The above photo is from the last day of BGLASS Week ’08 at Princeton Theological Seminary. Princeton is a funny place sometimes; depending on where you’re from in the country or where you’re at on the theological spectrum, people think very different things about Princeton Seminary. “Liberals” think that Princeton is the bastion of conservatism; “conservatives” fear the potential for their friends to lose their faith at Princeton. The very first question my CPM (Committee on Preparation for Ministry – I’m under care of a Presbytery in Idaho) asked me after my first year at Princeton was “So what’s it like being at a place so liberal as Princeton? Is your faith okay?” And one of the very first things Sarah ever said to me, after I told her how I was hoping for some theological diversity at Princeton Seminary, was “And…you…chose…Princeton?
In the recent past, people have been saying the student body at Princeton has been pretty conservative, and to some degree, it has been a fairly accurate statement I think. Whitworth University, my alma mater, has more graduates at Princeton Seminary than any other undergraduate institution in the states, and students who graduate from Whitworth with a religion/theology degree tend to, on a whole, be more conservative. Perhaps this perception of Princeton Seminary was also due to the legacy of former President Tom Gillespie. It has also been said that the theological climate of Princeton Seminary is like a pendulum, swinging back and forth between the two poles. I don’t know if we happen to be in more of a “moderate” time now, but all of this is just to say that the photo above should at least give some hope for the seminary’s image to certain groups. With over 200 BGLASS shirts given away to students, faculty, administration and staff – while it’s just a t-shirt – I’d like to think that says something of the climate, grace and support of this place. I certainly have plenty of issues with Princeton, but yesterday, I was glad to be a part of this student body.
Related posts:
Share This Post:
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Adam,
I can identify a lot with some of your driving influences here in your perspective; among those, that GLBT people have been demonized over time and stomped on. I cannot tell you how many times I have ruthlessly searched my vocabulary and jokes for anything derogatory associated with homosexuality; “that is so gay” etc. In addition, I cannot tell you how many times I have told friends that a joke was inappropriate for ripping on homosexuals.
So in that vein, it is a justice issue. LGBT deserve to be treated like human beings, who I am called to give my life for.
But what frustrates me is the tossing around of the term “justice” to mean “gays and lesbians should be welcomed into the church as fully functioning contributors, since they really can’t ‘help’ their orientation and practice, and therefore it is moot and irrelevant.”
“Justice” is a Biblical term that covers a whole host of realities from elevating the poor to protecting the widow and orphan to caring for the alien among us. “Justice,” however, is never applied to the “right” of homosexual to continue practicing and have their behavior (and we can say today, their orientation) fully accepted without qualification.
So, in that vein, if we’re talking about inclusion, Biblically speaking, it is emphatically not a “justice” issue, but the world’s “justice” is in fact God’s “sin”.
Justice is not a word empty of meaning that we can fill in however we want. Justice as a term and a movement belongs to God, and therefore is defined by God’s boundaries and God’s coloring in between the boundaries.
p.s. As a sidenote, I can hear people when they advocate for Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender rights and sometimes can see their support for it (even when I completely disagree) when they talk of covenantal relationships. But “Bisexual”? How in the world can you maintain a covenantal relationship when your “orientation” is “bisexual”? Do you pick one for a bit, then another later, as long as the “covenants” aren’t just random hookups? Or is it ok to maintain two relationships to fulfill your “needs” as a bisexual?
the above post was in response to the words on the sign.
Adam, I’d love to have one of these shirts if you’ve got any left. Imago Dei has been dealing with the same difference between calling homosexuality an ‘issue’ and realizing it’s about real people. We had an awesome forum before spring break with two personal stories that, I sincerely hope, those present took to heart. Let me know about the shirt. Thanks! Karen
““Justice,” however, is never applied to the “right” of homosexual to continue practicing and have their behavior (and we can say today, their orientation) fully accepted without qualification.”
If it is behavioral, is the issue sexual intercourse alone?
It is good to see a more unified participation in this at PTS. When I was there it was rather divisive and somewhat factional. The inclusion of the terminology of support and straight I think helps it be so much more conciliar. But then again, I was there with Gillespie and so, I am not sure how the environment has changed.
Nate,
The bisexuals I’ve known are in committed relationships with one person and assume as anyone else that their relationship is for the long haul. Being bisexual only means that one has an attraction and affection for people of both genders but not that they’re promiscuous or don’t maintain life-long relationships any better or worse than homosexuals or heterosexuals.
Adam,
Any chance of telling how you do the awesome feature where the photo opens up in a popup like the BGLASS image does? I already use your theme and would just LOVE to steal this cool thang too! :)
Thanks for posting this picture….it makes me happy to know that people are still gathering around this important cause. Miss you guys!
What a great picture! I don’t remember PTS being nearly that snappily dressed back in my day, class of 92. I wasn’t too involved with much of anything extra-curricular, except my two little dudes and spouse and working and schooling.
But I don’t think there was anything quite that organized as what you have now. We did wear lavender ribbons at graduation. I have to confess I did enjoy wearing my ribbon while receiving my diploma from Dr. Gillespie.
Truth be told, I liked Dr. Gillespie. He preached a good sermon at chapel (except when it wasn’t especially enlightened regarding gays). Enough reminiscing. Thanks for the joyful photo!
Drew,
You said, “If it is behavioral, is the issue sexual intercourse alone?”
My response: No. It’s about orientation as well as behavior. There are a number of different “orientations” persons have in our society. An orientation, I’d say, is a basic desire one has within them that they seek fulfillment of.” It is something we want, it is seems natural to us, and we are therefore “oriented” toward whatever that might be. “Orientation” is a neutral word, like “justice,” that begs for content; and different groups fill in their own meanings. Christians are Biblically rooted; the Scriptures are our anchor, so “justice” is Biblically-defined and guided and what we are “oriented” toward is Biblically-defined and guided.
Anita,
I wasn’t suggesting that bisexuals on average are more promiscuous than others, I was just commenting on my confusion with the inclusion of the term. And, I would add, it at the very least makes the “orientation” discussion more complex. If we are “oriented” sexually, and to go against that “orientation” is unnatural, then why shouldn’t bisexuals have a right to maintain relationships with both genders? It is unnatural with their sexual desires to focus only on one. At the very least, this “orientation” business of my GLBT friends is by no means settled. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Like I said, I’ve been ruthless in my vocabulary, my jokes, and my relationships to eradicate jokes making fun of LGBT folks, because I can’t claim to love them if I’m systematically (and in very embedded ways) disrespecting them and therefore not loving them. But I’m mystified and frustrated that persons seek to slot us into two categories on this issue; either homophobic fundamentalists or tolerant open inclusionists. I don’t have many friends walking a third way in this area where GLBT are “welcomed but not affirmed.” Either side of the spectrum is intellectually and theologically and relationally lazy. I’m committed to walking a different way, so that makes me unpopular on both sides. But just because my homosexual friends want me to think their identity is settled once and for all doesn’t make it so, and I tell them that. And I love them along the way.
So yes, Adam is making a great point in this area; it’s about people, not just an issue. It is both, I say.
I find it ironic that the theme of BGLASS week was “It’s about people,” suggesting that BGLASS is loving towards people and everyone else is not.
The New Testament is clear that people who are engaged in serial unrepentant sin run the risk of not being included in the Kingdom of God. This means any serial unrepentant sin, homosexual practice (about which the witness of scripture is univocal) or otherwise, puts a person at risk.
If we begin with the assumption that homosexuality is good and that we will affirm it no matter what scripture says, then perhaps BGLASS’s approach is “loving.” But if we begin with scripture, then what is the loving thing to do if someone is engaged in serial unrepentant sin that puts them at risk for not being included in God’s Kingdom? Is it loving to affirm them in their behavior and send them further down the road toward exclusion? No. The loving thing to do is humbly warn them and try to bring them to repentance. We are all sinners, this is not the question. The question is whether we will identify sin as sin and hold each other accountable, or whether we will be guided by our own impulses and affirm things based on our intuition.
It’s about people; people who are at risk. The way to truly love these people is to exhibit a love that goes beyond blind affirmation and that involves Christian truth.
John 14:15; 14:23-24; 1 Tim. 5:20; 1 Jn. 2:3-6; 3:24; 5:1-5; 5:16: 2 Jn. 6
@Stephen, thanks for joining the conversation here. First of all, I think you’re assuming too much in this year’s theme. By saying “It’s about people” (and I speak for myself, not for BGLASS on this point), I take that to mean that we’re going to take a step back and realize that this isn’t just an issue, something that we can put on debates about, etc., but this is something that is about real people. I don’t think there was an assumption that BGLASS is more loving towards people than other groups.
Now, speaking just for myself, and from my position, yes, of course, I think BGLASS is taking a much more “loving” position than someone like Gagnon. I didn’t get any sense that he was “humbly warning” anyone…
I am not comfortable with saying who is “at risk” for not being included in the kingdom – I think that’s heading way too close in the direction of “playing God” and that is not a role I would ever claim. I understand your position (having been there myself, and also having been a Whitworth alum), but it’s simply not one I can hold with any type of Christian conviction anymore. Having continued to meet more and more LGBTQ Christians who are passionate about their faith, call to ministry, and love of God, I simply cannot say they are “at risk” or heading down the “road toward exclusion.”
Adam,
Thanks for your reply. I think you’re right that it is important to realize that we’re dealing with real people here and not just an abstract subject (this should constantly remind us to act with humility and gentleness). It is precisely because we are dealing with people that I think this issue is so important. If we see one of our Christian brothers or sisters in serious sin it is our duty to warn them in love (Matt. 18:15ff; Jas. 5:19-20; 1 Tim. 5:20; 1 Jn. 5:16). I think you and I are operating under different definitions of love. Let me make a few additional comments in response to your post:
1) Whether or not you are comfortable with saying certain behaviors which are serial and unrepentant put people at risk for being excluded from the Kingdom of God, the New Testament is VERY comfortable with it (see for example: 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:21). Paul especially emphasizes the importance of living as new creations (2 Cor. 5:17) who have died to sin (Rom. 6:11) and who are now slaves to righteousness (Rom. 6:18). I don’t think Paul would say that once we become Christians we never sin again, but he didn’t leave room for serious and continual unrepentant sin. This is why he instructed the church in 1 Cor. 5 to throw the incestuous man out of the church. He did this because the Corinthians’ acceptance of such wicked behavior was inappropriate and arrogant (1 Cor. 5:2), and so that hopefully the man’s spirit could be saved (1 Cor. 5:5). Jesus also affirmed the importance of confronting sin in Matt. 18:15ff.
2) I’m not exactly sure why you think I’m “playing God” by simply affirming what Scripture clearly teaches. I think that Gagnon made a great point when he said that you just as much play “judge” when you acquit someone as when you prevent them from doing a particular behavior. Further, when you acquit someone of a behavior that Scripture does not acquit them of, you are making yourself the judge over and against what Scripture says. Scripture warns us against judging haughtily and without humility, but there are countless passages where we are called to make judgments and hold people accountable (Matt. 18:15ff; Jas. 5:19-20; 1 Tim. 5:20; see also Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 13:5; Eph. 4:14-16; 1 Tim. 6:3ff; Tit. 2:1ff; 2 Pet. 2:1ff; 1 Jn. 4:1ff; 1 Jn. 5:16).
3) You mentioned how we should not discriminate against people who, among other things, are serious about their “love of God.” I agree with you that this is extremely important as it is considered the greatest commandment by Jesus. But what does it mean to love God? Scripture informs us that one of the main ways we show that we love God is by obeying his commandments (see John 14:15; 14:23-24; 1 Jn. 2:3-6; 3:24; 5:1-5; 5:16: 2 Jn. 6). The united witness of Scripture holds a negative view of homosexual practice that is strong, pervasive, counter-cultural, and unequivocal. The burden of proof lies upon anyone who claims that a person can be obeying God’s commands while engaging in homosexual practice.
4) As a final note I will briefly add that a person’s individual calling is not enough to qualify them for ministry. In the Reformed tradition especially, a person’s calling is to be identified not only by the individual, but also by the covenant community. Paul emphasizes this importance of the community carefully chosing leaders (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1).
Jamie Arpin-Ricci gives some much-needed complexity.
http://missional.blog.com/2991340/
The problem is this:
“what Scripture clearly teaches.”
Scripture clearly teaches us a lot of things we do not do. Shall slaves still submit to their masters? Shall women still have the same role for all cultures as in the case of the ancient near-east? Can I eat a hot dog with a glass of chocolate milk? Can I take more than one wife as along as I do not divorce?
Forgive my pragmatist position if you must.
To adjudicate what “clear” means is an extra-biblical concept. However, a love that transcends the boundaries of what we assume to be right and wrong is not.
If my love of a gay person who is in a mutually committed relationship in which both partners by virtue of that relationship are closer to God and their faith has grown; if that makes me an enabler of a sin that will send some one to hell, it is a good risk because the evidence I see is that the Kingdom of God is closer in that relationship certainly than in the Westboro Baptist Church for one.
We struggle on in this life as best as we can to find redemption. My choice is to throw my whims at the grace of God expressed in the reconciliation of the Cross rather than continue to stumble over the law. Where Paul is adamantly and more palpably clear is this principle that holds his entire theology together – and homosexuality must be seen in this circumscription. Did Jesus die for gay people too, or not? And if he did, can one receive Christ in the midst of a mutually affirming homosexual relationship? Can one grow in Christ in a mutually affirming and committed homosexual relationship? If we answer yes here, who do we have the right to condemn?
That’s the heart of what we mean by it’s about people – just as the Cross is for us today.
Nate:
“Christians are Biblically rooted; the Scriptures are our anchor, so “justice” is Biblically-defined and guided and what we are “oriented” toward is Biblically-defined and guided.”
At one point do you reject some things are indeed biblically-defined and guided that are not exactly the best practices anymore? At what point to you separate that which ought to guide us in the bible from the cultural moorings in which it was communicated? When I know that a gay man has had anal sex with another gay man, is it right to kill them both still? Can we still stone people caught in adultery? How do you adjudicate between the letter and the spirit of the law then? By what extra-biblical principle and how do you know that it is a legitimate principle?
Drew:
You wrote the following: “To adjudicate what “clear” means is an extra-biblical concept. However, a love that transcends the boundaries of what we assume to be right and wrong is not.”
The first problem with this statement is that you give no Scriptural upport for it. Secondly, I am not “assuming” anything to be right or wrong, I am basing my idea of what is ethical/moral on the teachings of scripture. You are the one assuming that homosexual practice in a loving context is valuable whether or not Scripture affirms it (and in fact it does not).
You seem to suggest that Scripture is not clear about ethical boundaries but I doubt that you hold this position consistently. If the only prerequisites for a relationship are that it is loving and mutually committed then in order to be consistent you would have to also allow for polyamorous and incestuous relationships that fit those prerequisites. These relationships, too, are a reality in our culture (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424937.stm) and yet I doubt that you would validate those relationships, for Scripture clearly proscribes them.
You try to make the case that the Old Testament has all sorts of commands that we do not follow, but check the context of Lev. 20:13. In the same section that homosexual practice is condemned, adultery, incest, and beastiality are also condemned. This is a clear indication about the level of the offense that we are dealing with. I’m curious why you think the command against homosexual practice should no longer be followed, while (I’m assuming) you would uphold these other commands?
It is true that in Jesus the law has been abrogated (Rom. 10:4; Eph. 2:15), yet it is also true that Christ came to fulfill and not abolish the law (Matt. 5:17). What is made clear in the New Testament is that while ritual/purity laws are no longer binding upon God’s people, the ethical guidlines for the people of God remain unchanged. This is why Paul develops such a rigorous ethic for Christians who live as new creations (Rom. 6). We have died to sin and thus must live by the Spirit (Rom. 8), putting away all the works of the flesh (Gal. 5).
In answer to your question, OF COURSE Jesus died for gay people. But becoming a Christian means becoming a new creation (2 Cor. 5) and living a changed life. We are not saved by our works but Christ expects us to change our lives when we come to faith. This is why Paul says we can no longer go on living in sin (Rom. 6), because we are are now slaves to righteousness. The Christian life is not about living by your own desires and impulses, it is about taking up your cross and denying yourself (Mk. 8:34ff).
Your conclusions are based on the assumption that homosexual practice is valuable and that love means to accept the behavior in question. Unfortunately you’ve not come to either of these conclusions based on Scripture. Scripture is clear that homosexual practice is inherently sinful, and that those who serially and unrepentantly practice such behaviors are at risk for not inheriting the Kingdom of God. Based on this knowledge, there is no way that accepting or encouraging such behavior is a loving response–people’s lives are at stake.
Stephen,
“The first problem with this statement is that you give no Scriptural upport for it.”
This is circular reasoning which is also called circular reasoning. So all of your reasoning is based purely on Scripture? My argument is that we all reason on extra-biblical concepts. Even you. Not owning that is part of the problem. And no that this not in Scripture either.
But I love to eat pork. I think it’s yummy that. Not a big fan of slavery. I quite like that women are now leading the church in palpable ways. My wife does not wear a head cover.
I fully own up to the fact that I make extra-biblical judgments. My point is that we all do – even those who say they don’t. Such a person is plainly dishonest that’s all.
Methinks you missed my point and actually kind of clarified it by going back to the “scripture interprets scripture” tact when my argument is that this is clearly a fallacy and does not own up to the fact that we must make extra-biblical judgments. I make them all of the time and I think I was quite honest how I do in this regard.
But if you would like to be true to it and be a 1st century Jew, by all means I am not stopping you. Someone actually tried this recently. The Year of Living Biblically it is called. So where do you draw the line between living a literal moral precept in the bible and by what reason to you cut some of this stuff out – especially those things Jesus or Paul never spoke about – clearly?
Drew,
You said;
“Scripture clearly teaches us a lot of things we do not do. Shall slaves still submit to their masters? Shall women still have the same role for all cultures as in the case of the ancient near-east? Can I eat a hot dog with a glass of chocolate milk? Can I take more than one wife as along as I do not divorce?” and
“When I know that a gay man has had anal sex with another gay man, is it right to kill them both still? Can we still stone people caught in adultery? How do you adjudicate between the letter and the spirit of the law then? By what extra-biblical principle and how do you know that it is a legitimate principle?”
I will by no means endorse a flat reading of the Scriptures that equates all of them on the same instructive level. This may bring in some extra-Biblical understanding, but the movement is there. It is clear in the story of God shaping His people that He met them where they were at and slowly, lovingly, and sometimes shockingly led them into greater truth. The Scriptures have a trajectory in general, and that should lead us to talk about certain issues in specific within that trajectory, because some change and others remain the same and even intensify in expectation.
The Bible clearly has a trajectory on the issue of women’s humanity and leadership of God’s people; making a move from them being essentially subhuman unless their leadership is desperately needed to being companions of Jesus, then inclusion in the geneologies of Jesus, then church planters and deacons and companions of the gospel with Paul. It should also be glaring to us that Paul tells women to be subject in a society where they already knew this. Was he with the redundancy redundancy police or was he addressing the freedom women had found in the gospel and how they could turn that into license? Seeing this trajectory, then, and knowing the role they played in the extension of the church’s mission, we can read Scriptures like 1st Timothy in that context and suggest he was addressing women who had pushed their freedom too far within the bounds of culture at the time. So there’s a movement in Scripture shown by Scriptures that at the least challenge other Scriptures, thus making the issue one of wisdom.
There’s a similar trajectory with slavery. The letter of Philemon displays an absurd amount of respect and honor to Onesimus, and later Onesimus is referred to in Colossians as “our faithful and dear brother.” A slave? Given this honor? And again, why would Paul tell slaves, already subordinate, to be subordinate to their masters? Redundancy again? Or wisdom? And for masters to treat their slaves “in the same way” as the slaves are to treat the master? Are you kidding me? Trajectory, Drew, trajectory.
As far as the food discussion goes, I seem to remember a certain sheet and a certain apostle named Peter and a vision. Trajectory?
In reference to anal sex and adultery, Jesus certainly addressed that death penalty business. He told those gathered that whoever was without sin should cast the first stone, then held the woman accountable to “Go and sin no more.” Trajectory.
The (kind of) extra-Biblical principle here is that of wisdom, that God didn’t create robots who needed to know what to do and not do all the way down to the smallest jot and tittle. He desires us to pursue wisdom, and wisdom should lead to us seeking to know the Scriptures, and knowing the Scriptures will equip us to walk into further wisdom.
When it comes to homosexuality, Drew, the Bible leaves no room for the practice of it at its very root; covenanted relationships included. Period. In fact, you could make a case that the call to healthy heterosexuality is heightened from Old Testament to New, especially as the surrounding culture moved from polygamy to monogamy (and serial monogamy at that, which is essentially polygamy).
So, while your choice is:
“To throw my whims at the grace of God expressed in the reconciliation of the Cross rather than continue to stumble over the law. Where Paul is adamantly and more palpably clear is this principle that holds his entire theology together – and homosexuality must be seen in this circumscription. Did Jesus die for gay people too, or not? And if he did, can one receive Christ in the midst of a mutually affirming homosexual relationship? Can one grow in Christ in a mutually affirming and committed homosexual relationship? If we answer yes here, who do we have the right to condemn?”
As Stephen highlighted, the reconciliation of the Cross did not set us free to define life and fulfillment however we want, but rather requires leaving slavery to sin and entering slavery to Christ. There are clear prescriptions for the contours of what this life will look like. So yes, Christ died for gay people; along with everyone else in the world…and we’ve got serious problems with rebellion in various and sundry ways. Homosexuality is one such rebellion, it is not intended for God’s creation, and one’s identity is not set for all time.
In closing, Paul cared about much, much more than the law/grace dichotomy we’ve shoved him into thanks to the Reformationists we’ve elevated to godlike status. And just because you think he didn’t speak clearly to the issue doesn’t mean it wasn’t clear. Sometimes we all just need to open our eyes to see what’s in front of us.
Drew,
I would appreciate your responding specifically to one of Stephen’s points, which was:
“If the only prerequisites for a relationship are that it is loving and mutually committed then in order to be consistent you would have to also allow for polyamorous and incestuous relationships that fit those prerequisites”
For argument’s sake, let’s NOT consider the ‘polyamorous’ case. Let’s just consider incest. If a brother and sister were monogamous, committed, loving, (and lived in France, where incest between consenting adults is legal), would you affirm this relationship as God-blessed? If not, why not? If the sister was a confessing Christian wanting to pursue full-time ministry (she could affirm essential tenets of the Reformed faith), would you affirm her ministry?
Thanks for your insight.
But of course many will argue different trajectories right? Isn’t that the case here? You are stating an hypothesis as am I and the evidence points in both directions. There are tensions in scripture that people try to resolve the way that makes sense for them. Hence your trajectories. Experience is the means through which we interpret what trajectories make the most sense in establishing order. The history of the church bears this out. So I will ask you this as well:
Can one receive Christ in the midst of a mutually affirming homosexual relationship? Can one grow in Christ in a mutually affirming and committed homosexual relationship? If we answer yes here, who do we have the right to condemn?
Chris,
Thanks for the question. This will also address nate a little more (I was getting my kids ready for the day earlier…)
Two objections that I do not think that proponents of blessing homosexual relationships argue well, if at all, are polygamy and incest. The need to argue these two cases is because Johnson blows the door wide open for this possibility and then does not really do much to shut it. A clear weakness in his text.
While adult incest between parent and son or daughter, uncles and nephew or niece, etc. have clear psychological issues as with any adult-child relationship, siblings are different. So what is different between incest in your example and that of two unrelated persons of the same gender? Also, why does Leviticus spend so much time going through various incest permutations? The issue is a confusion of relationships.
For forbidding polygamy I think the textual evidence is quite weak actually. We have to infer what Paul meant (trajectory is another way of saying inference) even though that’s not what he said. Same goes with Jesus’ blurb about divorce. This is why this continues to be an issue in the mission field where polygamy is practiced in Christian communities. But here the sociological evidence on polygamy tells us that it is not advantageous for the wives at all.
The issue is that if in either circumstance, if a mutually supportive relationship can occur, even one, then the door for the possibility its blessing from the church should be just as probable.
I agree that these are two weaknesses if we pull back from homosexuality and look at sexuality in general. But on a pragmatic level, I do not think that incestuous relationships or polygamous relationships generally will work and we can find anthropological and social research to support this as well. Homosexual relationships work just as well as heterosexual relationships. In those same-gender relationships with which I have associated myself I do not see evidence of “rebellion” against God, but have seen the opposite take effect. Contra Nate, there is also enough doubt for me that the texts used to condemn same-gender relationships (that have been discussed here) are rightful justification to condemn all same-gender relationships.
Because of these issues I think blessing same-gender relationships is a risk worth taking. If it is a risk at all.
Thank you Chris for your important comments regarding the deep flaws within the analogical reasoning which is often used in this discussion (i.e. women and slavery).
Drew: You continue to assert that I am making extra-biblical judgments but you have not identified what those extra-biblical judgments might be. Further, you suggested that neither Jesus nor Paul ever spoke about these issues clearly. Yet Paul’s rejection of homosexual practice in Rom. 1 is absolute, and although many people today try to claim that he was only referring to hedonistic and exploitative forms of homosexual practice, most biblical scholars–even those who affirm homosexual practice–now reject such a proposition as untenable.
Further, Jesus reaffirmed a male-female prerequisite for sexual bonds in Mk. 10 and Matt. 19 when he used the creation text as both a descriptive and prescriptive text for sexuality.
It seems like your main problem with my position is that I want to claim simultaneously that certain laws in Scritpure are no longer binding while others remain binding. Yet this tension is something that the New Testament affirms. In an earlier post, I already made the distinction between ritual/purity laws (which have been abolished) and ethical/moral laws (which remain binding). This distinction is not perfect but it is a distinction that is made in scripture. See for example in Rom. 14 & 15 where Paul talks about peripheral matters–most of which are ritual/purity matters. On the other hand, Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17) and there are many places in the New Testament where we are called to obey the commandments of God (John 14:15; 14:23-24; 1 Jn. 2:3-6; 3:24; 5:1-5; 5:16: 2 Jn. 6). This is because we have died to sin (Rom. 6) and are called to live by the Spirit (Rom. 8; Gal. 5).
Bottom line: Scritpure NEVER considers sexual matters (and especially sexual sin) to be peripheral. The united witness of Scripture has a negative view of homosexual practice which is strong, pervasive, counter-cultural, and unequivocal (something you cannot say for women or slavery). Jesus never loosened the ethical demands of the law, in fact, he intensified them (Matt. 5-7). Saying that homosexual practice is anything but sinful is simply incongruent with the Biblical witness.
Stephen,
At the expense of belaboring an aporia which will not be resolved here…
The issue of what you think is clear is an extra-biblical concept. You have to go outside of scripture to determine the veracity of a precept and to adjudicate clarity. Since you are deciding what clarity means here, you are therefore making an extra-biblical assumption on what clarity means. I realize I am doing this as well. We all do it. Surely you would agree with at least this basic principle of hermeneutics.
“The united witness of Scripture has a negative view of homosexual practice which is strong, pervasive, counter-cultural, and unequivocal” is overstating it even if the six passages that deal with same sex intercourse on some level support your assertions. Now to say that idolatry “is strong, pervasive, counter-cultural, and unequivocal” is more accurate.
But as I stated above, Because I think there is sufficient doubt cast on your absolute position here blessing same-gender relationships is a risk worth taking in order to fully love fellow Christians who are seeking God and experiencing the grace of Jesus Christ in the context of their same-gender relationships. My choice is to love and not condemn.
I would venture a guess that my idea of Christian love is quite different than yours as well. So be it. As long as we both understand that we are each struggling to reconcile the world to God such is the mission of God’s people, I would hope that even we who disagree over this issue can work together for these goals.
Peace.
Drew,
The one thing I do agree with you on is the fact that we are working from different ideas of Christian love. My understanding is based upon the Scritpural idea that loving God partially involves observing his commandments (John 14:15; 14:23-24; 1 Jn. 2:3-6; 3:24; 5:1-5; 5:16: 2 Jn. 6), and loving neighbor sometimes invovles holding your neighbor accountable (Matt. 18: 15ff; Jas. 5:19-20; 1 Tim. 5:20; 1 Jn. 5:16).
If you think that going against the united witness of Scritpure on this issue and putting someone’s inheritance of the Kingdom of God in jeopardy is a “risk” worth taking then that is up to you, but I seriously doubt that this is a “loving” approach. Additionally, I hope you are prepared to bless loving and mutually-committed polyamorous and incestuous unions as well, because that is the logical implication of your position.
Bottom line: As Christians we must always strive to base our Christian ethic on the Biblical witness, not our feelings. Our emotions and instincts are part of our sinful nature, and thus they cannot be trusted as a reliable guide for morality. Therefore we must constantly go back to Scripture and seek God’s will for our lives.
Drew,
You said, “But of course many will argue different trajectories right? Isn’t that the case here? You are stating an hypothesis as am I and the evidence points in both directions. There are tensions in scripture that people try to resolve the way that makes sense for them. Hence your trajectories. Experience is the means through which we interpret what trajectories make the most sense in establishing order. The history of the church bears this out.”
You are certainly right about different folks arguing different trajectories, and we certainly are both stating hypotheses, but one of the central marks that defines Christians from our pagan friends is our commitment to a depth of knowledge of the Scriptures as a compass for our thinking. I can argue trajectory in the case of women, slaves, and diet because the movement is there in the Biblical witness. In the case of homosexuality though, Drew, the “evidence” is clear. It does not point in both directions. The Scriptures provide no wiggle room at all.
Your fundamental flaw is embedded in your quote when you say, “Experience is the means through which we interpret what trajectories make the most sense in establishing order.” Stephen is right to identify the unstable nature of our emotions and instincts, though I’d qualify “sinful nature” by saying “deep rebellion” as a replacement. We live daily with deep ancestral and societal and individual rebellion, and therefore we cannot trust what “seems right” to us as the foundation for how we order our lives. Our pagan friends can, because they don’t know any better. But we as disciples of Jesus should know better than that.
I hope you are not reading this and thinking I’m suggesting a “flat view” of the Bible with all Scripture being equal, because I’m not. But Christians, on the whole, should definitely err on the side of more “conservative” (I know that carries baggage) interpretations of Scripture as we struggle through the challenges life and relationships bring us.
Remember, this idea of homosexuality being rooted in the fiber of our being and unchanging for all time has really only gained steam in the last 40 years, and the scientific field has never been in consensus on that idea. In fact, newer science, especially with persons researching human genetics, may directly refute this “identity once and for all” argument through proving that we as people are in a relatively stable, yet constantly shifting state of flux; so much so that our social environment not only shapes our behaviors through causing different sections of our genes to express themselves, but may even fundamentally alter the building block of the genes itself. And this is not just my harebrained scheme; there are brilliant scientists working on this stuff; check out the entry on “Epigenetics” in Wikipedia, as well as the suggestion that our genes can be altered through behavior and environment.
And I think a deep understanding of the Scriptures leads to Stephen’s conclusion; Loving God certainly means observing his commandments, and definitely involves holding our neighbors accountable. The concept of love today has come to mean “tolerance,” and that is simply not love as laid out for us in the Scriptures. A Biblical, Godly kind of love is one that is patient and kind, grace-filled, yet sometimes comes off as harsh and judgmental. It is a love that pursues truth and values relationship.
I cannot in good conscience say I am loving my GLBT friends and acquaintances if I give them a blank check in their behaviors, whether they are promiscuous or in a covenantal relationship. Homosexuality, in its root, is rebellion and sin. It is in a lineup of a host of other sexual sins that fragment our identity and healthy relationships, so it is not alone, but there simply is no room for affirming it as a lifestyle Scripturally. I wish I could say otherwise, because I have had friends that are gay and have seen their struggle, but I cannot.
God certainly never promised life would be easy, and all I have to do is step back and look at myself to see how deeply rooted my rebellion against God still resides in all its different forms. My friends would not love me if they let me stay where I am at.
If you think we’re going to just forget millenia of murder, torture, and oppression just because you wore some t-shirts, think again. We gay people finally have some freedom now – no thanks to religion.
Pink Unicorn,
I’m on board with you on the murder bit, but torture and oppression clearly is in the eyes of the beholder. Your injustice may be my justice, and your healthy boundaries may be my oppression. We need something outside our perspectives to help us sort through these issues.
Nate
If I remember correctly, I posted a message here which seems to have been removed?
I wondered why my post was removed, and the only reason I can think is that I called the abrahamic religions filthy( if I remember correctly ). So, it is quite alright to post that you believe that throwing homosexuals in prison and into asylums, and to drive them away from homes and families and careers onto the streets is justice, but it is not alright to say that you believe the abrahamic religions are filthy. I guess I should not be surprised.
{ 1 trackback }