Army Talk

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Will the gay debate tear the church apart?

Did you catch Larry King Live on CNN tonight? They were discussing whether or not gay and lesbians should be ordained as clergy as well as discussing different positions on the subject. I tried to call in for an hour and was unable to get through . . . so here’s my response to the gay & lesbian issue:

Jeremiah 17:9 says “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?”

Several Homosexual ministers stated that they loved God and were listening and following the Spirit of God. But because the “Spirit” was sanctioning a lifestyle that is clearly unscriptural, I believe their own hearts were leading them astray.

The matter of homosexuality as well as any other sin is a heart matter. Can a person be born gay? Possibly, the sinful nature can affect people in many different ways. That doesn’t mean it’s OK.

Jesus said Matt 15:19-20 “Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.” (Matt 15:19-20)

In Acts 15 as Peter spoke to the Council of Jerusalem in regards to the Gentiles receiving the Spirit of God he said, “He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.” (Acts 15:9)

So what happens when a heart has been purified? Out of the heart will come pure thoughts, a holy life, a life that honors God and obeys his word.

The Spirit of God will not lead anyone into a lifestyle that contradicts His word. The word must be our standard, not what we think or feel.

As far as gays go . . . I wish they wouldn’t be so offended by my position. I am all for giving gays their space. However, when it comes to the Word of God, He has spoken.

Feel free to comment . . . challenge . . . throw rocks . . .etc . . .

posted by Bret at 10:32 PM

37 Comments:

  • "Several Homosexual ministers stated that they loved God and were listening and following the Spirit of God. But because the “Spirit” was sanctioning a lifestyle that is clearly unscriptural, I believe their own hearts were leading them astray."

    If these people are ministering in the name of Jesus and witnessing to his resurrected power, then that's what matters, your judgment as to what is a scriptural or unscriptural lifestyle notwithstanding. Mark 9:38-40.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:46 PM  

  • Anonymous,

    Thanks for commenting. However, I see no connection between being gay and doing miracles. Jesus said that you would know if a person was good or bad by their fruit. (Matt 7:17-20) Miracles and casting out demons is clearly good fruit which reveals the tree is good. These are acts that can only be done in the power of Christ. In the same way, one can only live a holy live through the power of Christ.

    Because the homosexual lifestyle is not God’s will for man then we must judge the source of the fruit — the tree. The tree illustrates the heart. The source of all passions, desires and actions.

    Blessings,


    Mark 9:38-40

    Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."

    39 "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us.

    By Blogger Bret, at 8:41 PM  

  • I think the connection is not being gay and doing miracles, but condemning good and faithful works because the person is "not one of us." I, too thought about the Matthew "good fruit" image, but every time I've brought it up in this context, it gets giggles about, well, fruits. :)

    But even so, your logic is backwards. You presuppose that the homosexual lifestyle is not God's will, and thus distrust the fruit. But Jesus said judge by the fruit first, not by the tree.

    I've come to a place where I taste and see that the fruit is indeed good and graceful, and now wonder how that squares with the well known passages of scripture (basically, Paul's letters). I don't have an answer...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:39 PM  

  • You’ve presented some good and challenging thoughts . . .

    As far as fruit goes, we do not produce fruit we bear it (John 15:1-4). Fruit is produced by a source. James illustrates this with salt water and spring water in James 3:11-12. Jesus said, “No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine (John 15:4).”

    So how can a homosexual lifestyle be considered “fruit” produced by God or how can that kind of relationship be blessed by God when He clearly instructs otherwise? (Lev 20:13, Rom 1:24-27)

    The message of the Old Testament is that we cannot be holy by ourselves and that the consequence of sin is death. The message of the New testament is that Christ paid the death penalty for us so that we can have life and fulfill God’s requirement to “be holy.” This is done by living under an influence greater than ourselves- the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God leads us toward obedience and holiness.

    I hope this doesn’t sound condemning. God wants a relationship with everyone. Being set free from the control of the sinful nature can be a difficult journey (Rom 7 for example). It’s a journey that we are all on whether we’re “gay” or not.

    The good news is that we can be holy and live the life that God calls us to live through the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. It’s a life that loves and honors God and man.

    Have you tried it?

    Blessings,

    By Blogger Bret, at 11:17 PM  

  • Champ,

    Thanks for your comments. I have two concerns on this matter:

    1. That the church keep its commitment to biblical standards and principles.

    2. That in doing so, we don’t unintentionally “bash” the other party.

    Jesus showed grace . . . He ate with tax collectors and sinners. He showed that he accepted “sinners” and still maintained his spiritual integrity. I think we can (and should) do the same.

    Jesus never instructed a “sinner” until he first served them in some way. In some cases it was a physical healing, in others it was by simply being there.

    We sometimes forget that our mission is to bring others TO Jesus, not give them more reasons to run from him.

    Talk more later.

    Many blessings,

    Bret

    By Blogger Bret, at 1:33 AM  

  • How can you be ministering the word of Christ when you're living in sin?

    Let's have a thought experiment! Say that you have been pastored by someone who has strengthened your faith, livened your works, and increased your love for God and man. And that you see that others are similarly touched. Do I need to even ask the question....? What happens if you find out that... (put in any sin of nature or habit here).

    Sure, I know Romans 1, and it gives me pause. (As for Lev. 20:13, that no one here is willing to put people to death for being gay, as well as for engaging in family squabbles, 20:9, etc., makes this verse and many others in Lev. dead letter. Enjoy a pork roast on me.)

    My final, parting, anonymous posting on this is that prideful claims that we know what scripture means (a more complex claim than what scripture "says), puts us exactly in the position of the scribes and pharisees! We think we know, but then God confounds with a stumbling block. Which is to say that the more we claim that God means X in scripture, the more we had better be open to something unexpected that suggests that not-X may be of God.

    Will we recognize and know Jesus when he returns? What happens if he does so in a way that is unexpected, like a thief in the night...?

    Blessings and honor be unto Him, and peace be to you. Thank you for your forebearance.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:24 PM  

  • Anonymous,

    I hope you'll keep the dialogue going . . . this is good stuff!

    To answer your questions:

    1. Sometimes God works in spite of us . . . it’s an act of God's grace.

    2. As far as putting gays to death . . . we no longer follow that law because it was fulfilled in Christ. Christ became sin for us . . . he paid the death penalty for us . . . Jesus did condemn sexual immorality with the woman at the well and the woman caught in the act of adultery, however, he showed grace and forgiveness. That’s something that the law can’t do.

    3. As far as the final parting comment . . . we have to be careful that we consider the whole council of God and find balance within his word. When the bible begins to contradict itself then our interpretation is out of balance. Scripture must interpret scripture.

    What do you think?

    Blessings,

    Bret

    By Blogger Bret, at 9:58 PM  

  • Sometimes God works in spite of us . . . it’s an act of God's grace.
    Absolutely. That's why I think that judgments about people who live differently yet faithfully are suspect.

    we no longer follow that law because it was fulfilled in Christ. Christ became sin for us
    Absolutely. The letter killeth...

    Scripture must interpret scripture.
    But here we might part. People interpret scripture. And in this, we are prone to error, misunderstanding, obdurancy, and even fetishizing some passages and ignoring others. This happens in all theological camps--liberal and conservative.

    In my faith tradition... (btw, I got to you blog through a thousand links, by accident; I'm not a member of the Salvation Army, though I always give at the sound of the bell.)... scripture is one leg of three, the other two being tradition of the church from apostolic times and enlightened reason. Both are fallible and capable of corruption. Taken together, all three help to interpret each other.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:14 AM  

  • Are you suggesting that scripture and tradition of the church from apostolic times supports the ordination of homosexual ministers?

    If we can’t plant our theology in scripture then were do we plant it?

    Thanks for challenging me.

    By Blogger Bret, at 10:06 PM  

  • Also,

    Thanks for supporting the Army:)

    By Blogger Bret, at 10:08 PM  

  • I have to say I really like the way you expressed yourself.

    I still find it so amazing that Satan has people so blinded that they can't understand the concept of "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin"...

    this issue is no different. It's not about discrimination ~ It's about following God, being obedient and responsive to him "only" (taking SELF out of the picture, and putting Him on His rightful throne!) --- which also includes not twisting his WORD to mean something it doesn't.

    God never intended for homosexual relations. It has no place in the church.

    And to answer your question: "The issue of 'homosexuality' certainly is ripping the seams apart."

    We need to be in prayer more.

    God bless.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:10 PM  

  • Their is also discussion going on the Homosexuality on my blog. I think you would like to read that.

    Bless you.

    Joshua

    By Blogger Sarvesh, at 12:01 AM  

  • Are you suggesting that scripture and tradition of the church from apostolic times supports the ordination of homosexual ministers?

    No. Though tradition is essentially indifferent to this. To think that there have never been homosexual ministers is most certainly wrong.

    If we can’t plant our theology in scripture then were do we plant it?

    We do and must plant it in scripture. But scripture is pointedly not a single, easily interpretable thing. In both OT and NT, we're given multiple perspectives (Samuel & Kings vs. Chronicles; the synoptic gospels themsleves, not to mention John's gospel.) The fundamental message of these not-quite-duplications is that cannot use scripture effectively to complete a theology. In light of this, I must say in response to this: God never intended for homosexual relations. It has no place in the church. that it is simply blasphemous--arrogating a knowledge of what the Lord of the Universe intends.

    I agree with more prayer!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:34 PM  

  • Corina, Thanks for your comments . . .

    Joshua,

    Thanks for dropping by . . . I’ll check out your blog . . .

    By Blogger Bret, at 1:38 PM  

  • Anonymous,

    I appreciate your willingness to continue this discussion . . . I’m just having a hard time wrapping my mind around you rational . . .

    So . . . is it OK for a married man, whether he’s a minister or not, to have an affair?

    How do you define sexual immorality?

    The Bible clearly encourages us to move away from sexual immorality (as well as many other sins).

    For example:

    Col 3:5-6 says “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.”

    Based on Jude 7, homosexuality could be considered sexual immorality and/or perversion. It says, “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

    Here are a few more that I’m sure you’re familiar with: 1 Cor 6:13, 18, 10:8 Eph 5:3

    Where do we draw the line? If the Bible is not the standard of the Christian faith then what is?

    If homosexuality is OK then how can we possibly let the scriptures be our guide for life?

    Thanks for wrestling with me on this . . .

    Blessings,

    Bret

    By Blogger Bret, at 1:41 PM  

  • So . . . is it OK for a married man, whether he’s a minister or not, to have an affair?

    Nope, though that depends a bit on the vows said at the ceremony.

    How do you define sexual immorality?

    A tough one. As a question of morality, that's not so hard: no intentional injury to another. As for the sexual part....there's an astonishingly wide variety of sexual practices, some of which I find revolting and disgusting, and others which, um, I my wife and I enjoy. Laying these out on a scale from revolting to praticable, and acknowledging that others have different preferences, there's still a hard line at the intentional injury part, but of the others it's more difficult. And let's recognize that even within homosexual practice, there is variety of behaviors and practices, none of which I'm interested in, but then again, I'm not interested in a lot of heterosexual practices, either.

    I know the verses you bring up, and I consider them seriously. That's why we're still in conversation, I guess, instead of me being self-righteously convinced that these verses are misconstrued, improperly understood, etc.

    It's also clear that Paul was extremely censorious about sex, to the point of only grudgingly allowing for the possibility of marriage at all. (1 Cor. 7:9) To take that attitude seriously (like the Shakers, Roman Catholic priests, and monks/nuns) is totally against the "family values" Christianity of today's America, yet the scriptural support for it is less obscure than prohibition against homosexual sex in the NT.

    And then's the matter of divorce, about which Jesus was absolutely clear. I don't know whether the Army has a theological position on it, but if there are any members who are divorced and remarried, what do you say to them?

    If homosexuality is OK then how can we possibly let the scriptures be our guide for life?

    I don't think that the status of homosexuality is the linchpin of my faith in the bible. And, again, there are faithful homosexual people who are using the bible as such a guide, just as there are faithful divorced people doing the same.

    And finally, though this is not your comment...
    People then go on to say: Jesus said "He who has no sin, throw the first stone." But that argument is VOID here. So don't give me that! It's void because ONLY Jesus can say that. Why? Because HE IS THE ONLY ONE WITHOUT SIN!

    It's not void. Jesus didn't throw the stone though he could have. I won't conclude from this that he was with sin--though that's kind of logical, isn't it?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:12 PM  

  • OK . . . now you’re really making me think . . .

    As far as divorce & affairs go, scripture clearly apposes those acts . . . but that doesn’t mean that people who have engaged in those sins can’t be forgiven, move on and be used by God in a powerful way.

    The same can be said of gay & lesbians. When they choose to “change their mind” and “agree with God” (i.e. repent) then they too can be forgiven, move on and be used by God . . .

    So you define immorality as “intentionally injuring another?” What if those involved don’t consider the divorce to be injurious? Is it ok then? I don’t think Jesus or anyone else in the Bible defines immorality in that way. Although God did call Israel a “prostitute” because they followed other gods (which included acts of sexual immorality).

    If divorce and affairs are wrong then why not homosexuality? (Assuming they’re wrong because scripture speaks against them)

    To say that gay is OK because the homosexual relationship doesn’t “injure” either partner is a misunderstanding. The relationship injures the people’s relationship with God. Just as the simple act of disobedience in the garden separated Adam from God so any sin that we allow in our life damages our relationship with God.

    Since the Spirit of God is “grieved” by our disobedience then we can only conclude that any act that the Bible says is wrong is injurious to God and us. If we say that certain acts of sin are ok then aren’t we “injuring” those that choose to believe us?

    If we’re going to use the Bible as the standard for Christian faith & practice then shouldn’t we accept all of it? If we can’t accept all of it then why accept any of it?

    Perhaps we should refer back to Jeremiah 17:9.

    Blessings,

    Bret

    By Blogger Bret, at 8:46 PM  

  • You're right about the injury to the relationship with God. So, I guess my best answer at the moment to your question about sexual immorality is that I know it when I see it...? A tough one.

    If we’re going to use the Bible as the standard for Christian faith & practice then shouldn’t we accept all of it? If we can’t accept all of it then why accept any of it?

    But "all of it" is not what anyone is doing. I brought up divorce & remarriage, and it's really only the Roman Catholics who are maintaining a biblical stand on this, based on our Savior's words himself. The rest of us, including the Army, are essentially not accepting this part. (I read the statement on the National Headquarters website about divorce, and it's beautifully done, filled with the hope of grace, and basically what most Christian churches are doing--but it's not Jesus's standard.)

    And then there is "social drinking," which Jesus surely engaged in at Cana and in the upper room, and which Timothy also did for medicinal purposes. Although there is obviously no commandment about this, we can clearly conclude that it is not prohibited. Yet the Army and other churches take an abstinence position (not for bad reasons). Not only is this unscriptural, but, from my faith-position, somewhat injurious to salvation. I partake of the bread & wine every week, following Jesus's commandment to "do this in memory of me." (OK, so Eucharist isn't social drinking, but the absolute abhorence of alcohol is not scriptural. Not being a drunkard is.)

    So, to wind back around to our main topic, I take scripture seriously, but I'm conflicted about it when I see faithful homosexual people ministering, preaching, teaching, and otherwise being effective instruments of His grace. This reminds me that the more certain we become about what God intends, who is saved and who is damned, who is accepted and who is rejected, the more we become like the scribes and pharisees. The certain, the expected, and the conventional has been shown constantly to be confounded--in both OT and NT. Sarah laughs and yet conceives; Joseph is left in the pit but is exalted; it is he child Samuel who is called and not the adult Eli; David has to be summoned from the fields because it was certain that he was not the one; The King of Kings is born in a stable; and on and on.

    So, my basic position is this: I can and do misunderstand and misinterpret scripture, and scripture itself tells me that the supposedly wise have always done so. But I see with my own eyes marvelous works being done in His Name by those who would be rejected by today's righteous pharisees.

    I want very much to recognize Jesus when he comes again, and I fear of being one who "has eyes, but cannot see."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:37 AM  

  • P.S.

    But I see with my own eyes marvelous works being done in His Name by those who would be rejected by today's righteous pharisees.

    It is this that led me to the comfortable words of Mark 9:38-40.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:40 AM  

  • If we have learned to live with gluttony, gossip, backbiting, hatred, racism, dishonesty, etc. in the church and still let folks wear uniforms and attend as full "faithful" members of the church, then homosexuality should be a cakewalk.

    The identity of the unpardonable sin is debatable, but what is concrete is the fact that homosexuality is not it.

    The church needs to deal with sin and apply what it does for homosexuality to all the other sins - especially those that we take as commonplace in the church.

    1 Cor. 6:9-10 (NIV)
    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders [10] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

    Lets take care of those thieves and swindlers and greedy and slanderers as we take a stand againt those "homosexuals".

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:10 PM  

  • Un, the previous "anonymous" is not the same one you've been dealing with...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:34 PM  

  • Anonymous # 1

    Sorry I haven’t responded to your post . . . I’ve been too busy to respond . . . give me another day or so to think about it.

    Anonymous # 2

    Sure, I believe people can be born gay . . . the sinful nature affects all of us in different ways . . . nevertheless, it’s still wrong. And by the way, so is any other sin . . . even those that straight people commit . . .

    Christ died to set us free from the control of sin. His Spirit can and will change our heart. Therefore, we all have a responsibility to respond to Christ and live in the freedom he gives us. The Bible encourages us to not to “use our freedom to indulge in the sinful nature . . .”

    Finally, I’m not a bigot and I certainly don’t hate. Thanks for commenting.

    Blessings,

    Bret

    By Blogger Bret, at 10:41 PM  

  • Anon #1 - I think the Army's stand on alcohol and such is very Biblical. (I. Cor 8) I suffered for several years under the dominion of alcoholism and I am thankful that there were people who abstained so as I might be strengthened. Is it permissable for me to take a drink every once in a while? Yes. Is it beneficial to me? No. Is it proper for me to drink as I minister to men and women who are enslaved such as I was? Absolutely not. This is something I was willing to make a full commitment to as a have ministered to a couple of hundred alcoholics now.

    I would also agree that there are many things in the Bible that are confusing as to how they should be taken today. So many things were written to a certian, time, place, city, region, etc. and it can be easlily debatable as to what they are for. Some things are consistant to all listeners across time and place all the way through. Sin and God's feelings about it are consistant. The results of sin are consistant. God's feelings about the homosexual _act_ are consistant.

    I Cor. 16:9 applies to both boundaries. Paul is describing things happening in Corinth which are detestable to God and would bring exclusion from the rewqard of God's Kingdom. It is also timeless in that in other scriptures also bring recognize the judgment for those living in those lifestyles.

    Another thing brought up regularly is how debatable the verses either alluding to or specifically addressing homosexuality lifestyle. What is not debatable is that in specific verses it is ignored altogether. When Paul is defining for Timothy what a deacon's homelife should be like, he says that he must be the husband of one wife. When Christ returns for His church, he is coming as a "groom" for His "bride." God created a man and a woman and blessed their relationship. All through the scriptures, the marriage relationship of a man and a woman is held as the example to follow. These would have been excellent oportunities for God to offer some affirmation that a lifestyle of two men or two women would have been acceptable. There is no place where this is even intimated.

    Another concern I have is where the following arguements are used:
    1. I was born this way.
    2. This is right for me.
    3. It feels right and good.

    If one is to apply these aregurements for their own relationship choices, then others do as well.
    1. NAMBLA - North American Man Boy Love Association. These "men" would say those 3 criteria apply to themselves.
    2. People involved with bestiality could claim them as well.
    3. People involved in three or more in a single relationship. (Two men and a woman. Three women. Fourteen people in a single relationship.
    4. When I lived under the sting of alcoholism, I would say all three applied to me. I would extend that to hypothesize that everyone is born with a propensity towards a particular sin. (That is I speaking, not God.) But my observation has been that everyone deals with some specific areas in their lives that they find difficult to overcome.

    At some point we have to seek a defining moment for what is right and what is wrong. When man is left to his own devices, the sky is the limit for himself or herself to define what is right and wrong. It feels right and it feels good are no longer sufficient answers, not are they qaulified to to define a proper way of living. Something somewhere must be held up as a standard. I submit the Bible is the only way in which to find direction for the hard choices in life - for any choices.

    I would also encourage us all to be carefull in our understanding to the returning Christ, as it applies to even the principal topic of conversation. The Bible is specific as to who Christ is and how He will return. If we make ourselves too open as to who and how Christ will be we open ourselves up to imitations of what may be right.. There are many things that seem right to us and are not so. Don't be so open to seeing a christ you might not expect come that you are decived by a "christ" that was never promised.

    In closing, I would like to address your comments on the Pharisees and other religious leaders who brought themselves under so much anger form Jesus. Their very actions were testified against by the scriptures themselves. They, too lived in ways that they felt were right and they were. In fact, they born in to these non-biblical ideals and lifestyles, imulating the nonbiblical lifestyles of those who paved the way for them to follow. There ways were the antithesis of the religion the Christ came to represent. Christ was perfect according to the laws, the prophets - in short, the entire Old Testement pointed to his coming and his identity and his purpose. He always ackowledged the law and prophets and never wandered from the nature of God, as revealed in His entire Word. The pharisee and saducees were in no place to judge or even question Jesus as their very lifestyle set themselves against the Christ they sought to bring down. But the felt they were right. It felt natural to them. They were born into that way.

    There was one pharisee, though, named Nichodemas, who sought out Jesus and questioned Him and learned of a better way.

    My prayer is that we all imulate him and seek the the Biblical Jesus and seek to live in such a way that is pleasing to the God we say we worship. God's Word is clear on a variety of lifestyles: greedy, slanderous, hateful, homosexual, etc. It is clear through the entirety of the Word, that God finds these unworthy of His creation. The homosexual lifestyle finds no basis in scripture as acceptable and even in places where a normal home relationship is described, and the topic is not on homosexuality, it is ignored as a lifestyle befitting the servant/minister/follower of Christ.

    God bless.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:35 PM  

  • Patrick,

    You’ve made some good points . . .

    However, I would question the idea that alcohol is not beneficial . . . having said that, there was a reason that Timothy was “only drinking water” and had to be told by Paul to “drink a little wine” to help his stomach . . .

    Anonymous,

    As far as the divorce goes . . .
    To assume that Jesus is saying that anyone that gets divorce has committed adultery is a misinterpretation. Scripture clearly teaches that divorce is possible under certain circumstances (Deut 24:1-2).

    Brad H. Young points out that “In the Mishnah (Sotah 5.1) we discover that a woman who is divorced because of an adulterous relationship is not permitted to marry her paramour.” (Jesus the Jewish Theologian p. 115)

    Young goes on to flesh out how the text would read in the Hebrew and offers this translation: “Anyone who divorces and marries another commits adultery.” He goes on and says “Perhaps in English one could better capture the meaning of the saying by translating it, “Everyone who divorces his wife [in order] to marry another commits adultery. (p.115)”

    Blessings,

    Bret

    By Blogger Bret, at 6:23 PM  

  • To assume that Jesus is saying that anyone that gets divorce has committed adultery is a misinterpretation. Scripture clearly teaches that divorce is possible under certain circumstances (Deut 24:1-2).

    Nope: out of bounds. First, Deut 24:1-2 is quoted and then mostly repudiated by Jesus in Matt. 5:31-32. Second, we are not subject to the Deuteronomic ritual laws (or else we'd be for killing homosexuals, etc.) Third, "[Brad H.]Young goes on to flesh out how the text would read in the Hebrew... This is of a piece with liberal theological practices in scripture interpretation: "Hmmm, troublesome verse and hard teaching. Must contextualize the problem away." Believe me, verses you supplied in a previous post (1 Cor 6:13, 18, 10:8 Eph 5:3) have been given this treatment by those who've found them hard.

    I don't intend to get off on a tangent here: the point is that taking the Bible as the standard for Christian faith and practice involves interpretation. And different faith communities do this differently. Even those who claim to be reading it "literally" and "inerrantly" are involved in scrubbing away problem passages.

    As an example: Patrick Lyons wrote thatThe homosexual lifestyle finds no basis in scripture as acceptable. Now, some have pointed to David and Jonathan as the exception to this, and 2 Sam. 1:26 as the key verse. I anticipate that Mr. Lyons and others will get out their scrubbers and interpret the passage so that "very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" cannot possibly refer to you-know-what.

    So, I return to one of my original points: that while scripture is inspired by God and useful (2 Tim. 3:16), we read and interpret--and are therefore prone to error, misreading, selectivity, and self-righteous claims to "know" what is meant. (Watch out, Mr. Lyons: "The Bible is specific as to who Christ is and how He will return." Many, many have stumbled on this. See, for example, the Millerites. The Left Behind believers will, I'm sure, be similarly disappointed.) Thus, my faith tradition teaches that our broken relationship with scripture must be shored up by apostolic tradition and enlightened reason--neither of which is, of course, sufficient in itself. The argument for toleration of homosexuals and homosexual ministers comes, I think, from the reason part. Apostolic tradition is likely negative--but then it's also rather negative on heterosexual marriage. Scripture is in contention. It's all so very difficult and requires constant prayer and reflection.

    Since this has gone on for quite some time, and has been very helpful to me in thinking things through, I hereby come out of the closet (not that way!:) and cease to be "anonymous."

    Dan

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:06 AM  

  • Dan,

    Jesus did say that divorce was permissible in cases of marital unfaithfulness (Matt 19:8-9). Jesus set such strict guidelines on marriage for two basics reasons: 1) God never intended for us to divorce (Matt 10:5-9). 2) In Jesus’ day men would divorce their wives for any reason, many times to marry another.

    The point is there are valid reasons for divorce. To remarry is not one of them.

    As far as David & Jonathon go, even if the relationship was homosexual, there’s nothing that implies God is condoning homosexual relationships. By the way, David also had multiple wives . . . that’s not condoned in scripture either.

    Question: Are you suggesting that since the church doesn’t comply with every jot & tidal (like divorce) that we now have permission to engage in homosexual relationships?

    Sin is sin. Christ died so that we could be forgiven. He gave us his Spirit to enable us to live above sin.

    Do you have a blog?

    Blessings,

    Bret

    By Blogger Bret, at 9:26 PM  

  • The point is there are valid reasons for divorce. To remarry is not one of them.

    Agreed. But note that the Roman Catholics do take a very stringent standard on this, a "harder line" than almost every other Christian denomination. It's certainly based on Matt 5:31-32 and parallel texts.

    As far as David & Jonathon go, even if the relationship was homosexual, there’s nothing that implies God is condoning homosexual relationships. By the way, David also had multiple wives . . . that’s not condoned in scripture either.

    Fair enough. But God did not strike him dead for this; he visited far more woe upon David for his lust for Bathsheeba, not for his love for Jonathan. So, we might wonder how "bad" the situation was....

    Question: Are you suggesting that since the church doesn’t comply with every jot & tidal (like divorce) that we now have permission to engage in homosexual relationships?

    I'm suggesting that, in the face of good and saving works being done in Jesus's name by homosexuals, pointing to apparently unambiguous scriptural passages as final authority doesn't cut it. Your response to this (and others as well) seemed to seal of scripture from question and revision; which I in turn maintained was a kind of dodge. So, in the end, I suggest that the church keep its eyes open and not impede the spread of the good news because it has a problem with the messengers. Mark 9:38-40, once again.

    No blog of my own, Bret. But I've certainly horned in on yours--thanks for providing the space for this conversation. There are two ironies involved here: (1) I'm an Episcopalian, and it's this denomination that is currently in terrible turmoil over this issue, having ordained a gay bishop a few years ago to the great consternation of many in the Anglican communion who are in thirld-world churches. Schism is likely, I'm sad to say. In my own local church, I'm actually a moderate-to-conservative on the issue, despite what you may have concluded from my work here. (2) I regularly read Andrew Sullivan's blog, the Daily Dish, at time.com; Sullivan was a guest on the Larry King show that you saw (but I didn't). Sullivan is a politically conservative Catholic who is gay, and he makes persuasive case why it should be ok that he's Christian and gay.

    I found your blog more or less by accident, by clicking on the "next blog" button at the top of the screen. I had been thinking hard about this issue, since the Episcopal General Convention had just concluded in some acrimony, so your post was the occasion for me to engage the issue head on. I've learned something about the Salvation Army as a bonus!

    Blessings to you and on your work.

    Dan

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:51 PM  

  • Dan,

    You should write blogs . . . It's a great way to influence others and process thoughts and ideas that you wrestle with.

    Your parallel between Jonathon and Bathsheba would lead me to believe, as I had before, that the relationship between Jonathon & David was not homosexual.

    You refer to Mark 9:38-40, I think, refers more to groups & denominations (like some sects within the Church of Christ) who believe you must be “one of them” rather than to gays. But you have a good point . . . I can see the parallel with Jesus’ words “Do not stop him.” However, if Jesus meant for this text to be justification for the ordination of homosexual ministers then why does the New Testament set a higher standard of holiness for those who teach and lead?

    I guess the real question is this: Is homosexuality sin?

    By Blogger Bret, at 7:26 AM  

  • THere have been some great thoughts go on between you guys. Amen. Sharpen the iron.

    The point I made at the beginning is that I interpret the Bible to be constant all the way through as it expresses God's feelings about the homosexual act.

    That being said, the body oc Christ needs to take a stand against sin, and not just homosexuality. When people are afraid to face theri own problems, they always through a lightening rod on someone else. The fact that Christians excercize too little love for homosexuals and homosexual -believers- is a vast condemnation of us all.

    And yse, I believe there are good and loving homosexual believers, just as there are theiving believers and gossiping believers. When we fail to love, our condemnation of anything becomes diluted and worthless.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:25 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Johnny, at 2:51 PM  

  • God created man and woman and the first order of business was for those two people to multiply.

    Sex is enjoyable and great therapy; it is also a wonderful part of the covenantal bond of marriage.

    The problem with homosexual sex is that there is a belief that sex is created for our personal enjoyment, rather than a gift to those who are joined according to the will of God for the purpose of multiplying and populating the earth.

    Despite our own views or beliefs that God created marriage to make us happy, the fact is that romantic love is not in God's plan. Though romantic love is a wonderful bonus, it is the opposite of Christian love, which is to be helpful to one another and repopulate the earth.

    Romantic love was not an acceptable purpose for marriage until well into the 11th Century. This may be hard to believe, so many of you will have to do some research. The fact is that in Semitic lands, such as the world of the Israelites and later the Jews, marriage was done by going to a "matchmaker." The matchmaker would put people together based on "yehus" or family stock. Two people from good backgrounds would be put together and create a strong healthy marriage and fall in love.

    If this is hard to accept, just remember that the people whom most of us love the most are those whom we didn't choose, such as parents and siblings.

    A homosexual relationship is not sinful because the homosexual is a homosexual; it is sinful, because it is sexual behavior outside of the purposes and will of God.

    Once we stop thinking that God created marriage to make us happy and allow us to have "legal" sex, we will begin to see that marriage is created to give us a partner and aid us in obeying the command to repopulate the earth.

    Whether our own personal agendas, beliefs, and/or moral allowances give us a clear understanding of the purpose of sex or not, the fact remains that sex is for the purpose of procreation and not personal pleasure, though it is a gift from God to be pleasurable for the purposes of encouraging procreation.

    We are no more to have homosexual sex than we are to have sex with goats, such as the worshipers of Pan. Again, having sex with a goat may be pleasurable for some, but the purpose of sex is to have children, not to worship idols or give us personal fulfillment through erotic behavior.

    Sex with a same gender partner is no more and no less sinful than sex with a person whom I am not married to, which is to be someone with whom I am commanded to procreate.

    Sex is not for me; it is for God's will and purposes.

    With these as the facts, God no more desires a person who lacks the discipline of sexual relations to lead His people, than he desires a bank robber or a person who cannot control his or her rage.

    Forever learning,
    Johnny

    By Blogger Johnny, at 2:56 PM  

  • Johnny - you make it sound so exciting. ;0)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:16 AM  

  • If homosexuality is a “disease” then isn’t Jesus the “great physician?”

    I disagree with the idea that homosexuality can be likened to down-syndrome. Down-syndrome doesn’t affect the spiritual condition of the person.

    I do agree that man is born imperfect of the image of God. Gen 5:3 is clear: “When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.”

    The reason Jesus came was to restore what was lost - God’s image and likeness.

    Heb 13:12 says “Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.”

    Since the Bible is clear that homosexuality is sin, doesn’t the homosexual bear the responsibility of agreeing with God and turning to Him for help and healing whether he/she was born that way or not?

    By Blogger Bret, at 10:53 PM  

  • I disagree with the idea that homosexuality can be likened to down-syndrome. Down-syndrome doesn’t affect the spiritual condition of the person.

    How do you know? And how do you know that homosexuality does so affect? Is it because the Bible is "clear that homosexuality is sin"? As my previous posts have suggested, it's not so clear to me. The OT prohibitions in Deut. are dead letter; and some exegetes believe that Paul's references to homosexuals were to ritual prostitutes and their pagan cultic practices. Just as he could not envision women being capable of teaching the Word in church (1 Cor. 14:34-5), he could not envision the most benign and even apparently positive forms of homosexual committment and love that are available today. Jesus was absolutely silent about the matter (but not, inconveniently, about divorce, eh?).

    So, in the end, we're left with various proof texts in one hand and scrubbers-of-inconvenient passages in the other; and with differing attitudes about how to manage our uncertainties. I suppose we'll only really know the "right answer" on judgment day.

    Perhaps we've mined this vein to the end of its ore...

    Peace,

    Dam

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:24 AM  

  • Dan,

    I think so . . . maybe we just need to agree to disagree . . . we both are steady and confident in our position.

    Having said that, I have enjoyed this dialogue . . . you have challenged me and forced me to reevaluate what I believe and why I believe it. I hope my challenging you has done the same.

    Perhaps we could shift this discussion to another topic . . . war? What’s up with North Korea? I don’t know . . . I’ll try to post something worth talking about.

    It was great talking with you.

    May God bless you and your ministry – Mark 9:38-40 :o)

    Blessings,

    Bret

    By Blogger Bret, at 2:37 PM  

  • Bret,

    This has been very helpful. Thank you for your original post, and I thank God for leading me to it, to you, and to the other posters here.

    Come next Christmas, I'll regard the Salvation Army kettle with profound respect and will give generously in thanksgiving to your ministry.

    Dan

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:48 AM  

  • Praise the Lord!

    Blessings,

    Bret

    By Blogger Bret, at 3:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home