Like Old Faithful, the topic of homosexuality pops up on Christian blog sites with a regularity most of us would die for. This week it was at Tony Jones’ blog on BeliefNet where he asked a seemingly honest question about homosexuality and sin. While I would not have asked the question in the way Tony asked it, it nevertheless is a valid question. It is one that any of us who take Scripture seriously (and by that I mean a life with God) should mull over, wrestle with, pray about.
For we who are Methodists this should come naturally. Over 50 years ago we mulled over, wrestled with and prayed about the issue of women’s roles within the church. We recognized that there were texts in Scripture that taken at face value were rather damning to any woman’s aspirations to pastoral ministry. Even so, we came together and declared more or less that it seems good to us and the Holy Spirit that women are every bit as called and gifted for ministry by God as are men.
One of the ways I have tended to approach the topic of women in ministry is similar to the way Tony is approaching the homosexual issue. I would often ask people, “What is it about being a woman that disqualifies them from being a pastor? Apart from just saying, Because God said so, why?” Most people are wise enough to know that they must step carefully at this point lest they render themselves or God a sexist. Answers like: Because men are smarter, or, Because women are sinful, or, Because women are not gifted, do not ring true. They also betray the sense of identity we come to know about ourselves when we have long subjected ourselves to our Master and his Word.
Tony’s question, as I read it, is trying to get at this. Why has God called it a sin? In my own conversations with people about this I found they were more than able to give ready answers about why God has forbidden us to lie, cheat, steal or murder. When I ask them why God would have called such actions “sin” they are quick to say (and right to say) that these sins hurt other people who are created in the image of God. And yet, when asked why God would call a committed, monogamous homosexual relationship “sin” the answers revert back to “Because God said so.” On this issue, it seems,there can be no discussion, no speculation about why God would declare homosexuality an abomination.
I think there are very good reasons God called homosexuality an abomination.
This past spring I wrote a paper for my Christian Ethics class titled, “Homosexuality: God’s Gift to the Church.” My thesis was that no matter what side you come down on this issue, this issue, like all issues, are gifts. We need to learn to see all that comes at us as gifts rather than threats. The question for the Church is: What do we then do with this gift? How do we appropriate it? I do believe God wishes to teach us something. For some of us it may be something as radical as recognizing how far God’s grace might reach. For others of us it may be a rebirth of how we view God’s holy and inspired word. And for some of us it may be an opportunity to learn again the art of conversation and the virtue of humility.
As I said, I think there are good reasons God called homosexuality an abomination. For some reason I felt drawn to throw my hat into the blogosphere on this issue, for whatever it may be worth. If you read the comments on Tony’s blog that I linked to above you will find many people who desire to engage what are often called “The 6 Clobber Verses.” In the paper I wrote for my ethics class I dealt with each of these 6 verses in turn. I will not post the entire paper here (it’s long) but only the portion that pertains to those verses. This is my answer to the question, “Why?” I offer it prayerfully in hopes it will be received as the gift it is intended to be. Grace and peace.
Bring up the topic of homosexuality and a real-time illustration of how scripture functions authoritatively in the lives of Christians will come to life. Lines will soon become drawn between those who ostensibly value God’s holy word and those who, by virtue of their opinion, mock it. Thus, any discussion about what scripture has to say on a contentious topic like homosexuality tends to warrant a short diversion into philosophical musings about what scripture is and is not. For the record, I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume all of us who confess Jesus as our Lord are also People of the Book. Each of us, in our own muddled way, desire to remain faithful to the witness handed down to us from the prophets and apostles. Therefore, we come to scripture not as her master but as her servant, seeking to be led into truth by the same Holy Spirit who inspired it. With that said, there are scant references in the Bible dealing with homosexuality although what is said is, in a sense, a lot. We have six in total – three in the Old Testament and three in the New – that are generally used for good or ill in this debate. I will summarize each one here while offering some brief thoughts.
Genesis 19:1-29
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is often cited as proof of God’s negative judgment towards homosexual behavior. I say behavior here because it is important to note that all of the biblical passages that mention homosexuality seem to revolve around behavior, not orientation. In this story Lot encounters two angelic figures, strangers, at the gate of Sodom and does what is culturally expected of him to do – he invites them into his home to rest, clean up and to eat. The strangers, after first protesting, accept the invitation. During their feast in Lot’s home the “men of the city” surround the house and demand Lot send the visitors out to them so that they may “know them.” Lot refuses, offering his virginal daughters as a substitute on the grounds that these visitors “have come under the shelter of my roof.” It is an offer that is met with anger and an attempt on the part of the city men to break down the door and “deal worse” with Lot than they intended to do with the visitors. The angels pull Lot into safety and strike the men of the city blind. The city is destroyed by God the following day.
It is noteworthy that this story has no direct reference to either homosexual behavior or orientation. It is true that there is some strong sexual connotation, particularly in the verbal phrase, “to know,” as this is the same word used to describe the intimacy Adam knew with his wife, Eve, in Genesis 4:1 which bore them a son. Therefore it seems apparent that the city men desired getting to know Lot’s visitors in more than a neighborly fashion. Moreover, it is troubling that Lot would offer his two daughters to appease the crowd. How could a father do such a thing? J. Harold Ellens in his book, Sex In the Bible: A New Consideration, posits that Lot, a native of Sodom, knew the sexual exploits and perversions of the gang outside his door and offered his daughters as an ironic jibe, knowing that they would be safe in the midst of this crowd. This reading would also account for the harsh reaction Lot gets for his suggestion, stirring the crowd to even more rage as they attempt to rape Lot in the process of barging through his door, caring nothing for the women offered them.
What is patently absent from this story is any judgment, positive or negative, on the sexual misconduct of the mob. Lot seems to not care about this side of the matter and the story itself does not express any concern or judgment on the kind of sexual behavior intended. Certainly it can be said that abusive homosexual behavior was the intent of the mob but this is not the focus of the story and more importantly, it is not the purpose for which Sodom is destroyed. Isaiah declares that Sodom’s sin was unapologetic lack of justice (3:9) and Jeremiah refers to Sodom as full of adultery, lying and unrepentant attitudes (23:14). Ezekiel names the sins of Sodom as “promiscuity, pride, materialism, prosperous ease, and a failure to care for the needy, that is, to give the required hospitality to strangers.” And when Jesus refers to Sodom’s sin there is no reference to sexuality at all, let alone homosexuality (Luke 17:28-29). As already noted, the implication of sexual abuse forms part of Sodom’s story in Genesis 19, but as Ellens is right to point out, “sexual assault and violence, as physical and psycho-spiritual violation, is always wrong, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual.” He further adds, “Even if homosexual assault were condemned in the Sodom story it would not, therefore, follow that homosexual behavior in other circumstances is wrong.”
The primary issue in Gen. 19 is seen as breech of justice and hospitality, not just from biblical scholars today but also from the inter-textual citings given above (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jesus). Therefore it is a mistake for us to use this story as proof of God’s disfavor towards homosexuals, whether that be behavior or otherwise. When we look at history I will suggest a few reasons why Sodom has become linked (mistakingly) to homosexuality.
Leviticus 18:22-24 and Leviticus 20:13
In Lev. 18:22 we have the first obvious reference to homosexual behavior which is clearly forbidden. The entire book of Leviticus is primarily about proper liturgical worship. Chapter 18 is a long list of commands by God against behavior that leads to ritual uncleanliness under the cultic worship codes of Israel. The chapter concludes by warning Israel not to lose her distinctiveness as Yahweh’s people, thereby defiling themselves as well as the land, lest the land “vomit” them out like the nations before them.
Leviticus 18 is a catalog of Egyptian and Canaanite ritual practices which are considered perverse and if followed would defile the people of Yahweh and cause them to lose their distinct role in the land. The list includes practices conducted by these pagan peoples in their worship ceremonies: incest, sex with women during their menstrual cycle, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexual behavior and bestiality. These practices are declared an “abomination,” or toevah in Hebrew, which is a significant word. It is a word “derived from the sphere of the religious rituals of the cultures of the Near East. It means to ‘abhor’ something for religious reasons.”
(emphasis mine). Alex Markels, in his article titled “Love and Leviticus, Debating the Bible’s Stand on Homosexuality,” points out that toevah includes the rules for kosher eating, planting seeds discreetly, trimming beards and various kinds of prohibited sex. The point of these abominations “wasn’t narrowly about condemning homosexuality but rather about not engaging in the practices of other religions, which were considered ritually unclean.”
The point of Leviticus 18 then is not to condemn homosexual behavior outright but about forming a sort of people that are distinct from the modes of worship their pagan counterparts practiced. Sex of any kind in a worship service was something that Yahweh abhorred. This point is reinforced by Yahweh’s forbiddance of transvestitism as well as cult prostitution (male and female) for liturgical purposes (Deut. 22:5, 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12) and echoed in Paul’s letters to the Romans and Corinthians. Thus, Ellens concludes, “This statement forbidding homosexuality as an abomination intends to convey the meaning that such behavior, when practiced as the Canaanites practiced it, namely by heterosexual persons in worship liturgies, was, like idolatry, a bad mode of worship, that is, an abomination. It was bad worship liturgy. Not Yahweh’s kind of worship service or communal behavior.”
Leviticus 20 is a near repetition of the list given in chapter 18 with two additions. First, all of the behavior, including homosexual behavior, is described metaphorically as whoredom with Molech, the Canaanite god. Second, a death penalty is added as the penalty for the behavior. Lev. 20, then, serves to further illustrate the connection between homosexual behavior and worship behavior.
While these are the only Old Testament texts that speak about homosexual behavior outright, it is common to refer back to the Genesis creation stories as evidence of God’s intentions and desires for marriage. Andrew Mein, in his essay “Threat and Promise” believes that it is these chapters, more than any overt text condemning homosexuality, provides the core of the argument for those who resist affirming gay and lesbian relationships. From very early on in the the life of the Church women have been regarded as man’s helper, and this role was fulfilled primarily through childbirth as the natural order of things set up by God. Augustine, in his notes on Genesis, wonders, “If the woman were not made for the man as a helper in begetting children, for what purpose was she created as helper?”
Whether Augustine ever considered that the Hebrew word to describe a woman as helper, ezer, is the same word used to describe God as God relates to humanity in the Psalms is debatable. Mein does not go there but takes a different tact. Citing Gerhard von Rad and Claus Westermann, two of the most influential commentators on Genesis in the 20th century, Mein shows that Genesis is a story about origins of the sexual drive and need for relationships and human community, not about the institution of marriage. Indeed, it would be difficult to argue for some universal understanding of marriage from Genesis when the Old Testament is filled with stories of polygamy and concubinage and prostitutes. John Gibson sees in the Genesis stories of creation a symbol of human relationships: “It is the ideal symbol of a bond that ought to exist between all people the world over. God intended all humankind to be ‘one flesh.’”
Finally, Gareth Moore offers a creative interpretation of the Adam and Eve story that nevertheless takes the text seriously. He starts with God’s judgment that “it is not right for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18). God is prepared to experiment in finding a solution to Adam’s loneliness, starting first with animals to see if any are appropriate before offering to him a woman. God does not impose any of these upon Adam, but accepts Adam’s judgment that the woman is the right one for him. Moore concludes, “The fitting partner for the man, then, is the one that he, the man, receives with joy, the one whom he himself recognizes as a partner fit for him.”
Where the Old Testament speaks about homosexuality it is never about orientation but about behavior. The behavior, however, is viewed over and against cultic practices of the Ancient Near East and how Israel’s behavior must be distinct from all others in the land. Sex of any kind during cultic worship is wrong. It defiles the person and the land. Now let us consider the remaining three texts found in the New Testament.
Romans 1:26-27
Paul begins his letter to the Gentile Christians announcing his apostleship over all kinds of humans, including even these whom are “called to belong to Jesus Christ” (1:6). The set up of chapter one is an argument against the perversion of our relationship with God that arises out of 1) denial of God’s self revelation in nature, 2) human arrogance, and out of 3) pagan forms of worship such as idolatry. The idolatry, according to Paul, is that we have taken to worship of the creature rather than the Creator.
Just like the Levitical passages above, Paul (a good Jewish scholar), is reminding his Gentile disciples of their distinctive identity as people of Yahweh. The ritual idolatry that was so common to them in former times, attended with ritual homosexual behavior, is no longer acceptable in the worship of the God of Israel. At this particular time and place, there was something Paul saw in homosexual behavior that did not jibe with the lifeblood of the Church and detracted from sincere, faithful worship of Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Here Paul places homosexuality in a catalog of other sins such as greed, immorality, idolatry, adulterers, thieves, drunkards, revilers and robbers. Three things are worth noting. One, Paul says some of the members of the Corinthian church were once practitioners of this pagan activity (6:11). Second, he declares them saved and sanctified by Jesus Christ. Third, Paul emphasizes the sacral and sacred nature of our bodies and by implication, our sexuality. Paul is butting up against what appears to be a popular slogan around Corinth: All things are lawful for me (6:12). Paul says, no. Not if you are a member of the Church, part of the “body of Christ” (6:15).
If we assume Paul’s thought is consistent on the matter of homosexuality (and I believe he is) and we allow the address to the Romans to be about making worship of Yahweh distinctive, set apart from the pagan practices of the day, than there is no reason to think Paul is going for anything different by writing to a “carnal” people such as those in Corinth. All of the grievous sins which Paul lists are those most certainly enjoyed by the most “debased” or “defiled” minds mentioned in Romans. Placing homosexuality within the catalog of the sins Paul lists (greed, adultery, idolatry, robbery, thievery, drunkards, etc.) is like a game of “Which one does not belong?” It is difficult to imagine Paul having in mind a monogamous, faithful, devoted relationship between two people of the same sex. Rather, it is more likely that he has in mind behavior that is destructive to self or others and ultimately robs God of glory and blurs the lines between Christian worship and pagan worship. Furthermore, in a letter where Paul calls for Christians to actually act like them, to “be reconciled!” and to adopt certain gender roles which subverted the culture in Corinthian temple worship we can imagine the desire Paul had to distance the Christian church from homosexual practices in their cultic life (Women were often used as priestesses in Rome’s mystery religions. By restricting women from certain roles in the church Paul was making a cultural distinction between what Christians do in worship and what the pagans do in worship). Once again Paul has the Church in mind as he thinks about how they should act ethically. How will they be a viable witness in their culture if they worship like everyone else?
1 Timothy 1:10
Paul’s letter to Timothy only reinforces what has already been said. Paul lists, just like in the letter to the Corinthians, sins that the lawless and disobedient revel in. Homosexuals, or sodomites, are mentioned among those who kill their father or mother, murderers, fornicators, slave traders, liars, and perjurers. Again, it is hard to imagine Paul having in mind a covenant bond between two people of the same sex who are simply expressing their love to one another according to their nature.
A concluding thought about the texts in the New Testament. Paul’s letter to the Romans states that it is unlawful to go against one’s nature. Paul had no idea in the first century that there may be something about homosexuality that goes beyond mere perverse behavior or cultic temple worship. That is, he would not know about sexual orientation or have the knowledge we have today about how sexuality develops (science and psychologists are agreed that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not a choice but inborn). Naturally, the New Testament speaks against any perverse, destructive or abusive sexual activity whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. Given the sorts of sins homosexual behavior is linked to throughout the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, it is reasonable to conclude that Paul sees this behavior as unnatural for those partaking of it (i.e. heterosexual men committing homosexual acts as part of their liturgical worship) or is witness to a sort of behavior that is abusive and violent towards others, much like killing one’s father or mother would be abusive and violent.
Share this Post
Filed under: Church, Theology | Tagged: Church, Controversy, Gay, Homosexuality, Jesus, Lesbian, LGBT, Scripture
Chad -
Lot’s of good points. This is not a argument question but one that came to mind so I’d like your thoughts:
“i.e. heterosexual men committing homosexual acts as part of their liturgical worship”
How does this relate to Romans 12:1-2
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, a to present your bodies b as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by d the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may e discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
If everything we do with our bodies is to be a spiritual act of worship – does this make homosexual acts part of worship and using the some of your logic, not acceptable to God?
Like I said, this is just a thought that came to me as I read your post so I’m interested to know how this fits with your thesis here.
Thanks brother for always challenging my more conservative nature.
Tony,
Great question and thanks for asking it.
“If everything we do with our bodies is to be a spiritual act of worship – does this make homosexual acts part of worship and using the some of your logic, not acceptable to God?”
I think where I would start with this is by making a distinction between spiritual acts of worship and liturgical, ceremonial acts of worship. In the passages I address in the post it is clear that sex of any kind during a worship service is abhorrent to God. Even more so, men leaving what is natural to them and having homosexual sex as part of cultic ceremonies is what pagans do, not those who follow Yahweh.
Secondly, Romans 12:1-2 would have to deal with everyone, don’t you think? Both heterosexuals and homosexuals must present their bodies as instruments of righteousness to a holy God who wishes to use us for God’s service. Obviously neither straight or gay people should be having sex in a worship service but what I think is even more to the point here is that all of us should place our sexuality (and how we use it) in the hands of God (along with everything else). Where it is used to harm others or ourselves needs to be transformed because “righteousness” is less about what parts fit with what parts but more about loving justice, seeking mercy and walking humbly with our God.
How does that strike you? I confess that was just the first thing that came to mind as I read your comment so I haven’t really thought it all the way through. Thanks for bringing this to light.
peace.
As I look at the original words via the Blue Letter Bible, I find that this is not about worship, liturgical or otherwise. The wording leans much more toward “reasonable service.” As in, rather than commit your bodies to pagan rituals in the Roman society, commit your bodies to reasonable service. This is how to live as Christians in your community. Gays and straights and bis alike can to this faithfully.
LP-
Welcome. I think you are right about that.
peace.
Chad -
I agree that Romans 12:1 applies to heterosexual as well – as well as anything we do in our flesh. I guess if you’re referring only to liturgical and ceremonial acts of worship Romans 12 does not come into play.
Too many evangelicals, including myself, when you speak of a monogamous, faithful, devoted homosexual relationship, we have no exposure to that and it seems hypothetical or maybe at best the exception.
My exposure is to gay and lesbians I know and have known at work, school, and those that have left the church – and in all cases, their lifestyle was non-God honoring and would have been so if they had been heterosexuals – meaning their life is focused on sexuality, not God.
This discussion then gets exasperated because unlike the “can a woman be a pastor” issue the strongest and most damaging homosexual debates happen with gay rights proponents from outside the church and the evangelical church. Add to this that the public face of the gay and lesbian movement is also focused on freedom of sexuality to the point of worshiping sexuality (i.e. Romans 1) which makes constructive conversation near impossible with evangelicals.
I guess my point is that while I can see your points in the scriptures you reference and tying these to liturgical actions, the reality I see (around me and in the media) is that the gay movement is more like the sexual revolution movement in the 60’s and I can’t see that as Christ-centered.
So, while you’re trying to make the point within the church, assuming the homosexual in question is Christ-centered and not Sexuality-centered, the reality facing the church is that the those with the loudest voices with lifestyles that cannot be condoned, even if they were heterosexual lifestyles.
I’m not saying the evangelical church is right for not engaging this issue with more grace and internal “Church” debate\discussion. I’m just saying, unfortunately, the loudest proponents of the gay and lesbian movement make this internal church engagement difficult.
As for this Christ-centered discussion you have started – I appreciate it. I only wish I had the seminary training to help the discussion better.
(forgive the use of labels like “evangelical”. I use it for ease of writing only – I can’t define evangelical anymore than I can define emergent).
BTW – I am starting online seminary classes. I would say so I can debate you more effectively.
However, the reason is I want to be ready for my next season of serving Jesus and while God has not told me what that is yet, he’s telling me I need more formal education to get ready.
One more comment – completely off the subject – We go in two weeks to pick up our baby boy in Ethiopia – Whoop!!! (Aggie speak for Praise God).
Tony-
First off, CONGRATS! That is exciting news about the adoption! You’ll have to keep me posted and I can’t wait to see pictures when you return. I know this has been a long-time-coming for you all and I pray God’s peace on the rest of your journey.
As for your take on the situation above let me just say this: I agree 100%. I think you are very wise to point out the problems on both sides of the issue here. The problem I see facing Christian homosexuals is, how will they articulate all of this in such a way that is Christ-centered rather than “me” centered? Granted, there have been fits and starts with this and I’m sure many of them would admit that this has not been handled in the best ways all the time.
The other side of this, though, and you allude to it, is the Church has not exactly been graceful in how she listens and invites conversation. The lifestyle choices that many homosexuals have chosen (ones that you and I both agree are unhealthy and not God honoring regardless of orientation) are perhaps due to our negligence towards them. When by our words and deeds we label someone a pariah, a defect, an abomination and when to that person it seems abundantly clear that this is the way God made them – well, I just cannot even begin to imagine the psychological trauma that might cause and could see why they would seek comfort in less-than-helpful ways.
I wonder what the landscape would look like if the Church adopted an approach to these “clobber verses” as I have outlined above? Might gay people then begin to see Christians not as a threat but as family who wishes to help conform them to the image of Christ? I know that in my own sexuality and all the urges that entails I can safely come to the church and seek guidance in how I can live into that in such a way that is Christ-conforming. Where do gay people go to get such counsel? Where can they be mentored in a healthy way? The options, it seems, are so limited from a Christian viewpoint and so it is natural, perhaps, to hear much of their arguments coming from a secular viewpoint.
Good luck with your seminary courses! I think your reasons for doing so are commendable. I have no doubt God will use you in mighty ways.
grace and peace.
Hello there Chad.
A couple of things I wanted to comment on.
You stated: “The problem I see facing Christian homosexuals is, how will they articulate all of this in such a way that is Christ-centered rather than ‘me’ centered?”
It is an irony that gays have been sexually objectified by the very church that demands sexual holiness. It is the church that has reinforced the notion that gays are innately depraved, and so can anyone blame gays for being “me” centered, as they must try and reconcile the identity that has been unfairly cast upon them?
This relates to another of your comments above, as follows: “When by our words and deeds we label someone a pariah, a defect, an abomination and when to that person it seems abundantly clear that this is the way God made them – well, I just cannot even begin to imagine the psychological trauma that might cause and could see why they would seek comfort in less-than-helpful ways.
The beaten and abused will always respond with trauma. Abuse is unnatural to our makeup as human beings, and as such we resist oppression in ways that ironically cause more trauma to ourselves. But what is in fact happening when the abused hurt themselves is that they are unconsciously trying to kill the trauma that afflicts them.
Gays aren’t “self-afflicted” because they are gay. They are afflicted because of having been abused by those who need to knock others down to feel tall. And until such time as true healing takes place, they will continue to articulate their position in a “me”-centered way, and justifiably so. Because they still are in the unenviable position of having to protect themselves.
And even when thoughtful and conscientious Christians seek to understand the issue, they still miss the point by a huge mile. They still think it’s about gay people’s “gayness” or “homosexuality”. It isn’t. It’s about their humanity. And THAT’S what needs to be embraced and saved.
And if I am correct, that is exactly what your god did, according to your theology.
Something about a bruised reed and a smoldering wick . . .
R. Jay Pearson,
Thanks for your comment and your thoughts.
Just a couple brief thoughts…
First, I do not blame anyone who has been treated in the way homosexuals have historically been treated (both by Christians and non-Christians) to lash out or to be, as you put it, “me-centered” I get that. And in truth, we ALL do that.
Second, you no doubt notice that I qualified my statements by saying it is the task of Christian homosexuals to learn to find a way to articulate all of this that is not me-centered but Christ-centered.
From a Christian viewpoint our biggest problem is that we are me-centered. We have bought the myth that we are autonomous beings and that that I is the center of authority and truth. Christians confess that God is in the business of saving us from such narcissism. We are not “me” centered but Christ centered. Granted, many Christians, myself included, have to unlearn a lot of things and it takes a lifetime to fully give up the idea that I know best.
So Christian homosexuals, in my opinion, must continue to develop a theology that insists this is not about “rights” but about “gifts.” We don’t have rights – we have gifts from God. The question is, “How will we use the gifts God has given?”
The best way to articulate a position coming from a place of suffering and pain is to do so alongside the Christ who came alongside us in our suffering and pain, suffered with us and has reconciled us to God. God suffers with us. This is our confession as Christians. Christian gays and lesbians can (and many do and have) lean on this God rather than themselves as they combat the Church’s harassment.
Amen.
Thanks again for your comment. I hope I get to see more of you around.
peace,
Chad
[...] Corinthians, Deuteronomy, homosexuality, Leviticus, Paul, Romans, sex, Timothy trackback Chad Holtz has entered into the homosexuality debate. I don’t think he says anything I haven’t [...]
“Too many evangelicals, including myself, when you speak of a monogamous, faithful, devoted homosexual relationship, we have no exposure to that and it seems hypothetical or maybe at best the exception.”
My experience has been just the opposite, in that most gay people I know are in monogamous, faithful, and long term relationships — but than again most of the gay people I know I met at church.
That’s why when people talk of a gay “lifestyle” I don’t get it. The ones I know have the same day-to-day bill-paying suburban uneventful existence I do. My lifestyle is the same as theirs, except I’m with a person of the opposite sex. They even have kids.
I think one major underlying reason for our differing experiences is that you would not know these people as gay if you saw them in the grocery store. They’re normal looking in every way. I would bet you know more gay people than you think you do
Jjoe-
I imagine you are right about that.
And my experience has been similar to yours. Most of the gay people I know are in committed relationships and have a faith that often outshines most straight people I know.
Chad,
Thanks for sharing this…lots of good stuff to consider.
On nit to pick Re: “The fitting partner for the man, then, is the one that he, the man, receives with joy, the one whom he himself recognizes as a partner fit for him.”
I’m not a fan of the “slippery slope” argument…if we allow homosexual marriage then we must allow x,y, and z.
But, this line of reasoning seems to suggest that bestiality, for instance, would be acceptable. You know, assuming I find my dog to be “a partner fit for me.”
I think if we accept this line of thinking, ie that the partner is whomever one finds fit for them, it must be with the understanding that there is mutuality…that is, both partners find the other “fit for me.” In this case we would argue that children and animals aren’t capable of making such a decision. If we fail to make this distinction than we have to say d that bestiality and pedophilia are acceptable as well.
Of course, that Eve found Adam suitable is implied in the text and not explicit. So….
Any thoughts?
Brian,
Great point! Yeah, the interpretation given there is a rather tenuous one and breaks down for the reasons you cite. I put it in my paper only because I found it profound and worthy of consideration. If nothing else, it seems to put a wrench in the idea that heterosexuality is normative because of Genesis. If that were the case, than why didn’t God just create a woman right from the beginning? Why “search” for a partner that suits Adam?
But yes, mutuality is key. That is why I balk at arguments that suggest that pedophilia is OK if homosexuality is sanctioned. The difference I think is clear: One is a life-giving, mutual, committed relationship and the other is a predator-type, seeking not to bless and nurture and care for but seeking only to gratify one’s lustful desires with no consideration for the partner.
thanks for your thoughts.
You offer a very thought-provoking response, Chad. Thank you. And your points are very well taken.
One comment you made I want to touch on, as follows:
It occurs to me that it must be hard to lean on the god whom you’ve been taught hates you because of who you are. Or perhaps more specifically, it is impossible to lean on a god whose character is inconsistent, as reinforced by the many varieties of Christians who claim to serve him. And this difficulty or impossibility to lean is not a symptom of a lack or an absence of faith, it is merely a symptom of being lost and wounded.
Perhaps a way to “heal” gay Christians in such a way that facilitates their adopting a healthier Christ-centered approach is to do for them as Christ, according to Christians, did for all: carry their burden, feel their pain, sacrifice for them. And walking with them, and living in their world. It is the ultimate model of reconciliation and renewal in Christian faith.
In other words, help them articulate their position and their message by being Christ to them, and doing so by seeing them as Christ. “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40)
For the wounded to stand up in strength they need first to be picked up in compassion.
It’s the stuff of grace. And grace is a gift, too.
R Jay Pearson,
Beautifully said. Especially this:
you also said:
I agree. I think a parallel can be drawn between gay Christians and black slaves. When reading the slave narratives of Douglas or the works of W.E.B Dubois or Harriet Jacobs, a haunting question arises: How or why did these black folk call upon the same name of Jesus as their oppressors? How could they sing spirituals to this God whom the white man enslaving them sang to?
I think part of that answer is that the black church (both then and now) understood Jesus in ways that whites never have. They knew Jesus as the one who suffers alongside them and who resurrects new life. White people knew Jesus as their tool for self-actualization. In many ways we still do.
Yet one more reason why I shy away from “me” centered theology. As soon as we do that we rob Jesus of his real power to transform us. One of the problems DuBois ran into which he couldn’t quite get away from is many of his arguments desired to make the black man white. The goal was to become like the white man (naturally this posed problems for black women). Gay Christians can learn from this and see that it is not good enough to become “like” straight people, with the same rights and position in life. Their aim ought to be to be like Jesus. Jesus transcends white, black, male, female, slave, free, gay, straight.
[...] about homosexuality lately and called for an open and honest discussion without reference to the six clobber verses that are all too often taken out of [...]
Part of me while reading this wept deeply inside. I am a gay man, age 36, who is struggling with the notion of Christianity. When i was a young child, I loved God with all my heart and wanted to be a Pastor. When I became old enough to realize I was gay, about 5th grade, I cried and begged God to change me. I grew up hearing how horrible homosexuals were and how they would burn forever in the lake of fire. I began praying and pleading with God. Homosexuality took over my life. Not because I was pursuing it, but, because I was trying to run from it and desperate to be different.
I attempted suicide the first time in 6th grade. I had begun to be called “faggot” at school. My father was beating me for suspecting I was queer. I literally had no friends and my existence seemed so dark and so lonely. I would read the bible and found no comfort. I avoided mirrors and did not like to look at myself from grades 6 through 9. I was afraid I would see a demon instead of me.
I attempted suicide two more times as I thought it would be better for me to end my life than be the disgusting perversion before God. Obviously, I was not successful. By not succeeding, I thought myself weak and a bigger disappointment to God.
I did get married and had a son. My exwife knew all about my past before we started to date. I told her of my struggles and desires. I asked her to pray with me. Eventually it became too much and she left with my son. She left when he was just about 2. I haven’t seen him since he was 3 and he turned 15 this year.
I went through a severe depression where I tried to kill myself one more time. Once again unsuccessful. In my mind I kept hearing how disgusting I was. How I must be demon filled. How Satan had won my soul and how I would burn forever in Hell. For surely, God could never love me.
I am not writing this for sympathy. But rather, to validate the point that gays growing up in the church have been damaged and have been hurt and traumatized. I have felt the pull of God in my life to his ministry since I was a child. But, how could I be gay and minister?
I have been with my partner for 10 years now. There have been some major ups and downs but we do love one another very much. He is my best friend. It hurts my heart so much that people see us as disgusting and demon filled. My faith has been questioned and I look, earnestly, for a ray of hope. That is why when I read this, parts of me wept. Thank you for your writings and for those that have commented on the post. There are a lot of people like me that are waiting to come “home”.
Ross,
My heart goes out to you and everyone like you who has suffered such trauma. There is a part of me that wishes desperately that I could write something that would take away all the pain and hurt that you have felt, but I know that is impossible. An even bigger part of me desires nothing more than to be able to hug you and ask your forgiveness on behalf of all those who have hurt you in the name of Jesus.
Thank you for being so vulnerable here and sharing your story. I pray that God continue to restore you and renew you and that you find peace. I know that there are many, many Christians and many churches who would rejoice at your homecoming.
grace and peace,
Chad
Thanks Chad.
I think that people forget what their attitudes and convictions can lead to. I am a very blessed and fairly happy man. Just came through a lot of fire to get here.
I truly do believe that the “clobber” verses have been taken out of context and mistranslated. But I am afraid that the truth will never be enough for some people to rearrange their beliefs.
Guess it’s a matter of finding out where one fits in .
Chad,
I have no problem with the United Methodist Church, or any other religious institution, refusing to sanction the marriage of the people of the same sex. There is a rather large toad belching, though, when the United Methodist Church, or any other religious institution, seeks to deprive two individuals of the same sex the secular, civil right of association granted to opposite sex couples, unfortunately called marriage by the laws of the country. I would love to see the religious institutions have a change of heart and exemplify what they would call God’s Love by showing a modicum of charity towards a group of people long vilified and reviled by their members. I know there is the occasional Christian, Muslim, or Jew who extends charity to gay people, but, let’s face it, they are few and far between. A city like Chicago, or a university like Duke, doesn’t exactly give a true picture of the hatred for gay people that exists in this world. Would that your Christian brethren would be “in the world, but not of the world” in this respect. As a gay, former Christian (Roman Catholic), I watched my faith in the deity being whittled away day after day by the religious of all faiths until there was nothing left of it. I am now at the most an agnostic who believes in the power of logic and reason. Perhaps there is an omnipotent, benevolent force, but I can surely say that I do not know that. Man’s mind functions in such a way that man has to think there was a causitive act or thought that caused the big bang, but at some point in the future, the causation of that great occurence will most likely be determined, and be a naturally occuring phenomenon. The amount of time wasted on determining whether it is a sin that someone “gifted” with the ability to romantically love another of the same sex is the true sin.