debating homosexuality with fundamentalist christians to think on it.
:+}
February 1st, 2006 at 9:51 pm
i don’t care if you are emergent, postmodern, or fundamental…i can’t really see how a person could give an honest read to the entire bible and not come to the conclusion that yes, homosexuality is sin.
simply beause there are ignorant and hurtful people out there throwing stones in an ungodly manner, and even though God truly does not weigh in with degrees of sin, this does not man that the homosexual lifestyle does not honor god. (Neither does adultery, lying or murder)
we can get as advanced and progressive as we want as a society. we can strive for relevance and acceptance, but that does not mean pushing the truth, even the hard truths, under a rug.
it does not matter what we think on the subject as much as it matters what God says, and yes, there are parts of the Bible that are confusing and difficult to process, even difficult to swallow. but i think it’s pretty clear on this subject.
February 1st, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Michael - I have given the bible “an honest read” (by this I mean I have been reading the Bible since I was a kid, and I have always earnestly and sincerely asked God to help me understand it), and I haven’t( come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a sin.
I’m not interested in discussing why that is my conclusion on this thread, because like Adam I think it’s a conversation better had in person - the point I’m trying to make is that there *is* a discussion to be had, whether your or anyone else want to admit it. No matter how many times writers assert that the Bible “is pretty clear on this subject”, there are plenty of others who don’t think that it’s 100% clear.
In short, there is a conversation to be had, even if you can’t understand why or you don’t think there should be.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Interesting post Adam. As a gay man and recovering Nazarene I must say it is hard have a conversation about homosexuality in any capaicty, blog or in person … nobody wants to really talk about it … support it sure… attack it … why not … but talk about it … examine it …. that just might bring up to many questions without black and white answers.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:07 pm
>>>there are plenty of others who don’t think that it’s 100% clear.
What part of “abomination” is not a 100% clear? That’s an honest question.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Ok, I wasn’t wanting to post on this, but since the other Evan seems to also share my last name, I’m wanting to hop in and say that the Evan Smith who has been making all these anti-homosexuality comments is NOT the Evan Smith at Princeton Theological Seminary. Just wanting to clarify since I’ve already had a couple of people talk to me about this.
I usually try to avoid these kinds of blog posts because the inflammatory remarks seem to harm far more than hurt, and with these hot button issues, the last thing we need to do is carelessly toss around more hateful rhetoric.
As an interesting side note to the other Evan, Leviticus calls only one other thing an abomination: foods that aren’t kosher. Some might argue that we clearly don’t find eating non-kosher foods an abomination in the eyes of God in this day and age.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:51 am
“As an interesting side note to the other Evan, Leviticus calls only one other thing an abomination: foods that aren’t kosher.’
Why would you restrict yourself to Leviticus? Do you not read the Bible as a whole in its entirety?
“Abomination” simply refers to something the Lord “hates” — something totally out of harmony with His character of purity and love.
The list is extensive. Sexual sins of any kind are considered abominations. See Leviticus 18: 18 - 30, paying particular attention to verses 27 - 30, which refer to “all these abominations” — after various kinds of sexual activities apart from marriage have been mentioned. Christ only amplified this by saying the mere lustful thought about such things is sin.
Dishonest business practices are named as an “abomination” in Deuteronomy 25: 13 - 16, Proverbs 11: 1 and Proverbs 20: 10.
Oppressive treatment of others and a haughty attitude are considered as “abomination” in Proverbs 3: 31 - 32.
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren are abominations, Proverbs 6: 16 - 19.
The simple term “wickedness” is equated with “abomination” in Proverbs 8:7.
“Lying lips” are added to the list in Proverbs 12: 20 and a “proud heart” in Proverbs 16: 15.
There is plenty more, but I’m tired and it’s late. But which other of these sins should we strike off the list because they no longer strike our fancy? We get to choose now, apparently.
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:05 am
Adam, good job on the post.
My friends who are gay are not “struggling” with being gay. If they have any struggle it is with those who treat them as lepers all while claiming to “love” them.
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:12 am
Finger, I agree and I will continue to pray for you that God will continue to protect you in Him. I do believe and pray for you that God will change your desires as you put your full trust in Him. Many people have changed and I can a strength in you that will help you in this. May God richly bless you Finger and that you never give into the temptation. Remember even Jesus was tempted yet without sin. I say this to encourage you for as you look toward God He will help you away from these desires to other ones.
Callie, what’s scary about it? I don’t see my Faith in God as silly. When Jesus says “I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father but through Me.” I believe it. This isn’t fundamentalism but basic understanding of what Christ says. Either we take ALL of what Christ says or ALL of what the Bible says or continue to be deceived. Even the Bible says “Without Faith it is impossible to please God.” in relation to “If you deny ME I will deny you before My Father in heaven.” also in relation “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” Many other religions deny Jesus as being God or add Jesus to their other gods and when the Bible states something like this clearly I have no option but to take it for what it says by Faith.
Bec, do you ever question the people who explain away Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 and the many other passages on the subject?
While I do think homosexuality (practicing) is a sin, I believe all sins are abominations. I feel to say one sin is an abomination and another is not is judgmental but to say all sins are abominations is not for all sin is equal in the sight of God (I know sexual sin is different in that it hurts the body as well but in terms of standing with God they are totally equal). Does this make sense?
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:17 am
Rick, maybe they are not struggling because they hardened their heart to the convicting power of the Holy Spirit toward sin. Also, I don’t consider them lepers I consider homosexuality in the same category as any sin. And it is sin that seperates us from God and by repentence and accepting Christ heart, soul and mind we become truly free and have full Salvation with a relationship with Christ. dh
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:44 am
Juan
That was an excellent post. Very true and I agree totally.
DH
I am sure you are well intentioned in your view. This is just what you believe and to me its a shame that people in this day and age can actually believe that sort of thing about being gay as practicing some kind of sin but no one is going to change your mind about it here.
I think you and I have to agree to disagree.
Take care.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:51 pm
As much as I appreciate God and Pat Robertson commenting on my blog, I don’t allow any anonymous comments here on this blog. Thanks for honoring and respecting that policy.
February 2nd, 2006 at 1:04 pm
A little humor (however lame).
:+}
It just seemed time for the two of them to show up and add their two cents.
I thought it was funny but….
February 2nd, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Dear D. H.
What does the intitials D.H. stand for? Is it what I think it is?
February 2nd, 2006 at 1:23 pm
I did not read all the comments, but one issue that kept coming in my mind, was why all the divisiveness over homosexuality? I know why it threatnes to divide the church, but why are we not reacting them same when we hear someone is divorced. Scripture condemns divorce, except in infedility, which Jesus speaks against and raises beyond our actions. God views all our sin as repugent. All sin is equal before God’s eyes. As a church, when we are tempted to condemn homosexuality, it would be wise for us to look within and remove the log from our own eyes (collectively and individually)
February 2nd, 2006 at 1:40 pm
“I know why it threatnes to divide the church, but why are we not reacting them same when we hear someone is divorced.”
Mary,
good point. Our next order of business should be no-fault divorce and the havoc it has played on families.
But divorce has always been a cause for mourning. Still is. That’s why churches heavily emphasize marriage counseling. But try counseling a gay and now you’re a bigot.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:16 pm
I actually find scripture to be pretty clear on divorce, Matthew 5: 32, “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”
Divorce, not homosexual marriage is the biggest threat to my marriage, and yet because divorce is rampant in churches while homosexuality is relatively hidden, I think it’s easier to attack gays as the big threat to family, while offering support groups for those “going through divorce”. Ironic in light of scripture.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Adam, post something else so that us losers can all get on with our lives and have something else to fight over… I know the discussion is still going (even though it’s not even what you posted about,) but I can’t stop checking back on this thread until people stop posting. It’s addicting. And that’s not gonna happen until you give us another crumb to fight over…
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:55 pm
DH - in response to your question, I read many competing perspectives. Perhaps that’s why I don’t really have a strong position myself, and why I can acknowledge the ambiguity.
My question to you is: do you read writers who disagree with your position?
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:15 pm
I’ve noticed that when neither side is listening, both sides shout louder.
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:22 pm
National Religious Leadership Roundtable releases David v. Goliath, first-ever study of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender-affirming religious organizations
Study reveals huge forces arrayed against progressive religious groups; calls for secular organizations to actively support people of faith to counter religious right and anti-LGBT religious bigotry
‘Some of the most important debate over lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality today is not happening in Congress, but in religious denominations.’
— Matt Foreman, executive director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
‘When you’re black, HIV-positive and transgender, and you are looking for a faith community to support you with your physical, emotional and spiritual needs, you are in the most absolutely vulnerable position of people in our society. Someone’s got to provide the bridge for people at the intersection of these identities to connect them to the services they need. Someone’s got to give them the loving community they need to survive.’
— Bishop Yvette Flunder, founder and senior pastor of City of Refuge Church in San Francisco
http://www.thetaskforce.org/media/release.cfm?releaseID=918
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:17 pm
So what did everyone learn?
Did anyone read a perspective they had not considered before?
Was anyone moved to re-evaluate their own beliefs?
Did anyone come to appreciate someone else’s opposing views?
Were any distances shortened? Or lengthened?
Just wondering.
Peace.
February 3rd, 2006 at 10:26 am
Why am I singled out when people use Bec, Finger, orthodox, call me ishmael, moondog and the like. DH are my initials I see no difference from the others who post who don’t use names. Also, why refer to me with Pat Robertson? I think this is the type of stereotype that pushes people away who are trying to interact within a community.
Bec, I have read things from opposing writers and after reading them I still come away with a sense that the view that homosexuality (practicing) is a sin can be substantiated more than the other side.
Also, I have never shouted in my posts or had an attitude like that.
Mary, I think if you reread my posts you can see how I’m balanced in that all sin is equal in the sight of God.
I believe the church is balanced in this but the media focuses its questions toward this group only on issues of sexuality that all of the sermons of the churches that I support address all of these. Again there are some who place one sin over another but the vast majority if you listen to the sermons of these churches address all of them equally.
It seems to me no one is listening to me. I have never read others posts with preconceived ideas but I think this thread proves the stereotype wrongly made of people who believe like I do. You might want to check out Jason Clark’s blog on the subject. Over there we have people of all walks and the interaction has been great and much more balanced. dh
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:33 pm
dh,
don’t let people hurt your feelings about it. You are entitled to your own ideas and you don’t have to agree with the rest of the people here.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:39 pm
“So what did everyone learn?”
I just learned that this discussion isn’t really a discussion about Scriptures, but rather about politics. This thread is a perfect example. I also learned that a few Liberals on the margins are arrogant enough to believe that 2,000 years of traditional christian beliefs on the subject are apparently wrong! And although the traditionalists put up verse after verse to back up their millenia-old beliefs, the newcomers don’t feel the need to offer a single one! But they offer no shortage, however, of Leftwing political rhetoric like “bigot” and “leper” and “homophobe”. Imagine a “conversation” where one person is speaking Chinese and the other is speaking German, and that is what you have here. It’s useless folks. See you at the ballot box.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:00 pm
I appreciate the care but these ideas are not my own but God’s. When I read Romans 1, 1 Cor. 6 and the hardened heart of the people of Sodom Gommorah (referring to rebellious gay and intentional practicing day), etc. it is so straight forward.
Callie check out the discussion that ended on the two posts by Brian MacLaren on the subject and you will see how there is a balance point rather than the other. It proves that one like myself can be lovingly against homosexuality.
Samantha, great point. I think to not put up a verse at all or to not feel the need to put up a verse shows really is the issue.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:01 pm
The fact is no Scripture says homosexuality is okay but there are tons of Scriptures that say heterosexuality within marriage alone is okay and when you include Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 you get an even more fine tuned idea of what God not man truly feels aboutthe issue.
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Wow. Just…wow. Theory proven, eh Adam?
If there is a Satan, he’s LOVIN’ this stuff. Self-destruction ain’t pretty.
Wow.
February 3rd, 2006 at 7:46 pm
“If there is a Satan, he’s LOVIN’ this stuff. Self-destruction ain’t pretty.”
IF there is a satan?
Satan speaks to Jesus in the very gospels I assume you claim to believe (if you’re a seminarian). Have you “interpreted” that one away too?
February 3rd, 2006 at 8:28 pm
I wondered why my stats were showing hits from a year-old post…
February 3rd, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Check this out about Brokeback
http://www.rotlc.blogspot.com
February 3rd, 2006 at 9:35 pm
I ask in advance…forgive me?
Who has greater authority? Jesus or Scripture? The Word or the word? That’s one I’d like to know.
Typically, I have a tough time responding on blogs and particularly when it’s something as divisive as this issue can be (and is certainly in this context). Adam, thanks for hosting all the comments. I admire your courage for not punching the delete button. Please, keep asking us to think (even when we don’t like it).
After all the reading, I’m worn out and no further along than where I began. One side believes what it does and the other the same. Could it be that we’re not called to change each other’s minds on this? You can’t save me. Scripiture can’t. Jesus does.
I can imagine that Luther and his really long list was not a spontaneous event. There were many conversations like this which eventually led one person (who represented a whole lot of “errant” folks) to say, “To heck with this! I haven’t heard the name of Jesus in ages and I think it’s time to shout it out again!”
Church, we have failed. Are you aware of the number of suicides occuring amongst the numbers displaced by Hurricane Katrina? Are you aware of the despair of tens of thousands? Have we forgotten the water that swept in like the Assyrian army and brought with it devastation and exile? These people, these precious beloved of God, have forgotten who they are. They have lost their identities. The saddest part is that they identify with this waterlogged city that they were forced to leave. They identify with a lifestyle that many have claimed “God erased.” Just a little energy from this “discussion” and some may know that they are children of the Father. Just a little time away from defending good doctrine and living it and they may know that the church cares about more than inner-conflict. Could it be that we have forgotten who we are?
There’s real life out there. I know, I know…you live it everyday, but if you are blogging on your laptop right now then are you really tapped into the depth of despair that breaks God’s heart? Do you think the Host of Heaven is waiting to see “right” prevail in the blog realm? We differ. We have always differed. We will always differ. That’s what makes conversation fun, theology challenging, and the second coming so attractive.
Christ’s mission hasn’t changed. Louis Smedes wrote an excellent article years ago (I wish I still had it), citing the failure of the church to reach into the hearts of despairing homosexuals who took their own lives while we, again, stood by arguing where they’d up after they succeeded. Where did Jesus model this? Someone asked Adam to defend his position using scripture. Well, defend a changed mission where a sin focused inerrant theological perspective is more “righteous” than a simple redemptive one…and cite Christ’s words for that.
I asked you to forgive me in advance. If there were a door to nail something to I’d do it. There is real hurt out there. I know, I know, you do the soup kitchen every other weekend with your bible study (over generalization, sorry), but given the scope of tragedy here in our own country we’d be alot better off as a reformed (nee emergent) entity than divided voices. I’m not saying the discussion can’t be had…but echoing what has been said here already (and over at LJ) this isn’t a conversation. I may never blog again. Might not comment again. This has winded me.
The untouchables need to be touched, have you reached out? The sick need healing, have you looked into their faces? The sinners need supper, have you set the table? Mostly, I haven’t either…and I’m ashamed.
February 3rd, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Hey, wow…comment #100!
February 3rd, 2006 at 9:53 pm
“…defend a changed mission where a sin focused inerrant theological perspective is more “righteous” than a simple redemptive one…”
It isn’t “more” righteous, but it is equally as righteous.
“…and cite Christ’s words for that.”
Jesus to the adulteress: “Now go and sin no more.”
February 4th, 2006 at 5:43 am
I agree that anyone wishing to comment on the homosexual debate should try at least to understand the person. If you don’t have any homosexual friends then read The Wrong Rooms by Mark Sanderson, I challenge folk to read before commenting …if we cannot have compassion for true love in action then perhaps we are the ones with the problem!!!
Funny how we choose which parts of the Bible to interpret in the light of todays culture and which we choose to apply without thought.
Come on ladies shall we be silent and wear headscarves these days?
February 4th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Sallys,
you are assuming that someone who is conservative and who attempts to be faithful to Scripture must not personally know a homosexual, or lacks compassion/love for them. Certainly in my case, that would be wrong. They are in our families, they are our co-workers, and yes they are even our friends. It doesn’t change our reading of Scripture. How I “feel” about it doesn’t change what God has said on the subject. Re “headscarves”, is that an exhortation to be more faithful to Scripture? Or less.
February 4th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Wanderer,
It is also in the Bible that eating food that isn’t Kosher is an ‘abomination’ also Masterbation is seen as a sin.
Now, I ask you, do you really believe all this to be true today?
Please.
February 4th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
huh wonder where this kid got the idea that gay people were evil?
In my opinion this one news story says alot more on the subject than 200 comments ever could.
NORFORK, Ark. - A teenager suspected of a hatchet and gun attack in a Massachusetts gay bar was captured here Saturday after a rural police officer was gunned down and a female passenger of the teen killed in a shootout with police several minutes later, state police said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Jacob D. Robida was wounded in the shootout and taken to a Springfield, Mo., hospital, according to state police spokesman Bill Sadler.
After police officer Jim Sell, 56, was shot to death in the northern Arkansas town of Gassville, a witness told police a green Pontiac with Kentucky license plates left the scene, Sadler said.
Troopers laid down spike strips on Arkansas 201 to puncture the tires, but the car didn’t stop.
About 15 miles from Gassville, gunfire was exchanged with police in Norfork, where the 18-year-old was wounded and a female passenger was killed, Sadler said. He did not know the name of the passenger or her relationship with Robida.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
I know, we’re taught when we were young never to respond to comments that are intended to be argumentative — “huh wonder where this kid got the idea that gay people were evil?” — but callie why? Why do you come to a christian “dialogue” when all you do is slander and offer incendiary comments? As seen at Reno’s blog, you’re not about getting into a dialogue, but buddy-ing up with those who are like minded. While I believe the Church has a lot to learn in relation to the gay community, do you believe that comment is true or are you just looking to continue the fight along third grade lines?
Yet, I just read an article about Steven Spielberg and realized he must’ve learned his movie prowess due to his immersion in the jewish community. –exactely.
Homophobia extends beyond religious lines and into that which creates social constructs. This is not simply a religious issue, but a societal one. Please, utilize some intellectual honesty and less emotion when broaching a subject like this.
February 5th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
I started reading these comments after finding this blog on my buddy Nick’s blog. What seems to be of most concern to me is not whether the debate leads to right or wrong, but rather how come the love that Christ talked about isn’t being brought to life. How beautiful would it be if whatever race, whatever religion, whatever sexual orientation said when facing persecution or hardships “If it wasn’t for the Christians”…meaning if it wasn’t for their love. But so often their saying “if it wasn’t for the Christian…we wouldn’t be condemned or hated.” My theology background isn’t extensive, but I hope I understand what Christ said when he told us to LOVE one another…
February 5th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
i think there is a big difference between wearing headscarves (which is OT pre Christ) and homosexuality. one is cultural, the other is not.
February 5th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
“huh wonder where this kid got the idea that gay people were evil?”
From the Jewish Torah and prophets?
February 5th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Joel,
People who refer to being homosexual as an ‘abomination’ then wonder when gays are persectuted should really stop and think about the connection.
When you refer to people as ’sinners’ and regard them as some sort of ungodly being you are dehumanizing both them and yourself.
Jacob,
While your intent may not have been hurtful, allow me to point out that it is.
Judasim does not regard being gay as evil altho during ancient times I realize that this was the case.
I believe my point, that when we see others as somehow being abominations through living out a choice that is simple biology we must accept the culteral consequenses of the prejudice we promote.
I don’t see what Spielburg has to do with any of this actually.
I do like Reno I think he is a good person. Who doesn’t like to ‘buddy up’ with like minded people?
I think asking the question of where this poor misguided teen got the idea that gay people were evil is a good one we should all ask ourselves.
That said, since its clear my comments are offending you its best I stop posting.
I would feel terrible if I contributing to the dislike of Jewish people by participating in these discussions. I am not a good debater, I get angry and emotional and I often say things that I shoudldn’t.
I hope you don’t judge other Jewish people by the dreadful way that I can carry on when I feel strongly about something.
No hard feelings, my apologies to those who have been offended.
I still think the question was pertinent, and now I see, tho I didn’t before why one should never debate religion or politics on blogs. Its just too hard to have intentions misunderstood.
February 5th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
DH - if you click on my hyperlinked name you will get my email address, which has my full name in it. So using ‘Bec’ is NOT the same as using ‘DH’. Also, I didn’t accuse anyone of shouting.
All - I find it interesting that very few people ‘responding’ to Adam’s post have actually responded - only a bare handful have picked up on what he was saying, the majority have engaged in a debate about whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong - or even more sadly, whether or not there is any room for argument.
DH and others - I am yet to meet a Christian who believes that homosexuality is ok, but who is not open to a discussion on the matter. Conversely, I am yet to meet a Christian who thinks homosexuality is wrong, but who *is* open to a discussion.
February 5th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Bec,
Adams point, that is all but impossible to talk about something like this on a blog was made very clear in this thread.
When it occured to me how I had offended people, and how I had given such a bad impression I felt terrible.
I am sure most people do feel badly about the things they said here that hurt other people.
Its not a good topic to talk about on a blog.
Adam, much as I don’t agree with him on other stuff, was very right on this point.
February 5th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
“Why do you come to a christian “dialogue” when all you do is slander and offer incendiary comments? As seen at Reno’s blog, you’re not about getting into a dialogue, but buddy-ing up with those who are like minded. Joel”
And what grade are you in? Who has been slandered by his/her comments or questions?
A better question might be the one so brilliantly asked by Ryan :
How beautiful would it be if whatever race, whatever religion, whatever sexual orientation said when facing persecution or hardships “If it wasn’t for the Christians”…meaning if it wasn’t for their love. But so often their saying “if it wasn’t for the Christian…we wouldn’t be condemned or hated.”
When I read that I felt that someone really does understand what it means to be gay in America on this thread.
Thank you Ryan. May God Bless and I wish more people in this conversation had your insight.
http://www.lipscombis.blogspot.com/
February 6th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Bec, I wasn’t putting you down using Bec I was only saying this in that Adam singled me out. Also, when my website is clicked on it says “pray4doug” so I guess Adam was wrong on this “annonymous” thing.
Bec, I think you missed the point. I think we ARE having a discussion. I just believe as part ofthe discussion that I don’t have to assume that what the Bible says about an issue is not what it says. So I guess you have to determine what you mean by discussion. Just because there might not be enough room for argument to your liking doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it. As you can see from my posts that within those who believe homosexuality is wrong there are varients (practicing and non-practicing, etc.). If people took the time to read posts without predispostions (homosexuality is wrong = insensative, homophobic, etc.) maybe we can get somewhere. Bec, maybe this “discussion” thing works for both sides. :) DH
February 6th, 2006 at 9:24 am
I totally agree with the LOVE one another part. I also believe Jesus after showing compassion to the adulterer said “go and sin no more”. When can people not be offended or feel that it isn’t love when something is mentioned as sin? Just because something is pointed out as being sin doesn’t necessariliy mean that the person saying it is being unloving. In fact I would say the opposite. I will say though that the attitude and tone of how it is said is the most important thing and must be dealt with or no statement should be made at all. I hope everyone sees the balance in that statement. :) DH
February 6th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Doug, I never singled you out. I never mentioned you in reference to the anonymous comments. I mentioned whoever commented for Pat Robertson and God - I just don’t allow anonymous commenters. I don’t think you are being an anonymous commenter.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:13 am
I reread the threads and I saw no reference to Pat Robertson, etc. so that is what started the confusion. I know you never mentioned me directly but the fact Pat is not mentioned is the reason why I felt it was implied towards me. I do think one mustn’t overgeneralize and since no Pat Robertson was actually referenced that that showed how “over-the-top” it was and hence my reaction. One must be careful with the labeling when no quote or mentioning of Pat Robertson was done. That is a disservice to the commentors as well as Pat Robertson for no one even mentioned him at all. (not that I’m too big of a fan of him lately but you can see my concern for this type of thing). Thanks for the clarification. I also appreciate how you think of me as not being annonymous. DH
February 6th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Doug, I deleted the comments. When anonymous posters comment, I usually delete the comments, and then leave an “administrative” reminder that there are to be no anonymous commenters.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:29 am
>”And what grade are you in?”
Speaking of “love”, notice how it’s the traditionalists on this thread who so far have born the brunt of the snark and sarcasm– even while being sermonized about their lack of “love.”
Not a complaint, just an observation.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
dh,
I was attempting to be funny and I posted on behalf of God and Pat Robertson what I thought they would have to say on the matter…I had the heaven’s part, and *poof*! There is God setting everyone straight….and Pat Roberstson turns out to be wrong.
Adam didn’t think it was funny and deleted them.
So he was referrring to the two comments I made that were from Pat and God….nothing about you at all….
Just wanted to clear that up since it seemed to have hurt your feelings.
One more reason its not a good idea to talk this stuff out on a blog.
Too many hurt feelings.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Callie, Adam and me we are on the same page on the annonymous thing. I personally feel it can be done on a blog. I feel where there can be problems is when people don’t understand the definitions of terms within a discussion or have harsh predispositions about the other side and at what level of harshness. I guess the bigger deal is are the hurt feelings truly that or conviction of the Holy Spirit. We all need to discern the heart of the matter. For that is the Word of God for it says that the Word of God is the sword of the Spirit rightly dividing the Word of Truth. On a humorous but serious at the same time, we must be careful not to swing the sword so swiftly but be strategic in that swifting like a fencer to get to the “heart of the matter”. I personally feel if the Bible says something specifically that we are doing that.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Common ground is always a good thing dh!
I am sure somewhere somehow, both God and Pat Robertson would be very pleased.
:+}
And glad I was able to help clear that up.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
I’m sorry for the ‘what grade are any of us in’ comment. I simply found the generalization brought on by the article mentioned pernicious. To insinuate that an entire faith based community may be the reason behind an egregious attack seems to throw the whole conversation in a negative and immutable direction (especially, since the kid was affiliated with the KKK and Nazis). However, my lack of love and grace was evidentin my reply.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Yes, Joel. your somewhat onto something. I too react to people who have this particular attitude (thinking homosexuality is wrong = insensative, homophobic, judgmental, etc). When people believe “thinking homosexuality is wrong = insensative, homophobic, judgmental, etc” then it is very difficult to discuss with them on the subject. When people are stubborn and believe the above quote it really shows how they arte not “post-modern”, “open minded”, etc. that they claim to be. It also shows the double standard and hypocrisy that they are so quick to claim of those who believe homosexuality is a sin. dh
February 6th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Joel,
I didn’t mean to imply that Christians are to blame for the actions of this poor misguided teen.
My point, and I should have explained it better is that when we are as a culture saying that being gay is somehow evil or sinful we have to take some ownership for the kinds of acting out that come from that ideology.
Christians are not to blame for that anymore than Hindus or Buddists or Jews are.
The only thing I wanted to say there and I still think its valid is that when we see someone’s life as sinful we rob them of an element of common humanity.
We just don’t have the right to do that to anyone, especially people who are an oppressed minority.
We can have our own ideas but lets stop teaching our kids that being gay or straight is a big deal.
Its just not, and we all have more important problems like the religious intolerance we see towards Islam and other faiths ( including Judasim) and poverty etc.
I shouldn’t have posted that without explaining it better.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Adam, haven’t yet read through all of your comments, but upon thinking about it, I guess we shouldn’t expect blogging experience to be all that much different than human interaction. Even being the idealist that I am, I couldn’t actually picture anyone from emergent having a rational, level headed and heart felt conversation with Mark D or those like him.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
How can we think it is no big deal when the Bible mentions the subject directly? Also, I don’t feel it is dehumanizing when we all sin. However, we shouldn’t condone behavior that God says is wrong. That doesn’t dehumanize them it points out the need for a Savior that we must go to to ask for forgiveness to and to give our heart, soul and minds to and to turn away from that sin in the future as part of that Sanctification. Was it dehumanizing for Jesus to say to the adulterer “go and sin no more”? Also, is it intolerant for the Christ to say “I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father but through Me.” or “If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father in heaven.” or “Accept a man be Born Again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” or “He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life.”? Also regarding poverty issues that doesn’t negate the responsibility of Christians to the poor. However, Faith is what is the most important with: “Without Faith it is impossible to please God.” or “tho I give my alms to the poor and hath not love I am a clanging gong and a clanging cymnbel. (remember this was mentioned by Jesus).”
Benjy, it is sorry to hear that people in Emergent are so closed minded when it comes to issues like this. For me this shows the double standard that I see of that side. I understand Mark D went over the top on two sentences but those were two sentences our of pages of his response toward Brian MacLaren. For a leader to say “I don’t know” on something that is straght forward seems odd to me. It also begs the question regarding his leadership but that part is just me. dh
February 6th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
As you can see every quote I mentioned above were from Christ’s words as Emergent so quickly prioritizes in light of the fact that the entire Bible is the Word of God. It appears these words from Jesus are forgotten or are not placed in high regard as other Scriptures by those in Emergent when it comes to Faith, priorities and practice. dh
February 6th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
its a heated subject Finger…we all made up and said sorry.
No hard feelings at all now.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
DH - You said “I think we ARE having a discussion. I just believe as part ofthe discussion that I don’t have to assume that what the Bible says about an issue is not what it says. So I guess you have to determine what you mean by discussion. Just because there might not be enough room for argument to your liking doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it.”
Seriously, I’m always up for discussion, on pretty much anything. :) The frustrating thing is that as soon as you (or anyone else) says “but the Bible is clear”, it tends to shut the conversation down.
Seriously - most people I know who think homosexuality is ok are still open to discussion about it - by this I mean